    [Senate Hearing 114-185]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRON-
                        MENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPRO-
                        PRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

                                  ----------

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

        [Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
    hearings on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements and
    letters of those submitting written testimony are as follows:]
                Prepared Statement of the 1854 Treaty Authority
                             1854 treaty authority
        The 1854 Treaty Authority (Authority) is a tribal organization
    funded by a Public Law 93-638 contract with the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA) under its Trust-Natural Resources Management-Rights
    Protection Implementation (RPI) budget.
      --The Authority supports the administration's proposal for an
            increase of $4.5 million for BIA Rights Protection
            Implementation and a corresponding increased allocation for the
            Authority.
      --The Authority supports the full finding of contract support for its
            Public Law 93-638, Self-Determination contract. The Authority
            believes that at least the amount requested by the
            administration should be appropriated, but it does not support
            the administration's proposal to institute statutory caps on
            contract support. Not only have those caps been proposed
            without the consultation required for significant policy
            changes, but the Authority has no source of funding to make up
            for contract support shortfalls.
      --The Authority supports maintaining funding for the EPA Great Lakes
            Restoration budget at least at its current level.
        The Authority is a tribal organization responsible for protecting,
    preserving, and regulating the treaty-reserved hunting, fishing and
    gathering rights in the territory ceded to the United States by the
    Chippewa in the treaty of September 30, 1854, 10 Stat. 1109. The Bois
    Forte Band and the Grand Portage Band created the Authority following
    Federal court affirmation of the rights in 1988. As part of a court-
    approved agreement with the State of Minnesota, the Bands have
    obligations to preserve the natural resources in the 5 million acre
    ceded territory and to regulate the activities of Band members through
    a conservation code, enforcement officers, and a court. The Authority
    has also been involved with a variety of inter-agency efforts to study
    the effect of invasive species, climate change, and activities that
    impact treaty resources.
        Although it has significant responsibilities in a geographic area
    the size of Massachusetts, the Authority has only 11 full-time
    employees. With those limited resources, the Authority has been able to
    collaborate with State, tribal and Federal agencies to become a
    prominent presence in the conservation of resources critical to the
    subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering activities of the Chippewa.
        However, the successes of the Authority are overshadowed by the
    challenges facing the trust resources that are at the heart of the
    treaty rights. The Minnesota moose population has declined
    precipitously in just a few years and for reasons unknown. Invasive
    species threaten the treaty fishing and wild rice production areas
    across the ceded territory, and human activities continue to deplete or
    displace wildlife populations.
        The Authority urges the subcommittee and the Congress to
    acknowledge that the resources we seek to protect are trust resources,
    reserved in treaties that the United States has a legal obligation to
    protect and preserve.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
        The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) welcomes the
    opportunity to share its views with the subcommittee regarding fiscal
    year 2016 funding from the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) for
    National Park Service (NPS) activities. The ACHP is an independent
    Federal agency that promotes the preservation, enhancement, and
    sustainable use of our Nation's historic resources. Created by the
    National Historic Preservation Act in 1966, the ACHP is charged with
    advising the President and Congress on national historic preservation
    policy. The ACHP membership, the majority of which is appointed by the
    President, is made up of Federal agencies, preservation experts,
    concerned citizens, a mayor, a governor, and major preservation non-
    profit organizations.
        Traditionally, the HPF is the source of NPS grants-in-aid to State
    Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation
    Offices (THPOs), which perform critical functions in administering the
    Federal preservation program established by the National Historic
    Preservation Act (NHPA). The fiscal year 2016 budget proposal would
    continue this funding while also appropriating monies from the HPF for
    NPS grants to support the preservation of sites associated with the
    African American Civil Rights Movement and the identification of
    historic properties associated with communities currently
    underrepresented in the National Register of Historic Places. The ACHP
    supports the fiscal year 2016 budget proposal for the HPF as a minimum
    funding level and applauds the addition of funding for the Civil Rights
    initiative, but asks that the subcommittee also consider increasing
    funding to SHPOs and THPOs given chronic underfunding of their
    activities.
        SHPO/THPO Funding.--In 1976, Congress established the HPF to
    support the delivery of programs mandated by the NHPA. Annually, the
    HPF funds a variety of activities carried out by SHPOs and THPOs,
    forming the backbone of preservation activity in the Nation. These
    include conducting surveys of historic properties; preparing
    nominations to the National Register of Historic Places; reviewing the
    impact of Federal projects on historic properties; assisting in Federal
    Historic Tax Credit project reviews; implementing disaster recovery
    grants; and conducting preservation education and planning.
        In 1980, Congress authorized up to $150 million in annual Outer
    Continental Shelf revenue from oil and gas leases to be deposited into
    the HPF. However, annual appropriations have never approached this
    figure and, in recent years, have been less than $60 million. This
    level of funding has seriously impacted the overall capacity of both
    SHPOs and THPOs to efficiently fulfill their obligations in the Federal
    preservation program. This has constrained their effectiveness when
    participating in Federal agency planning processes and when providing
    expert advice on historic properties affected by Federal actions.
        Although funding levels for SHPOs have increased slowly since 1981,
    they have never approached full funding nor have they kept pace with
    inflation. Since 2010, funding essentially has been flat lined; the
    $46.925 million proposed in the fiscal year 2016 budget is level with
    last year's appropriation. When inflation is factored in, the current
    buying power of HPF funding for SHPOs is virtually the same as it was
    in 1987. Meanwhile, the demands placed on SHPOs have continued to
    increase as State budgets have declined.
        While SHPOs have been challenged by recent HPF funding levels, the
    picture has been even bleaker for THPOs. The average allocation of
    funds to individual THPOs has decreased so significantly over recent
    years that some programs have had to close for several months at the
    end of each year because of lack of funds. As the number of Indian
    tribes operating approved THPO programs increases, the amount of HPF
    funds appropriated for THPOs has not kept pace. In fiscal year 1996, 12
    tribes received an average of $80,000. In 2014, there were 151 THPOs
    certified by NPS to receive funds. The resulting average allocation of
    about $58,000 translated to a decrease of approximately $22,000 per
    THPO compared to 1996 even before adjusting for inflation. While the
    ACHP fully supports the proposed increase of $1 million for THPOs in
    the fiscal year 2016 budget, we believe that this increase is only a
    partial step toward meeting the need.
        The ACHP supports the proposed fiscal year 2016 funding level for
    SHPOs and THPOs as preferable to a lower figure. However, we urge the
    subcommittee to give serious consideration to increasing such funding.
    The ACHP strongly supports full and permanent funding for the HPF at
    its authorized level of $150 million for fiscal year 2016 and beyond.
    Adequate funding is critically important to ensure the effective
    participation of SHPOs and THPOs in consultation with Federal agencies
    on projects involving national priorities such as energy development
    and infrastructure permitting, disaster planning and resilience,
    climate change adaptation, military readiness and national security
    needs, and public lands management. SHPOs and THPOs also need
    predictable funding to continue to identify properties worthy of
    preservation and manage such information with modern digital
    technology. October 15, 2016, marks the 50th anniversary of the NHPA.
    Full and permanent funding for the HPF in the fiscal year 2016 budget
    would be a fitting recognition of this milestone and signify the
    Federal Government's continued commitment to assisting States and
    Indian tribes in preserving the rich heritage of our Nation for future
    generations.
        Civil Rights Initiative.--To mark the 50th anniversary of the
    Voting Rights Act, the fiscal year 2016 NPS budget proposes $50 million
    to restore and highlight key sites across the country that tell the
    story of the struggle for civil rights. Of that amount, $32.5 million
    would come from the Historic Preservation Fund, including $30.0 million
    in competitive grants to document, interpret, and preserve the stories
    and sites associated with the Civil Rights Movement and the African-
    American experience, and $2.5 million for grants to Historically Black
    Colleges and Universities.
        The struggle to end legal racial discrimination and segregation had
    a profound influence on the course of American history and continues to
    shape our society today. The physical places associated with the people
    and events of the civil rights movement help us both to understand and
    to celebrate what took place 50 years ago. There are sites throughout
    the country associated with the African American civil rights struggle
    of the 1950s and 1960s, some of which are being preserved and
    interpreted, and some of which are threatened either directly by
    development or through deterioration. The proposed competitive grants
    from the HPF to help preserve such properties are much needed, and the
    ACHP fully supports this proposed funding.
        Historic structures on the campuses of historically black colleges
    and universities (HBCUs) also face threats, including lack of resources
    for repairs. Since the mid-1990s, Congress periodically has funded
    preservation grants for HBCUs, but the last funding was in 2009 with an
    infusion of funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The
    proposed fiscal year 2016 HBCU grant funding would build upon the past
    benefits of this grant program and would be an important component of
    the overall NPS Civil Rights Initiative. The ACHP supports this
    proposed HPF funding.
        Grants for Underrepresented Communities.--The fiscal year 2016 NPS
    budget would continue an existing grant program that addresses the
    issue of underrepresentation of certain communities and groups in the
    range of properties included in the National Register of Historic
    Places. The goal of the program is to make strides toward ensuring that
    the makeup of the National Register fully reflects the diversity of the
    American story. In fiscal year 2014, funded projects included
    inventories of African American heritage sites in Montana, Pueblo
    Nations in New Mexico, LGBT sites in New York City, Latino properties
    in Washington's Yakima Valley, and Asian American sites in Utah. fiscal
    year 2014 grants also are supporting the preparation of National
    Register nominations for LGBT sites in Kentucky, African American Civil
    Rights resources in Baltimore, and sites associated with Chinese
    immigrants and Chinese Americans in Boston.
        The changing demographics of America pose opportunities as well as
    challenges for the national historic preservation program. The
    diversity of cultures in the United States shapes and enriches the
    American experience, and the Federal Government can encourage wider
    involvement and representation in determining what historic sites are
    worthy of recognition and preservation; how history and cultural
    heritage should be valued, interpreted, and preserved; and how the
    American public as a whole can take advantage of the programs and tools
    created under the NHPA. The HPF-funded underrepresented community grant
    program is an important tool in building a more inclusive preservation
    program, and the ACHP fully supports its continued funding in fiscal
    year 2016.
        Thank you for this opportunity to advise the subcommittee on fiscal
    year 2016 appropriations for the National Park Service from the
    Historic Preservation Fund. If the ACHP can provide any additional
    information, please contact our Executive Director, John M. Fowler, at
    jfowler@achp.gov.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc.
        The requests of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA)
    for the fiscal year 2016 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as
    follows:
      --Require IHS to provide an additional $1.1 million in recurring
            funds to our Compact which has been reduced by $4.9 million due
            to St. Paul's transfer.
      --Amend the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Act to
            appropriate $100.4 million for reconstruction of the Unalaska
            Hospital and the Atka Island clinic, both of which were
            destroyed during World War II.
      --Provide or require the IHS to allocate an additional $15 million to
            fully fund Village Built Clinic Leases and make it a line item
            in the budget.
      --Place Contract Support Costs on a mandatory funded basis.
      --Place IHS funding on an advance appropriations basis.
        The Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA) is a regional non-
    profit tribal organization with members consisting of the 13 federally
    recognized tribes of the Aleutian Chain and Pribilof Islands region.
    APIA provides healthcare services to the Alaska Natives in four of the
    tribal communities of this region through funding received from IHS
    under Title V of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
    Act (ISDEAA). We also provide health-related services through various
    non-IHS grants and agreements.
        Our Regional Health Delivery System Imperiled.--The Alaska Tribal
    Health System depends on strong regional care organizations
    coordinating limited resources to produce economies of scale enabling
    them to provide quality healthcare services to Alaska Natives in their
    regions. For a region like the Aleutian Pribilof Islands, achieving
    economy of scale is a fragile undertaking. Last May the Aleut Community
    of St. Paul Island, the largest community in our region, notified us
    that they intended to withdraw from our Self-Governance agreement and
    transfer the responsibility of their healthcare services and associated
    funding from APIA to the Southcentral Foundation's Self-Governance
    agreement. This action became effective January 1, 2015, and it has
    resulted in the loss of 46 percent ($4.9 million) of our health budget.
    This will cause catastrophic disruption and reduction of services for
    the remaining communities in the APIA regional health system. It has
    greatly diminished economy of scale in providing the collaborative
    health arrangements throughout our area that we have worked so hard to
    establish. These collaborative arrangements also include funding
    outside of IHS such as Health Resources and Services Administration and
    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration grants which
    now must be untangled because of St. Paul's departure.
        As you know, there has been in effect since 1998 a statutory
    provision which is designed to promote efficient use of IHS funds by
    maintaining a regionalized system of healthcare delivery in Alaska by
    prohibiting disbursal of funds to tribes that withdraw from regional
    health entities. St. Paul may have the right to switch from one Self-
    Governance agreement to another but it certainly is a blow to the
    carefully constructed regional health delivery system in Alaska.
        IHS Self-Governance has an underlying principle to do no harm to
    other tribes. The program from its beginning in 1992 as a demonstration
    project is replete with congressional report language and IHS Budget
    Justification statements of support for the program and simultaneously
    noting that Self-Governance agreements are to do no harm to other
    tribes. The huge loss of funds as the result of St. Paul transferring
    its healthcare service is doing severe harm to the remaining members of
    the communities serviced by our Self-Governance agreement.
        Hence, we are asking Congress to direct the IHS to provide an
    additional $1.1 million to APIA and that such funds be recurring to
    help us take the necessary steps and at least partially mitigate the
    loss of economy caused by the transfer of St. Paul.
        Funding For Reconstruction of Two Health Care Facilities Destroyed
    During WWII.--During World War II, communities within the APIA region
    suffered historic losses, not only to their populations due to deaths
    arising from inadequate healthcare and poor living conditions during
    removal by the U.S. Government to camps in Southeast Alaska, but also
    to two healthcare facilities that were destroyed and never rebuilt or
    accounted for in prior restitution made to the Aleutian and Pribilof
    tribal communities.
        On June 4, 1942, the Japanese bombed the 24-bed hospital operated
    at that time by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Unalaska, Alaska. Since
    that time, the closest hospital is located in Anchorage, Alaska--800
    air miles away, and not accessible by roads. Ten days later and 350
    miles to the east, on June 14, 1942, the residents of Atka Island were
    forcibly evacuated from the Island by the U.S. for their ``safety,''
    and the U.S. Navy burned all of the structures on the Island to the
    ground, including the Island's health clinic, to prevent their use by
    the Japanese.
        Congress passed the ``Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution
    Act'' in 1988 (Public Law 100-383), which led to creation of the
    Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Trust to administer funds
    appropriated under the Restitution Act on behalf of the St. Paul, St.
    George, Unalaska, Atka, Akutan, Nikolski, Biorka, Kashega and Makushin
    communities. The Restitution Act provided very limited appropriations
    to partially address losses suffered by these communities during
    evacuations from 1942 to 1945. During that time, the treatment of the
    Aleut people in the evacuation camps lacked even the most basic
    attention to health and human safety matters, in extremely crowded,
    unheated, abandoned buildings with very poor sanitation conditions. Ten
    percent of the Aleuts who were evacuated died in the camps. For those
    who returned to their communities, many found their homes and community
    facilities destroyed, possessions taken, and churches stripped of
    religious icons by the U.S. military.
        The time is now to replace the Unalaska hospital and the Atka
    Island Clinic. The Aleutian and Pribilof tribal communities are the
    most remote within Alaska. The next level of referred specialty and
    inpatient care is 800 air miles away in Anchorage. To say that our
    patients suffer from a lack of access to basic healthcare services is
    an understatement. Patients have died en route to Anchorage for
    emergency care; patients have died due to inability to receive timely
    screening of cancer; patients often must leave their families for
    months at a time when receiving care; and mothers must leave their
    families for 4 months to deliver their babies. This is unacceptable
    care, by any standard. The replacement hospital facility would directly
    serve the 5,000 year-round residents of Atka, Dutch Harbor, Nikolski
    and Unalaska, in addition to the typically hundreds of seasonal fishery
    workers requiring immediate emergency or primary care. Having a
    hospital would eliminate the need to send referrals to Anchorage at an
    average airfare cost of $1,400, not to mention the cost of lodging,
    meals and the personal hardship of having to leave the community for
    days at a time. Atka lies 350 miles away from Unalaska, so until its
    clinic has sufficient capacity to meet local need, that population is
    at severe risk due to its isolated, weather-challenged, location.
        Based upon APIA budget estimates derived from the IHS Facility
    Budget Estimating System, the Unalaska hospital facility project cost
    for design, construction and equipping the total facility is
    $96,900,000. Based upon a 2003 Health Clinic Design Report funded by
    the Denali Commission, construction of a health clinic sufficient to
    meet the needs in Atka, and adjusting from 2003 for current inflation,
    will cost $3,500,000. APIA thus requests $100.4 million in funding for
    reconstruction of these facilities.
        APIA is ranked near the top in the IHS's joint venture program,
    however we are unable to move forward without identified construction
    resources. For facilities subject to the IHS joint venture program,
    construction must be accomplished with non-IHS money. The Restitution
    Act offers the best legislative framework for an appropriation from
    Congress. We recommend that the Restitution Act be amended to add a new
    Section 1989C-4(b)(1)(D) to 50 U.S.C, to state as follows: ``(D) One
    account for the construction, operation, and maintenance of an
    inpatient hospital facility in Unalaska and health clinic in Atka with
    a direct appropriation of $100,400,000 for those purposes.'' We ask for
    the Committees' support of such an amendment and the related
    appropriation of funds.
        If we are to successfully receive this non-IHS construction project
    funding, the joint venture program would allow APIA to enter into a no-
    cost lease with the IHS for a period of 20 years; the IHS would in turn
    provide staff, equipment and supplies for the operations and
    maintenance of the facilities. The joint venture program is competitive
    and funding is limited. This year the IHS announced the results of its
    2014 Joint Venture solicitation--of 37 pre-applications, 13 were
    selected to submit final applications and six of those will be chosen
    to move forward. Yet, the IHS has indicated it does not have adequate
    resources to fund even those programs, with the next Joint Venture
    solicitation taking place in 3-5 years. Tribes in Alaska support the
    IHS joint venture program as one of the best solutions to immediately
    address critical healthcare needs in our communities.
        Funding for Village Built Clinics in Alaska.--For the last several
    years, APIA has submitted testimony on the need to address chronic
    underfunding of Village Built Clinics (VBCs) in Alaska. VBCs, which are
    clinic facilities leased by the IHS from other entities, are a vital
    component of the provision of basic healthcare services in rural
    Alaska, as they serve as the clinic space for the Community Health Aide
    Program (CHAP) under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. The CHAP
    utilizes a network of community health aides and practitioners to
    provide primary healthcare services in otherwise unserved rural and
    isolated areas.
        In 1989, Congress specifically authorized the operation of 170 VBCs
    in Alaska and provided approximately $3 million in funding. Since then,
    Congress has not provided amounts specifically for VBCs in the IHS
    appropriation, and IHS has had discretion to fund VBCs from its lump
    sum appropriation. IHS has needlessly treated the $3 million level as a
    cap, and has refused to increase funding for VBC leases. Funding
    therefore has not kept pace the rising costs of healthcare in rural and
    isolated areas. In fact, the chronic underfunding over decades has
    resulted in deterioration and in some cases closure of VBC facilities,
    threatening the Community Health Aid Program that hinges on the
    continued availability of properly maintained VBC space. Our facilities
    in Atka and Nikolski have been cited for numerous patient HIPPA and
    safety issues including no patient privacy and holes in the floor. In
    any other community, these clinics would be condemned; yet the IHS
    expects us to continue to provide care with no remedy at hand. It is no
    wonder that we have a difficult time recruiting and retaining providers
    to serve our communities. Unfortunately, we are not alone in our
    predicament.
        A recent estimate is that $15 million additional dollars are needed
    to fully fund the VBC program. We urge you to provide or to direct the
    IHS to add $15 million to the current amount (about $4 million)
    provided for the VBCs and that this be made a line item in the budget.
        Mandatory Contract Support Costs/IHS Advance Appropriations.--We
    join with many others in Indian Country in supporting the
    administration's proposal to place Contract Support Costs (CSC) on a
    mandatory basis, although we and other tribes/tribal organizations urge
    that it be implemented beginning in fiscal year 2016. It is heartening
    to see that the hard work of tribes on this issue has brought them
    around on the matter of the Federal Government honoring its contracts.
    We thank this subcommittee for its support for full funding for CSC and
    urge that you take it to its logical conclusion which is that the
    funding be converted to a mandatory basis.
        We also support placing the IHS budget on an advance appropriations
    basis, as Congress has done with the Veterans Administration health
    accounts. The fiscal year 2016 budget justification for the VA said
    advance appropriation is necessary to ``fulfill the administration's
    commitment to provide reliable and timely resources to support the
    delivery of accessible and high-quality medical services for veterans.
    This funding enables timely and predictable funding for VA's medical
    care to prevent our Nation's veterans from being adversely affected by
    budget delays, and provides opportunities to more effectively use
    resources in a constrained fiscal environment.'' The same can be said
    about healthcare for Indians and Alaska Natives.
        We appreciate your consideration of our request outlined in this
    testimony. On behalf of APIA and the people we serve, I am happy to
    provide any other additional information desired by the committees.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the American Alliance of Museums
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to submit this testimony. My
    name is Ford Bell and I serve as President of the American Alliance of
    Museums (AAM). We urge your support for at least $155 million each in
    fiscal year 2016 for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the
    National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), as well as $935.8 million
    for the Smithsonian Institution. We also request your support for the
    Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), including at least $50 million for
    State Historic Preservation Offices, $15 million for Tribal Historic
    Preservation Offices, $32.5 million to preserve the sites and stories
    of the Civil Rights Movement, and restored funding for the Save
    America's Treasures and Preserve America programs.
        Before detailing these funding priorities for the museum field, I
    want to express my deepest appreciation for the difficult position in
    which the subcommittee finds itself, given inadequate 302(b)
    allocations in recent years. Like many museums, the subcommittee will
    need to make many difficult decisions, each of which comes with a
    unique set of consequences. In this context, however, we would posit
    that each of our priorities outlined below is a vital investment that
    will both protect our Nation's cultural treasures and provide a
    tremendous benefit to the overall economy.
        AAM is proud to represent the full range of our Nation's museums--
    including aquariums, art museums, botanic gardens, children's museums,
    culturally specific museums, historic sites, history museums, maritime
    museums, military museums, natural history museums, planetariums,
    presidential libraries, science and technology centers, and zoos, among
    others--along with the professional staff and volunteers who work for
    and with museums. AAM is proud to work on behalf of the Nation's
    museums, which employ 400,000 people, invest more than $2 billion
    annually on educational programs, receive more than 55 million visits
    each year from primary and secondary school students, and directly
    contribute $21 billion to their local economies.
        Museums are essential in our communities for many reasons:
      --Museums are key education providers.--Museums already offer
            educational programs in math, science, art, literacy, language
            arts, history, civics and government, economics and financial
            literacy, geography, and social studies, in coordination with
            State and local curriculum standards. Museums also provide
            experiential learning opportunities, STEM education, youth
            training, job preparedness, and a range of programs geared
            toward homeschooling families. They reach beyond the scope of
            instructional programming for schoolchildren by also providing
            critical teacher training. There is a growing consensus that
            whatever the new educational era looks like, it will focus on
            the development of a core set of skills: critical thinking, the
            ability to synthesize information, creativity, and
            collaboration. We believe museums are uniquely situated to help
            learners develop these core skills, and this is borne out by
            evidence. According to a recent University of Arkansas study,
            students who attended just a half-day field trip to an art
            museum experienced an increase in critical thinking skills,
            historical empathy and tolerance. For students from rural or
            high-poverty regions, the increase was even more significant.
      --Museums create jobs and support local economies.--Museums serve as
            economic engines, bolster local infrastructure, and spur
            tourism. Both the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National
            Governors Association agree that cultural assets such as
            museums are essential to attracting businesses, a skilled
            workforce, and local and international tourism.
      --Museums address community challenges.--Many museums offer programs
            tailored to seniors, veterans, children with special needs,
            persons with disabilities, and more, greatly expanding their
            reach and impact. For example, some have programs designed
            specifically for children on the autism spectrum while others
            are addressing veterans' post-war trauma or providing youth job
            training opportunities.
      --Digitization and traveling exhibitions bring museum collections to
            underserved populations.--Teachers, students, and researchers
            benefit when cultural institutions are able to increase access
            to trustworthy information through online collections and
            traveling exhibits. Most museums, however, need more help in
            digitizing collections.
        The National Endowment for the Humanities is an independent Federal
    agency created by Congress in 1965. Grants are awarded to nonprofit
    educational institutions--including museums, colleges, universities,
    archives, and libraries--for educational programming and the care of
    collections. NEH supports museums as institutions of learning and
    exploration, and as keepers of our cultural, historical, and scientific
    heritages.
        In 2014, through Preservation & Access, one of NEH's national
    program divisions, 67 peer-reviewed, competitive grants totaling over
    $4.8 million dollars were awarded to museums, historical societies and
    historic sites for a variety of projects to preserve and provide access
    to our Nation's rich cultural heritage. Across all NEH divisions
    (including Preservation and Access, Research, Education, Public
    Programs, Challenge Grants and Digital Humanities), these institutions
    received 128 awards totaling over $13.5 million. Demand for humanities
    project support, as demonstrated by NEH grant application rates, far
    exceeds available funding. In fiscal year 2014, NEH received 4,281
    competitive grant applications representing more than $431 million in
    requested funds, but was only able to fund 15.2 percent of these peer-
    reviewed project proposals.
        NEH also provides annual grants to State humanities councils
    located in every State and U.S. territory. In 2014, 55 State councils
    supported 2,402 events in museums, reaching a total audience of more
    than 5.8 million people.
        Here are just two examples of how NEH funding supports museums'
    work in your communities:
      --In 2013, the Mississippi Department of Archives and History
            received $274,390 to select, digitize, and make available
            100,000 pages of Mississippi newspapers published between 1836
            and 1922. These primary sources offer vital insight into State
            and national heritage.
      --Historic London Town in Edgewater, Maryland received $177,814 in
            2013 to support two 1-week workshops for 80 school teachers on
            the development of slavery in the Chesapeake Bay region, with
            lessons from local museums on teaching this difficult issue.
        The National Endowment for the Arts makes art accessible to all and
    provides leadership in arts education. Established in 1965, NEA
    supports great art in every congressional district. Its grants to
    museums help them exhibit, preserve, and interpret visual material
    through exhibitions, residencies, publications, commissions, public art
    works, conservation, documentation, services to the field, and public
    programs.
        In 2014, more than 2,200 museums participated as Blue Star
    Museums--a partnership between NEA, Blue Star Families, and the
    Department of Defense--to offer free admission to all active duty and
    reserve personnel and their families from Memorial Day through Labor
    Day. This particular effort served over 700,000 people, while many
    other museums offer military discounts or free admission throughout the
    year.
        In 2014, NEA made more than 140 direct awards to museums, totaling
    over $5.4 million. Forty percent of NEA's grant funds are distributed
    to State arts agencies for re-granting, and many museums participate at
    this level as well.
        Receiving a grant from the NEA confers prestige on supported
    projects, strengthening museums' ability to attract matching funds from
    other public and private funders. On average, each dollar awarded by
    the NEA leverages $9 dollars from other sources.
        Here are two examples of how NEA funding is used to support
    museums' work in your communities:
      --Alaska's Chilkat Indian Village received a $50,000 grant to work
            with museum professionals to create an exhibit that will convey
            the ancestral, cultural, and artistic history of the Chilkat
            people. The exhibition will help foster community identity,
            serving the village, the neighboring community of Haines, and
            national and international visitors.
      --The International Folk Art Foundation in Santa Fe, New Mexico
            received $50,000 to support its Imagining Home Project.
            Traditional artists from local immigrant communities and abroad
            display work in the museum's Gallery of Conscience on the
            themes of leaving home, and the challenges and opportunities
            presented by life in a new country.
        In addition to these direct grants, NEA's Arts and Artifacts
    Indemnity program also allows museums to apply for Federal indemnity on
    major exhibitions, saving them roughly $30 million in insurance costs
    every year and making many more exhibitions available to the public--
    all at virtually no cost to the taxpayer. We were glad last year to
    work with the Association of Art Museum Directors and with the
    subcommittee to increase the indemnity limits as part of Public Law
    113-235, and we remain extremely grateful for the subcommittee's work
    on this matter.
        The Smithsonian Institution comprises some of the most visited
    museums in the world, including the National Museum of American
    History, the National Air and Space Museum, and the National Museum of
    Natural History. The Smithsonian reaches visitors and learners of all
    ages, in the Nation's capital and across the country, with innovative
    exhibits and programs. Its 20 museums--including the National Zoo--
    attract 30 million visits every year, and their content and curricula
    are used by teachers all over the country.
        The President's fiscal year 2016 budget request of $935.8 million
    includes critical funding for the National Museum of African American
    History and Culture, which will tell an essential part of American
    history. Additional funding for collections care, ground-breaking
    research, facilities maintenance, and technology upgrades will allow
    the Smithsonian to care for the Nation's treasures and increase access
    for all. We enthusiastically support this robust funding proposal for
    the Smithsonian Institution. However, we have serious concerns about
    the President's proposed STEM consolidation plan, which would eliminate
    or cut important programs that support museums at the National
    Institutes of Health, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
        The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) is the funding source of
    preservation awards to States, tribes, local governments, and
    nonprofits. State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs and
    THPOs) carry out the historic preservation work of the Federal
    Government on State and tribal lands. These duties include making
    nominations to the National Register of Historic Places, reviewing
    impacts of Federal projects, providing assistance to developers seeking
    a rehabilitation tax credit, working with local preservation
    commissions, and conducting preservation education and planning. This
    Federal-State-local foundation of America's historic preservation
    program was established by the National Historic Preservation Act. We
    urge you to provide $50 million for SHPOs and $15 million for THPOs
    through the Historic Preservation Fund. We also urge you to restore
    funding of $25 million for Save America's Treasures and $4.6 million
    for Preserve America, which have not been funded in recent years.
        Also in the context of the Historic Preservation Fund, we support
    the proposed Civil Rights Initiative, including $30 million for
    competitive historic preservation grants to preserve the stories and
    sites associated with the Civil Rights Movement as well as $2.5 million
    to help Historically Black Colleges and Universities conduct similar
    documentation and interpretation.
        The 2005 Heritage Health Index of archives, libraries, historical
    societies, and museums concluded that action is needed to prevent the
    loss of 190 million artifacts that require conservation treatment: 59
    percent have collections damaged by light; 56 percent have insufficient
    security to protect their collections; 80 percent do not have an
    emergency plan that includes collections; 71 percent need additional
    training and expertise for staff caring for collections; and only 13
    percent have access to endowment funds for preservation.
        Historic preservation programs matter now more than ever--not only
    because they are essential to protecting our national heritage, but
    because they serve as economic development engines and job creators.
    Funds invested in building rehabilitation have been shown to create
    more jobs and retail activity than those spent on new construction.
        I want to once more acknowledge the difficult choices that the
    subcommittee faces. I hope that my testimony has made it clear why
    these priorities are of critical importance to the Nation and will
    provide a worthwhile return on investment to the American taxpayer.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
        To the Chair and members of the subcommittee:
        Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of
    the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) about the
    importance of the geological programs conducted by the U.S. Geological
    Survey (USGS).
        AAPG is the world's largest scientific and professional geological
    association. The purpose of the association is to advance the science
    of geology, foster scientific research, and promote technology. AAPG
    has over 40,000 members around the world, with roughly two-thirds
    living and working in the United States. These are the professional
    geoscientists in industry, government, and academia who practice,
    regulate, and teach the science and process of finding and producing
    energy resources from the Earth.
        AAPG strives to increase public awareness of the crucial role that
    the geosciences, and particularly petroleum geology, play in our
    society. The USGS is crucial to meeting these societal needs, and
    several of its programs deserve special attention by the subcommittee.
                      unconventional oil and gas research
    Multiple Programs
        As part of the effort to improve America's energy security, protect
    the environment, save consumers money, and maintain United States
    leadership in emerging energy technologies, the USGS, the U.S.
    Department of Energy (DOE), and the Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) have created an interagency program that aims to understand the
    potential environmental, health, and safety impacts of hydraulically
    fractured oil and gas resources.
        AAPG would like to emphasize that while hydraulic fracturing
    technology continues to evolve, it is not a new technology and we have
    substantial knowledge about its impacts as well as evidence of its
    long-term safety. This should form the basis for any new research.

        --AAPG supports the USGS budget increase in the fiscal year 2016
    President's request that will support this research effort including:
    resource assessments and characterization; water quality; and water
    availability--areas of USGS scientific leadership. AAPG does not
    support proposed funding for Contaminants Biology. Collection of human
    health data is the responsibility of the EPA, as outlined in the
    Interagency Unconventional oil and gas strategy.
                         geologic resource assessments
    Energy Resources Program
        The USGS Energy Resources Program (ERP) conducts both basic and
    applied geoscience research focused on geologic energy resources (both
    domestic and international), including oil, natural gas, coal, coalbed
    methane, gas hydrates, geothermal, oil shale, and bitumen and heavy
    oil.

        --AAPG supports the President's fiscal year 2016 request for the
    Energy Resources Program.

        An urgent problem addressed through the ERP is the preservation of
    geological and geophysical data, engineering data, maps, well logs, and
    samples. This effort has never been funded at the authorized level, $30
    million/year. This financial neglect is compounded by the difficult
    financial situations facing State geological surveys that are
    responsible for preserving most of the country's subsurface data.
        Responsible management and efficient development of natural
    resources requires access to the best available scientific information.
    Over many years industry, such as petroleum and mining companies, has
    invested billions of dollars to acquire geological and geophysical
    data. Because of changing company focus and economic conditions this
    data may no longer have value to the company that acquired it, and is
    in jeopardy of being discarded.
        But this data still has value to society. The data is valuable for
    further natural resources exploration and development, and can be
    applied to basic and applied earth systems research, environmental
    remediation, and natural-hazard mitigation. It is the type of data that
    will enable future generations of scientists and policy makers to
    address the Nation's energy, environmental, and natural hazard
    challenges of the 21st century.
        For example, this data has been essential to the development of oil
    and gas from shales. Geoscientists require previously acquired
    subsurface cores and samples to identify prospective natural gas
    deposits that were bypassed before new technology made shale resources
    economically producible.
        The NGGDPP was authorized at $30 million annually in EPACT 2005.
    Historical allocations for this program have ranged from $750,000 to
    $1,332,345 per year. These funding levels are inadequate to achieve the
    program's objectives. Furthermore, with the precipitous decline in oil
    prices some companies may go out of business or cease operations in a
    particular region. This could lead to additional obligations on public,
    primarily State, repositories.

        --AAPG supports the reauthorization of the Preservation of the
    Geological and Geophysical Data Program and recommends that the
    subcommittee appropriate an additional $5 million in fiscal year 2016
    for the preservation of geological and geophysical data.
    Mineral Resources Program
        The United States is the world's largest consumer of mineral
    commodities. They form the building blocks of our economy.
        It is therefore essential to the Nation's economic and national
    security that the Federal Government understands both the domestic and
    international supply and demand for minerals and mineral materials.
    This data is used throughout government (Departments of Commerce,
    Interior, Defense, and State; the Central Intelligence Agency; the
    Federal Reserve) and the private sector.
        The USGS Mineral Resources Program (MRP) is the only Federal and
    publicly-available source for comprehensive information and analysis of
    mineral commodities and mineral materials.

        --AAPG supports the President's fiscal year 2016 request for the
    Mineral Resources Program.
    National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program
        AAPG supports the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program
    (NCGMP). This unique partnership between the Federal and State
    governments and the university community demonstrates the importance of
    geoscience to society. The geologic maps produced by this program are
    used for natural resource management, natural hazard mitigation, water
    resource management, environmental conservation and remediation, and
    land-use planning.
        NCGMP deserves special commendation for its EDMAP initiative. This
    university partnership enables students, working in a close mentoring
    relationship with faculty, to produce maps while learning essential
    mapping skills. As such, the program delivers an immediate return on
    the Federal investment in terms of beneficial maps, as well as a future
    return in the form of a trained and competent next generation
    workforce.

        --AAPG supports the President's funding request of $25.3 million
    for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, including
    increases for Coastal Resilience and Landscapes and Sinkhole Hazards.

        Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
    subcommittee. AAPG also appreciates your leadership and support for the
    geosciences. As you deliberate appropriate funding levels for these
    USGS programs, please consider the important public policy implications
    these choices entail.
        If you have any questions about AAPG or this testimony, please
    contact Edith Allison, the director of our policy office in Alexandria
    at e-mail eallison@aapg.org.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the American Bird Conservancy
                                                         April 8, 2015.

    Hon. Lisa Murkowski                   Hon. Tom Udall
    Chairwoman                            Ranking Member
    Interior Appropriations Subcommittee  Interior Appropriations
                                           Subcommittee
    United States Senate                  United States Senate
    131 Dirksen Senate                    125 Hart
    Washington, DC 20510                  Washington, DC 20510

        Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:

        American Bird Conservancy (ABC) is a 501(c)(3) national non-profit
    organization dedicated to the conservation of wild native birds and
    their habitats throughout the Americas. Founded in 1994, ABC is the
    only U.S. based group dedicated solely to overcoming the greatest
    threats facing native birds in the Western Hemisphere. ABC supports the
    highest level of funding possible for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
    Conservation Act Grants and Migratory Bird Joint Ventures for fiscal
    year 2016.
        Each spring, more than 4 billion birds make their spectacular
    migration from their winter habitats in Mexico, Central and South
    America, and the Caribbean to their breeding grounds throughout North
    America. Many species of birds that we see in our back yards are
    affected by habitat conditions in their wintering grounds located
    outside of the U.S. Birds like the Wilson's warbler and the Mountain
    plover are currently in decline and may become endangered or threatened
    resulting in the need for even more resources to be allocated making it
    more important than ever now to support funding for the Neotropical
    Migratory Bird Conservation Act.
        Since 2002, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA)
    has functioned as a matching grant program to fund projects that
    conserve neotropical migratory birds--those that breed in or migrate
    through the United States and Canada and spend the non-breeding season
    in Latin America and the Caribbean. Migratory birds make a significant
    contribution to the U.S. economy. Recreation associated with migratory
    birds is big business in this country. The 2011 National Survey of
    Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, conducted by the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that nearly 47 million Americans
    enjoy watching and feeding birds, spending $107 billion on birdwatching
    equipment and travel within the United States that year alone creating
    660,000 jobs and $13 billion annually in local, State, and Federal tax
    revenue.
        NMBCA has a proven track record of success over more than a decade.
    Since its inception, the program has received more than $50.1 million
    to positively affect 3.7 million acres and partners have leveraged
    Federal funds with more than $190.6 million in non-Federal
    contributions--a more than 4-to-1 match ratio.
        As an organization that works with migratory birds, which by
    definition cross international borders during their migration patterns,
    we know that protection and restoration of habitat must occur across
    the continent if the goal is to protect the species. As a result, ABC
    respectfully requests that NMBCA be funded at the highest level
    possible. In fiscal year 2015 the program was funded at approximately
    $3.66 million and the President's budget fiscal year 2016 request is
    $4.16M.
        Migratory Bird Joint Ventures (JVs) also exemplify a highly
    successful, cost-effective approach to conservation. By applying
    science and bringing diverse constituents together, JVs across the
    United States have created a model for solving wildlife management
    problems and restoring habitats critical to conserving declining
    species. Nationally, JVs have protected, restored, or enhanced more
    than 24 million acres of important habitat for migratory bird species.
    There are currently 21 JVs in the United States that provide
    coordination for conservation planning and implementation of projects
    that benefit all migratory bird populations and other species. Since
    the program's inception in 1986, Joint Ventures have worked with 5,700
    partners to help enhance, conserve, restore, and protect nearly 24
    million acres of essential habitat across North America.
        Joint Ventures have a long history of success in implementing bird
    conservation initiatives mandated by Congress and by international
    treaties. Projects are developed at the local level and implemented
    through diverse public/private partnerships. These projects reflect
    local values and needs, while addressing regional and national
    conservation priorities. The projects benefit not only birds, but many
    wildlife species, and have a positive impact on the health of
    watersheds and local economies. For every dollar appropriated for Joint
    Ventures leveraged more than $33 in non-Federal partner funds. ABC
    respectfully requests that JVs be funded at the highest level possible.
    Joint Ventures have been funded at approximately $13.1 million in
    fiscal year 2015. The administration's fiscal year 2016 request for
    Joint Ventures is $18.591 million with an additional $5 million to help
    JVs increase species resilience.
        America faces a serious challenge to reverse the decline of many of
    our bird species, but it is possible. Since birds are sensitive
    indicators of how we are protecting our environment as a whole, this
    decline signals a crisis that Congress must act now in order to reverse
    it. ABC strongly believes increased funding for NMBCA and JVs is
    essential to achieving conservation goals critical to our environment
    and the economy.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the American Cultural Resources Association
    Our Request: $89.91 million for the Historic Preservation Fund as
    follows:

      --$46.925 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs)
      --$9.985 million for the Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs)
      --$500,000 in grants for underrepresented populations
      --$30 million for the Civil Rights competitive grants initiative
      --$2.5 million for competitive grants for Historically Black Colleges
            and Universities (HBCUs)

        These programs are funded through withdrawals from the U.S.
    Department of the Interior's National Park Service Historic
    Preservation Fund (16 U.S.C. Sec. 470h) (HPF).
      acra members deliver responsible heritage management solutions that
             balance economic development and heritage preservation
        ACRA is the national trade association representing the interests
    of heritage management firms of all sizes, types and specialties.
    ACRA's member firms undertake much of the legally mandated heritage
    management studies and investigations in the United States.
        There are approximately 1,300 heritage management firms nationwide
    that employ over 10,000 heritage management professionals, including
    archaeologists, preservation architects, architectural historians,
    historians, and an increasingly diverse group of other specialists.
    These firms generate over $1 billion in revenue annually. ACRA firms
    create and support jobs, providing employment for American-educated and
    trained professionals, and serve an important role in delivering
    responsible heritage management solutions for our communities that
    appropriately balance economic development and heritage preservation.
                  funding shpos and thpos supports development
        In 1966, Congress, recognizing the importance of our heritage,
    enacted the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C.
    Sec. Sec. 470, et seq.) (NHPA), which established historic preservation
    as a Federal Government priority. Historic preservation recognizes that
    what was common and ordinary in the past is often rare and precious
    today, and what is common and ordinary today may be extraordinary in
    the future.
        Instead of using Federal employees to carry out the Act, the
    Department of Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic
    Preservation opted to partner with the States and use SHPOs and THPOs
    to, among other tasks, review all Federal projects for their impact on
    historic properties. Heritage management firms work closely with
    Federal, State and local government agencies, private industry and non-
    profit groups to conduct the reviews required by the NHPA.
        In order for the review process to work smoothly, SHPOs and THPOs
    must have adequate funding. Proper financial support for their work
    allows SHPOs and THPOs to review and approve projects in a timely
    basis, facilitating development, moving projects forward in a timely
    and efficient manner, and ensuring that heritage management firms can
    get the job done. ACRA appreciates the administration's efforts to
    support preservation and the HPF, and applauds the addition of funding
    for the Civil Rights initiative; however, we ask that the subcommittee
    also consider increasing funding to SHPOs and THPOs given chronic
    underfunding of their activities.
        The budget request does include a $1 million increase for THPOs.
    THPOs are chronically underfunded; the additional $1 million is a start
    to solving that challenge for tribes working to preserve and protect
    their culture and history. The request also includes $30 million for
    Civil Rights initiatives and $2.5 for HBCUs in recognition of the
    anniversary of the Civil Rights movement. ACRA supports these funding
    pieces, as well, and hopes that such funds will help diversify the
    sites preserved under the HPF.
                                   conclusion
        On behalf of its 150 member firms, ACRA would like to thank the
    subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony. ACRA also thanks
    the subcommittee for its commitment to historic preservation and
    heritage management.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the American Forest Foundation
        Investments in the U.S. Forest Service Forest Stewardship Program
    and the U.S. Forest Service Forest Health Protection Program will help
    family forest owners get ahead of increasing threats from invasive
    pests and pathogens, wildfire, and development pressures. Complementing
    these efforts, the Landscape Scale Restoration Program provides an
    innovative approach to target resources for maximum impact, meaning
    support for this program will ensure measurable outcomes on the ground.
    It is also critical that funding for U.S. Forest Service Forest
    Inventory and Analysis and overall Forest Service Research and
    Development programs are improved and maintained, so these programs
    continue to provide the information and technical resources for
    landowners to make informed decisions about America's forests.
      --Support the U.S. Forest Service Forest Health Protection (Federal
            and Cooperative) at the fiscal year 2012 funding level of $111
            million;
      --Support the U.S. Forest Service Forest Stewardship Program fiscal
            year 2012 budget level of $29 million;
      --Support the President's funding request of $23.513 million for the
            Landscape Restoration Program;
      --Support the Presidents funding request of $83 million for the
            Forest Inventory and Analysis research;
      --Support the U.S. Forest Service Research and Development Program at
            the fiscal year 2012 funding level of $231 million;
      --Support the U.S. State Fire Assistance Program at the fiscal year
            2012 funding level of $86 million; and
      --Support the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act that will provide $86
            million in funding for fire suppression activities.
        Investments in forestry programs will help strengthen rural
    communities, support rural jobs, and ensure that communities that rely
    on the clean water and air, wildlife habitat, and forest products from
    family-owned forests, don't face additional costs for these goods and
    services.
        Unfortunately, new data suggests that by 2020, more than 18 million
    acres of family forests are threatened by housing development.
    Furthermore, almost 14 million acres are at risk of mortality due to
    insects and disease, while 29 million are at high or very high risk of
    destruction from wildfire.\1\ At the same time, less than 15 percent of
    family forest owners have sought professional advice for the
    stewardship of their forests. Many are under the impression that
    leaving their woods alone is the best option. It is therefore essential
    we ensure these families have tools, technical information, and policy
    support to keep their forests as forests, for current and future
    generations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Family Forest Research Center, 2014 Preliminary Data.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The American Forest Foundation is a nonprofit conservation
    organization that works on the ground with more than 22 million family
    woodland owners through a variety of programs, including the American
    Tree Farm System, to protect the values and benefits of America's
    family forests, with clear ecological and economic impact.
                           forest health investments
        Threats from invasive species and pests continue to pervade onto
    American tree-farmer's land, posing economic and environmental
    hardships. Close to 500 species of tree-damaging pests from other
    countries have become established in the country, and a new one is
    introduced, on average, every 2 to 3 years. The USFS Forest Health
    Protection (FHP) Program is a critical resource supporting efforts to
    prevent, contain, and eradicate dangerous pests and pathogens affecting
    trees and forests. The program provides critical assistance to other
    Federal agencies, State agencies, local agencies and private
    landowners.
        There was a 2.2 percent reduction in State and Private Forestry
    (S&PF) land that was reached from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2013
    for support for invasive species infestations.\2\ Approximately 423,000
    acres of Cooperative lands were reached in fiscal year 2013, but a
    reduction in funding from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2013 resulted
    in 321,000 fewer acres receiving treatment. Any further cuts to this
    program will necessitate deeper reductions in support for communities
    already facing outbreaks and expose more of the Nation's family-owned
    forests to the devastating and costly effects of the Asian Longhorned
    Beetle, Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock Wooly Adelgid, Thousand Cankers
    Disease, Western Bark Beetle and other pests.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ USFS Forest Health, January 2015, Forest Health Monitoring:
    National Status, Trends, and Analysis 2014.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           forest stewardship program
        The Forest Stewardship Program provides the guidance necessary to
    ensure our Nation's family-owned forests can continue to provide
    benefits (clean air and water, etc.), while leaving them less
    susceptible to forest health threats and conservation to non-forest
    users. Approximately 14 billion tons of carbon are stored on family
    forests and close to 400,000 acres of family forests are critical for
    the health of headwater streams. Active family forest-owners that
    provide many environmentally sustainable benefits are in need of the
    Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) to help them perform forest management
    plans on their property. The FSP is also critical in engaging the 95
    percent of woodland owners who are not actively managing their land,
    and therefore have forests that are more susceptible to the
    environmental and economic threats such as invasive species and pests.
        Families and individuals are the largest group of forest owners in
    the U.S., therefore responsible for the stewardship of 35 percent of
    America's forest legacy.\3\ Many of these families and individuals
    receive key advice and technical assistance from State service
    foresters. The Forest Stewardship Program can increase its
    effectiveness by focusing on high-priority areas and new landowners.
    This can be accomplished if the U.S. Forest Service Forest Stewardship
    Program fiscal year 2012 budget level of $29 million is supported. In
    addition, the AFF has partnered with State forest agencies to implement
    outreach tools and micro-targeting strategies to engage ``unengaged''
    woodland owners; to date, the AFF has seen a 12 percent response rate.
    These outreach tools combined with a highly focused, appropriately
    funded Forest Stewardship Program has the potential to have an even
    greater impact.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ USDA, May 2008, Who Owns America's Forest?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                support the landscape scale restoration program
        The Landscape Scale Restoration Program helps to concentrate
    resources to accomplish outcomes on-the-ground where they are needed
    the most. This program complements the ongoing work of the FSP and
    further targets measureable outcome in high-priority areas. AFF
    strongly urges the subcommittee to support the President's funding
    request of $23.513 million for the Landscape Restoration Program.
        Along with the FSP and AFF, the Landscape Scale Restoration Program
    would help family and individual woodland owners that are working to
    improve, maintain, and sustain high ecological standards and preserve
    the biodiversity of their land. In addition, with this program, the
    USFS is well-positioned to address the most pressing threats, protect
    the many public benefits we all enjoy from forests, and leverage
    Federal efforts for meaningful, measurable impact.
    forest inventory and analysis and forest service research & development
                                    program
        Both the Forest Inventory and Analysis and Forest Service Research
    and Development Programs provide extensive science and forest
    information. This essential data provides forest landowners with
    critical updates on forest health and market trends to help them know
    how to mitigate growing threats.
        In particular, the USFS Research and Development Program provides
    the science to help manage invasive species in urban and rural forests.
    The R&D function also provides new information about the use of wood
    products, which can help create new markets for products from family-
    owned woodlands. This information helps position wood in growing
    markets, like green building markets, where understanding the
    environmental impacts of building materials is key.
        During fiscal year 2014 FIA maintained annualized inventory
    activity in all 50 States, total area currently sampled represents
    about 90 percent of all U.S. forestland. Due to late budget
    allocations, FIA was not able to maintain annual plot production at
    efficient level in fiscal year 2014. Total funding from all sources for
    the FIA program in fiscal year 2014 was $77.7million; total funding
    from all sources was 14 percent below the amount needed for full
    program implementation.\4\ AFF is urging support for the Presidents
    funding request of $83 million for the Forest Inventory and Analysis
    and fiscal year 2012 funding level of $231 million for Research and
    Development in order to gain a stronger understanding of our woodlands
    in order to protect them from the increasing threats mentioned
    previously and to allocate woodland resources appropriately.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Forest Inventory and Analysis, February 2015, Fiscal Year 2014
    Business Report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             state fire assistance
        Forest fires pose a large threat to family and individual
    landowners as these fires continue to increase in frequency and
    intensity. The State Fire Assistance helps the 22 million family
    woodland owners protect their land from devastating forest fires
    through technical fire program assistance and enhances State, local,
    and rural organizations including: community-based wildfire hazard
    mitigation efforts, fire plan development, and fire adapted ecosystem
    restoration.
        The funds from the State Fire Assistance also provides coordinated
    fire protection and mobilization for fire suppression on both Federal
    and non-Federal lands. It also supports State coordinated hazard
    mitigation activities in the wildland-urban interface, focused on
    reducing property loss, decreasing fuels hazards, increasing public
    awareness, developing fire plans and citizen-driven solutions in rural
    communities.\5\ These threatening factors continue to increase and
    require proper funding, therefore we are requesting support for the
    U.S. State Fire Assistance Program at the fiscal year 2012 funding
    level of $86 million.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ USFS, Fire & Aviation Management: State Fire Assistance (SFA).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           wildfire disaster funding
        Over the last decade, wildfire expenses have significantly
    increased, and the Federal wildfire budgets often are not sufficient to
    cover the costs, leading the Federal agencies to transfer funds from
    non-fire accounts to cover fire-fighting expenses. In fiscal year 2012,
    the USFS transferred $440 million and in fiscal year 2013 the transfer
    cost was upped to $600 million. Understandably, this has caused
    significant disruptions in forest programs, including programs like the
    Forest Stewardship and Forest Health Protection Programs that aide
    family woodland owners in their stewardship.
        In order to have programs that do all of this work--(1) reduce the
    threat of invasive species, (2) provide technical assistance to
    woodland owner's for good stewardship, and (3) provide restoration
    activities and active management work to reduce future fire risks--we
    need a permanent solution to the wildfire funding problem. The American
    Forest Foundation is asking that Congress pass the Wildfire Disaster
    Funding Act (S. 235/H.R. 167) as it would end disrupting, monetary
    transfers from the USDA Forest Service and Department of Interior to
    fund fighting wildfires. During fiscal year 2014 there were several
    fire funding shortfalls, which resulted in funding offsets from other
    programs, negatively impacting the Forest Legacy Program, Forest
    Landscape Restoration Program, and Urban Forestry.
        American Forest Foundation would like to acknowledge that the
    subcommittee must find areas to reduce spending, but we hope that the
    subcommittee will consider the impact these reductions have on millions
    of family forest owners, along with all other Americans who are
    effected by all the benefits well-managed, working forests provide. We
    thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to provide some insight on
    these programs and appreciate consideration of my testimony.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
                                request summary
        On behalf of the Nation's Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs),
    which collectively are the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
    (AIHEC), thank you for this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2016
    appropriations recommendations for the 30 colleges funded under various
    titles of the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance
    Act (Tribal College Act); the Bureau of Indian Education postsecondary
    institutions; and the Institute of American Indian Arts. The Bureau of
    Indian Education administers these programs, save for the Institute of
    American Indian Arts, which is congressionally chartered and funded
    directly through the Department of the Interior.
        In fiscal year 2016, TCUs seek $89.220 million for institutional
    operations, an endowment building program, and technical assistance
    under the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act
    of 1978 or Tribal College Act; of which, $88.5 million is for Titles I
    & II operating grants (28 TCUs); $109,000 for Title III (endowment
    grants); and $601,000 for increasingly needed technical assistance.
    TCUs are founded and chartered by their respective American Indian
    tribes, which hold a special legal relationship with the Federal
    Government, actualized by more than 400 treaties, several Supreme Court
    decisions, prior congressional action, and the ceding of more than one
    billion acres of land to the Federal Government. Despite the trust
    responsibility and treaty obligations, the TCUs' primary source of
    basic operating funds has never been adequately funded. Further, our
    member institutions--already operating on shoestring budgets--have
    suffered the ramifications of sequestration. Should sequestration
    resume in fiscal year 2016, along with added across the board cuts that
    have become part of the regular order, the TCUs will suffer even
    greater annual reductions to this already underfunded program.
    Regrettably, the long-term Federal investment in this program, which
    has proven to be cost-effective, efficient, and transformative, may be
    lost as some of tribal colleges could be forced to close their doors.
    They simply cannot continue to operate on the inadequate funding they
    receive. After 35 years since this essential grants program was first
    funded, our fiscal year 2016 request seeks to finally achieve the
    authorized funding level for institutional operating grants, which is
    based on a per Indian student allocation; and to retain $601,000 to
    provide critically needed, ever changing and expanding technical
    assistance.
        AIHEC's membership also includes two tribally controlled
    postsecondary career and technical institutions, a portion of whose
    institutional operations funding is authorized under Title V of the
    Tribal College Act. AIHEC requests $9,300,000 for this program. For the
    Institute of American Indian Arts, AIHEC supports the President's
    budget request of $11,619,000. Haskell Indian Nations University and
    Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute are the Bureau of Indian
    Education's two postsecondary institutions. AIHEC supports a minimum of
    $19,990,000, included in the President's fiscal year 2016 budget, for
    these important institutions.
        Lastly, but very important, AIHEC is seeking a one-time $20 million
    appropriation necessary to transition the institutional operating
    grants of the five TCUs that are still funded on the Federal fiscal
    calendar to an academic funding schedule. These institutions are the
    ONLY schools, funded through the Department of the Interior, that still
    receive their institutional funding on the Federal fiscal year (October
    1) or more likely, later in the year when the annual Interior
    appropriation bill is passed, rather than the first week of July in
    preparation for the upcoming school year. Once forward funded these
    TCUs, like all other BIE/Interior schools, will be able to plan
    multiyear budgets and to start (and end) each school year with
    dependable funding. Forward funding does not increase the Federal
    budget in the long-term. It simply allows vital education programs to
    receive basic operating funds before each school year begins, which is
    critically important when the Federal Government is funded under
    continuing resolutions. We recognize the severe budgetary constraints
    that Congress is currently working under and suggest that the funds
    needed to transition these five colleges to a forward funded schedule
    could be accomplished over 2 or 3 years. Affected colleges would
    receive a second appropriation for one-half or one-third the amount
    needed to establish forward funding the grant program. After the second
    or third year, depending on the transition timeframe chosen, the
    Department of the Interior would begin distributing the colleges'
    annual institutional operating grants in July of each year, going
    forward.
            tcu shoestring budgets: ``doing so much with so little''
        Tribal Colleges and Universities are an essential component of
    American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) education. Currently, 37 TCUs
    operate more than 75 campuses and sites in 16 States, within whose
    geographic boundaries 80 percent of all American Indian reservations
    and Federal Indian trust land lie. They serve students from well over
    250 federally recognized tribes, more than 70 percent of whom receive
    Federal financial aid. In total, the TCUs annually serve about 89,000
    AIs/ANs through a wide variety of academic and community-based
    programs. TCUs are public institutions accredited by independent,
    regional accreditation agencies, and like all U.S. institutions of
    higher education, must periodically undergo stringent performance
    reviews to retain their accreditation status. Each TCU is committed to
    improving the lives of its students through higher education and to
    moving AI/ANs toward self-sufficiency. To do this, TCUs must fulfill
    additional roles within their respective reservation communities
    functioning as community centers, libraries, tribal archives, career
    and business centers, economic development centers, public meeting
    places, and child and elder care centers.
        The Federal Government, despite its direct trust responsibility and
    binding treaty obligations, has never fully funded the TCUs'
    institutional operating budgets, authorized under the Tribally
    Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of 1978. In fact,
    TCU operating support is well below the level received by other
    institutions of higher education. The administration requests and
    Congress appropriates approximately $200 million annually towards the
    institutional operations of Howard University (exclusive of its medical
    school), the only other Minority Serving Institution (MSI) that
    receives institutional operations funding from the Federal Government.
    Howard University's current Federal operating support exceeds $20,000/
    student, because this is the level of need as determined by the U.S.
    Government. In contrast, most TCUs receive $6,355/Indian Student (ISC)
    under the Tribal College Act, less than 80 percent of the authorized
    level. TCUs have proven that they need and have earned an investment
    equal to--at the very least--the congressionally authorized level of
    $8,000/Indian student. It is important to understand that we are by no
    means suggesting that our sister MSI, Howard University does not need
    or deserve the funding it receives; it does. We are only pointing out
    that the TCUs also need and deserve adequate institutional operations
    funding; however, TCU operating budgets are chronically underfunded.
        TCU budgets are at a further disadvantage because the colleges
    receive funding for only about 76 percent of their enrolled students.
    Almost every other U.S. institution of higher education receives
    institutional operations funding based on its entire student body.
    However, it is important to note that although approximately 24 percent
    of the TCUs' collective enrollments are non-Indian students living in
    the local community, TCUs receive Federal funding based only on Indian
    students, defined as members of a federally recognized tribe or the
    biological children of an enrolled tribal member. While many TCUs do
    seek funding from their respective State legislatures for their non-
    Indian, State-resident students (oftentimes referred to as ``non-
    beneficiary'' students) successes have been, at best, inconsistent.
    Yet, if a TCU's non-beneficiary students attended any other public
    institution in the State, the State would provide the college with
    ongoing funding toward its day-to-day operations. Given their
    locations, often hundreds of miles from another postsecondary
    institution, TCUs are open to all students, Indian and non-Indian,
    believing that education in general, and postsecondary education in
    particular is a catalyst to a better economic future for their areas.
                         further justifications & facts
        (a)  TCUs provide access to valuable postsecondary education
    opportunities. Tribal Colleges and Universities provide access to
    higher education for American Indians and others living in some of the
    Nation's most rural and economically depressed areas. In fact, seven of
    the Nation's 10 poorest counties are home to a TCU. The American
    Community Survey/U.S. Census Bureau reported the annual per capita
    income of the U.S. population as $28,184. However, the annual per
    capita income of AI/ANs is reported to be $16,777, or 40 percent lower
    than that of the general population. TCUs offer their students a high
    level of support and guidance to bolster their chances of achieving
    academic success. In addition to serving their student populations,
    these tribal institutions offer a variety of much-needed community
    outreach programs.
        (b)  TCUs are producing a Native workforce that includes highly
    trained AI/AN teachers, tribal government leaders, nurses, engineers,
    computer programmers, and other much-needed professionals. By teaching
    the job skills most in demand on their reservations, TCUs are laying a
    solid foundation for tribal economic growth, with benefits for
    surrounding communities and the Nation as a whole. In contrast to the
    high rates of unemployment on many reservations, graduates of TCUs are
    employed in ``high demand'' occupations such as Head Start teachers,
    elementary and secondary school teachers, agriculture and land
    management specialists, and nurses/healthcare providers. Just as
    important, the vast majority of TCU graduates remains in their tribal
    communities, applying their newly acquired skills and knowledge where
    they are most needed.
        (c)  Growing number of TCUs--Compounding existing funding
    disparities is the fact that although the numbers of TCUs and students
    enrolled in them have dramatically increased since they were first
    funded in 1981, appropriations have increased at a disproportionately
    low rate. Since 1981, the number of tribal colleges has happily more
    than quadrupled and continues to grow; the number of Indian students
    enrolled has risen over 355 percent. In the past 10 years, six
    additional TCUs have become accredited and eligible for funding under
    Title I of the Tribal College Act, and there are several more colleges
    currently in the pipeline. TCUs are in many ways victims of their own
    successes. The growing number of tribally chartered colleges and
    universities and increasing enrollments have forced TCUs to slice an
    already inadequate annual funding pie into even smaller pieces.
        (d)  Local Tax and Revenue Bases--TCUs cannot rely on a local tax
    base for revenue. Although tribes have the sovereign authority to tax,
    high reservation poverty rates, the trust status of reservation lands,
    and the lack of strong reservation economies hinder the creation of a
    reservation tax base. As noted earlier, on Indian reservations that are
    home to TCUs, the unemployment rate can well exceed 70 percent. By
    contrast, the national unemployment rate is currently 5.5 percent.
        (e)  Gaming and the TCUs--Although several of the reservations
    served by TCUs do have gaming operations, these are not the mega-
    casinos located in proximity to urban outlets and featured in the
    broad-based media. Only a handful of TCUs receive regular income from
    the chartering tribe's gaming revenue, and the amounts received can
    vary greatly from year to year. Most reservation casinos are small
    businesses that use their gaming revenue to improve the local standard
    of living and potentially diversify into other, more sustainable areas
    of economic development. In the interim, where relevant, local TCUs
    offer courses in casino management and hospitality services to formally
    train tribal members to work in their local tribally run casinos.

            Some form of gaming is legalized in 48 States, but the Federal
    Government has not used the revenues generated from State gaming as a
    justification to decrease Federal funding to other public colleges or
    universities. Some have suggested that those tribes that operate the
    few extremely successful and widely publicized casinos should be
    financing higher education for all American Indians. And yet, no State
    is expected to share its gaming revenue with a less successful or non-
    gaming State.
                  appropriations request for fiscal year 2016
        As noted earlier, it has been 35 years since the Tribal College Act
    was first funded, and the TCUs have yet to receive the congressionally
    authorized per Indian student funding level. Full funding for the TCUs'
    institutional operating grants ($8,000 per Indian student) for fiscal
    year 2016 would require an increase of approximately $19.4 million over
    the fiscal year 2015 appropriated level. Details of the request are
    outlined in the Request Summary above.
                                   conclusion
        AIHEC Member institutions/Tribal Colleges and Universities provide
    quality higher education to many thousands of American Indians and
    other reservation residents, as well as essential community programs
    and services to those who might otherwise not have access to such
    opportunities. The modest Federal investment that has been made in TCUs
    has paid great dividends in terms of employment, education, and
    economic development. Continuation of this investment makes sound moral
    and fiscal sense.
        We greatly appreciate your past and continued support of the
    Nation's Tribal Colleges and Universities and your thoughtful
    consideration of our fiscal year 2016 appropriations requests.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
        The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) appreciates
    the opportunity to provide testimony in support of appropriations for
    the United States Geological Survey (USGS), United States Forest
    Service (USFS), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for fiscal
    year 2016. AIBS encourages Congress to provide the USGS with $1.2
    billion in fiscal year 2016 and $176.3 million for the Ecosystems
    activity. We further request that Congress provide the USFS Forest and
    Rangeland Research program with at least $296.0 million, and EPA
    Science and Technology with at least $769.1 million.
        The AIBS is a nonprofit scientific association dedicated to
    advancing biological research and education for the welfare of society.
    AIBS works to ensure that the public, legislators, funders, and the
    community of biologists have access to and use information that will
    guide them in making informed decisions about matters that require
    biological knowledge. Founded in 1947 as a part of the National Academy
    of Sciences, AIBS became an independent, member-governed organization
    in the 1950s. Today, AIBS has more than 140 member organizations and is
    headquartered in Reston, Virginia, with a Public Policy Office in
    Washington, DC.
                             u.s. geological survey
        The USGS provides unbiased, independent research, data, and
    assessments that are needed by public and private sector decision-
    makers. Data generated by the USGS save taxpayers money by reducing
    economic losses from natural disasters, allowing more effective
    management of water and natural resources, and providing essential
    geospatial information that is needed for commercial activity and
    natural resource management. The data collected by the USGS are not
    available from other sources and our Nation cannot afford to sacrifice
    this information.
        The Ecosystems activity within USGS underpins the agency's other
    science mission areas by providing information needed for understanding
    the impacts of water use, energy exploration and production, and
    natural hazards on natural systems. The USGS conducts research on and
    monitoring of fish, wildlife, and vegetation--data that informs
    management decisions by other Interior bureaus regarding protected
    species and land use.
        Biological science programs within the USGS gather long-term data
    not available from other sources. The knowledge generated by USGS
    programs is used by Federal and State natural resource managers to
    maintain healthy and diverse ecosystems while balancing the needs of
    public use.
        Examples of successful USGS Ecosystem initiatives include:
      --Development of comprehensive geospatial data products that
            characterize the risk of wildfires on all lands in the United
            States. These products are used to allocate firefighting
            resources and to plan fuel reduction projects.
      --Identification and evaluation of control measures for Asian carp,
            sea lamprey, Burmese pythons, and other invasive species that
            cause billions of dollars in economic losses.
      --New insights on the spread of avian flu, chronic wasting disease,
            and other wildlife diseases in North America.
        The requested fiscal year 2016 budget would support several
    important ecosystem science priorities at USGS. Science in support of
    critical landscapes, such as the Arctic and sage steppe, would be
    boosted. The budget would also focus research efforts on emerging
    invasive species and the declining status of native pollinators. USGS
    would support efforts to further the science and integration of
    ecosystems services frameworks into decision-making and implement
    efforts to assess and sustain the Nation's environmental capital.
        New funding is proposed for the Cooperative Research Units to
    increase undergraduate involvement in research. These efforts would
    complement the existing focus on graduate education. Roughly 500
    graduate students each year receive training at Cooperative Research
    Units. Through the units, the USGS and their partners address pressing
    issues facing natural resource managers at the local, State, and
    Federal levels. Examples of recent research initiatives include
    studying the effects of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill on wildlife and
    fisheries, and studying the impacts of wildfires on forest ecology. The
    program is an efficient use of resources: each Federal dollar invested
    in the program is leveraged more than five-fold.
        In summary, the USGS is uniquely positioned to provide a scientific
    context for many of the Nation's biological and environmental
    challenges, including water quality and use, energy independence, and
    conservation of biological diversity. This array of research expertise
    not only serves the core missions of the Department of the Interior,
    but also contributes to management decisions made by other agencies and
    private sector organizations. An investment of $1.2 billion in the USGS
    and at least $176.3 million in the Ecosystems activity will yield
    dividends.
                              u.s. forest service
        United States Forest Service research provides scientific
    information and new technologies to support sustainable management of
    the Nation's forests and rangelands. These products and services
    increase the basic biological and physical knowledge of the
    composition, structure, and function of forest, rangeland, and aquatic
    ecosystems.
        The fiscal year 2016 budget request would cut funding for Forest
    Service research by $4.0 million. Nearly all Forest Service research
    program areas are targeted for budget cuts. Six of seven research areas
    would be cut by 7 to 8 percent. Research on wildfires, invasive
    species, and resource management would be impacted.
        Scaling back research efforts is a lost opportunity for USFS in
    fulfilling their mission to sustain the health, diversity, and
    productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands. Scientific
    information is needed to best manage public lands for economic
    development, recreational uses, and preservation of the natural
    environment.
        We ask Congress to restore the proposed cuts and to fund the Forest
    and Rangeland Research program at $296.0 million, the same amount as in
    fiscal year 2015.
                        environmental protection agency
        The EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) supports valuable
    extramural and intramural research that is used to identify and
    mitigate environmental problems facing our Nation. ORD research informs
    decisions made by public health and safety managers, natural resource
    managers, businesses, and other stakeholders concerned about air and
    water pollution, human health, and land management and restoration. In
    short, ORD provides the scientific basis upon which EPA monitoring and
    enforcement programs are built.
        Despite the important role played by ORD, its funding has declined
    by approximately 20 percent in nominal dollars since fiscal year 2004,
    when it peaked at $646.5 million. ``This long-term decline has limited
    and will continue to limit the research that can be conducted to
    support the agency's effort to protect human health and the
    environment,'' according to the EPA's Science Advisory Board. ``These
    limitations pose a vulnerability for EPA at a time when the agency
    faces significant science questions with long-term implications for
    protecting the environment and public health.''
        The Ecosystem Services Research program within ORD is responsible
    for enhancing, protecting, and restoring ecosystem services, such as
    clean air and water, rich soil for crop production, pollination by bees
    and other species, and flood control. The program has been long
    underfunded, according to the EPA Science Advisory Board. The fiscal
    year 2016 request would continue the declining funding trend with a $3
    million cut. We ask that Congress address the chronic underfunding of
    the program.
        Two valuable training opportunities for the next generation of
    scientists will be eliminated as part of a proposed government-wide
    reorganization of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
    education programs. Funding would be zeroed out for EPA Science to
    Achieve Results (STAR) graduate fellowships and Greater Research
    Opportunities undergraduate fellowships. The Science Advisory Board
    ``considers it a priority to increase STAR fellowships, if possible,
    because support for environmental scientists at an early stage in their
    careers is a cost-effective way to advance ORD's strategic goals.'' The
    National Academy of Sciences called the fellowship ``a valuable
    mechanism for enabling a continuing supply of graduate students in
    environmental sciences and engineering.'' We are concerned that the
    elimination of these programs will be detrimental to preparation of the
    next generation of environmental scientists and engineers. We ask for
    the program to remain at EPA and to be supported at an adequate funding
    level.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute
                           white-nose syndrome (wns)
        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.--$4.5 million (President's budget
    request) total. $2 million in Endangered Species Recovery; $2.5 million
    in Service Science.

        U.S. Geological Survey.--$1.424 million (President's budget
    request) in Ecosystems/Wildlife.

        National Park Service.--$3.155 million (President's budget request)
    in Operations/Park Management/Natural Resource Stewardship.

        Bureau of Land Management.--$500,000.

        U.S. Forest Service.--$2.5 million ($1.8 million increase over
    $700,000 available in fiscal year 2015) in Research and Development;
    $500,000 in Forest Systems.

        Nine years after the first known observation of white-nose
    syndrome, WNS remains at the root of North America's most precipitous
    wildlife die-off of the past century. WNS has killed at least 5.7
    million bats and has spread to 26 States and 5 Canadian provinces. The
    disease is caused by an invasive species of fungus, Pseudogymnoascus
    destructans (Pd), that thrives in caves and abandoned mines and infects
    bats hibernating there, disrupting their physiological processes. WNS
    has struck seven species, including the federally endangered Indiana
    and gray bats, and has the potential to affect 25 of our 47 bat
    species. Declines are so severe that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    (FWS) has designated the northern long-eared bat as threatened due to
    WNS.
        Bats are integral to our economy and environment. They are primary
    predators of night-flying insects, including agricultural pests that
    attack corn, soybeans, cotton, and other crops. By eating these pests,
    bats reduce the need for pesticides, lower food production costs, and
    save U.S. farmers an average of $22.9 billion per year. Bats also
    perform ecological services for 66 plant species that produce timber.
        The Federal Government and its partners have responded admirably to
    the WNS crisis. Thanks to steady Government funding, their research has
    unlocked much of the disease's basic biology and informed initial
    management decisions. More remains to be done, however.
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is the lead agency for WNS
    response. The agency serves as an umbrella organization for nationwide
    WNS action, steering, facilitating, and managing information flow for
    the efforts of the more than 100 Federal, State, local, tribal,
    academic, nonprofit, and other entities that contribute to the WNS
    fight. In this role, FWS creates dialogue among the partners that sets
    the direction for WNS work, advancing WNS science and identifying how
    best to spend WNS funds. FWS also catalyzes scientific research on WNS
    by distributing millions of dollars in research grants every year. The
    grants fund work that likely would not occur otherwise and increases
    our knowledge of the disease, such as a paper published last year on
    research suggesting that Pd can persist in caves and abandoned mines
    for long periods in the absence of bats. FWS is the largest source of
    funding for State agencies to monitor, manage, and research WNS. We
    support the President's request for FWS WNS activities.
        The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) plays a critical role in WNS
    research. When WNS was first observed in 2006, both it and Pd were
    unknown to science. Since then, USGS's research has laid much of the
    foundation of our understanding of them. The agency continues to expand
    this knowledge and has begun exploring ways to treat WNS. In recent
    years, USGS developed a more accurate WNS test for bats that, unlike
    previous methods, doesn't require euthanizing the animals; the agency
    now is collaborating with State agencies at the WNS border to deploy
    this test to monitor the disease. With a view to possible treatments,
    USGS also is studying Pd's cave environment to identify conditions
    conducive to and hostile to the fungus, as well as whether other
    microbes found on bats' skin could mitigate the effects of Pd. We
    support the President's request for $1.424 million for USGS in the
    Wildlife account to continue this work.
        The natural resources of the National Park Service (NPS) provide
    opportunities and challenges related to WNS management and information-
    sharing. NPS conducts bat and disease monitoring in its many caves and
    abandoned mines, and plays an important role in educating the public
    about WNS. The many visitors that NPS hosts also heighten the need for
    the agency to prevent the human spread of Pd. Conducting chemical
    disinfection with visitors and staff when entering and exiting caves
    and abandoned mines has enabled NPS to research and advance knowledge
    of the efficacy of various decontamination methods used by natural
    resource-management personnel and recreational cavers across the
    country. Finally, NPS is integrating WNS into all staff bat-resource
    activities; for example, conducting wing swabs for WNS is becoming
    standard procedure whenever NPS staff handle bats. We support the
    President's budget request of $3.155 million in Natural Resource
    Stewardship for NPS to continue these activities.
        With at least 3,000 caves and an estimated 31,000 abandoned mines
    on its lands, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has much work to do
    on WNS but has never been allocated the funds for it. Most of BLM's
    lands, concentrated in the western U.S., have not yet suffered from
    WNS, but addressing the disease is necessary, and BLM has begun the
    task, thanks in part to directive language from Congress starting in
    fiscal year 2012. To address a paucity of information about bats and
    their habitat on BLM lands, staff are conducting bat inventories. To
    minimize the risk of Pd spread, the agency has integrated
    decontamination into protocols for personnel who enter caves or
    abandoned mines and is producing educational programming on
    decontamination for visitors. BLM also aims to prevent Pd spread by
    closing abandoned mines, installing gates on other mines and caves to
    keep out people, and selectively closing caves to visitors. One way BLM
    has been carrying out these measures is through an internal small-grant
    program; field offices apply for up to $2500, which must be matched by
    other funds, often from State agencies or local NGOs. In the face of
    continued WNS spread these efforts must be increased. We request
    $500,000 for the BLM to implement on-the-ground WNS measures.
        The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has an important role to play in WNS
    response. Drawing on resources such as the Center for Forest Mycology
    Research--specialized in the study of fungi--USFS scientists have
    contributed greatly to the understanding of WNS and Pd. In 2013, agency
    researchers taxonomically reclassified the WNS-causing fungus, laying
    the foundation for a better understanding of Pd. USFS is currently
    working to pinpoint Pd's harmful genes, in the hope of silencing them.
    USFS also is exploring the use of a native soil bacterium to inhibit Pd
    and improve survival of WNS-infected bats. In response to directive
    language from Congress in fiscal year 2012, USFS wrote a WNS science
    strategy. With the goals of that strategy accomplished, USFS is about
    to issue an updated strategy. Although implementing it will cost $2.5
    million in the first year, USFS's Research and Development branch is
    able to allocate only $700,000; we request that the subcommittee
    provide the $2.5 million needed to implement its strategy. (The
    President's budget allocates $83 million to USFS Research and
    Development's Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) budget; according to
    agency officials, only $75 million can be spent efficiently in fiscal
    year 2016. We request that the subcommittee use the extra $8 million
    for non-FIA Research and Development needs, including WNS.) We also ask
    for $500,000 for USFS's Forest Systems branch for WNS management,
    monitoring, and field research on USFS lands. Finally, we respectfully
    ask the subcommittee not to tie WNS funds to, or otherwise encumber the
    threatened listing of the northern long-eared bat.
      fish and wildlife service--office of law enforcement--$75.4 million
        The FWS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) is one of the most
    important lines of defense for America's wildlife. OLE enforces over a
    dozen Federal wildlife and conservation laws that frequently impact
    both domestic and global security. Year after year, OLE protects the
    public against the illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products--
    which ranks third only to the illicit trade in narcotics and weapons in
    terms of global revenue--and the U.S. remains a source of, or
    destination for, much of this contraband. Even those who may not
    concern themselves with wildlife are reaping benefits as OLE protects
    against smuggling illegal substances and helps to thwart potentially
    devastating human health threats. We support FWS's proposed
    appropriation of $75.4 million for OLE, an increase of $8.7 million
    over the fiscal year 2015 enacted budget, and the addition of 45 full-
    time employees (FTE) over the fiscal year 2015 enacted budget. These
    increases will provide for expanded forensics capability at the
    National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, support the work of
    Special Agents and Wildlife Inspectors, and enhance FWS's ability to
    combat wildlife trafficking.
    National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory--$750,000 increase
        The successful outcomes of enforcement cases would not be possible
    without the essential work of the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics
    Laboratory (NFWFL), used by FWS agents and inspectors to gather hard
    evidence in wildlife crime cases. Proposed funding will aid in the
    advancement of research involving genetic markers and isotope analysis,
    which will ultimately improve investigators' ability to determine the
    geographic origin of animals and animal parts.
    Wildlife Trafficking--$4,000,000 increase +25 FTE
        Combatting increased wildlife trafficking has become a high
    priority for the administration, Congress, and numerous governmental
    agencies. Wildlife trafficking threatens not only species conservation,
    but also global peace given its close association with terrorism and
    criminal syndicates. High-speed electronic communication has expanded
    the rapidity, ease, and range by which criminal elements conduct
    business, and funds derived from this illegal activity are often used
    for other crimes and terrorist activities. With poaching reaching
    unprecedented levels worldwide, domestic and international governmental
    and private entities have been turning to FWS for leadership in
    coordinating, guiding, and implementing a workable response. This
    funding increase supports the Executive Order on combating wildlife
    trafficking; with it, FWS will hire 25 new personnel. Specifically, the
    new positions will focus on information analysis in order to forge
    permanent liaisons with the U.S. intelligence community and other
    Federal law enforcement agencies. Currently, OLE does not have the
    staff to mount a focused, concerted, and effective effort to address
    high speed or electronic illegal activities. These new analysts will
    allow OLE to better combat and pursue traffickers of natural resources
    on the Internet and in high speed transport. Other special agents will
    be assigned to FWS regions, headquarters, and selected overseas
    embassies as attachs to focus on investigating illegal electronic
    commerce.
    Law Enforcement Activities--$4,000,000 increase +20 FTE
        OLE's ability to enforce critical wildlife laws, such as the Lacey
    Act, and safeguard species has been increasingly limited by shortfalls
    in Special Agent staffing. Currently, a majority of the staff are
    thinly spread in single-agent duty stations across the country. Often,
    only one or two agents cover an entire State, forcing agents to
    frequently work alone, which raises concerns about officer safety and
    efficiency as they can only focus on a limited number of cases at a
    time. With the increase, FWS will hire 20 new Special Agents to address
    staffing shortfalls that affect OLE's ability to perform ongoing
    investigations. The new agents will be deployed to the field for direct
    interdiction of illegal commercial activities.
                    wild free-roaming horses and burros act
        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) continues to round up wild
    horses and warehouse them on private lands at great public expense.
    This is not a humane or responsible solution, and for the last few
    years this subcommittee has called on the BLM to implement humane on-
    the-range solutions. It appears this message is being heard by the
    Agency. We appreciate the subcommittee's continued commitment to
    finding humane and responsible long-term solutions and encourage you to
    maintain this path. We support the BLM's proposed increase of $2.9
    million for wild horse and burro management. These funds are to be used
    for humane population control research, including ongoing research into
    developing more effective and longer lasting fertility control agents.
    We support these efforts and request that any increase in
    appropriations under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act be
    used solely to implement humane, on-the-range management methods such
    as immunocontraception, and not unnecessary roundup. Finally, we
    strongly support the continued inclusion of this ``no-kill'' language
    to ensure that BLM does not kill healthy wild horses and burros:
    Provided, that appropriations herein made shall not be available for
    the sale or destruction of healthy, unadopted wild horses and burros in
    the care of the Bureau or its contractors.
       national wildlife refuge system--pilot program and data collection
        We support the administration's $508.2 million request to operate
    and maintain the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), which
    generates $2.5 billion in economic impacts and $342.9 million in tax
    revenues. To enhance the NWRS's stated purpose of conserving fish and
    wildlife, including species threatened with extinction, we request that
    FWS implement the following two programs geared towards minimizing the
    damage and threats posed by indiscriminate and injurious body-gripping
    traps to humans, wildlife, and other animals on refuge land:
        Pilot Program: The subcommittee should direct FWS to develop and
    implement a pilot program of no fewer than 5 years banning body-
    gripping traps (snares, Conibear traps, and leg-hold traps) from
    National Wildlife Refuges within Region 5 (Northeast Region). FWS will
    collect data on the program's effects on wildlife populations, other
    approved recreational uses, and FWS facilities, and report back to
    Congress within 90 days of the program's conclusion.
        Data Collection Program: The subcommittee should direct FWS to
    compile data regarding the use of animal traps within the NWRS.
    Specifically, FWS should provide Congress information regarding the
    number and species of animals trapped, number of target versus non-
    target animals, the primary purposes for trapping on refuge land, the
    humaneness of body-gripping traps, the impacts of trapping on
    endangered and threatened species and domestic animals, and the extent
    to which trapping impacts other recreational uses allowed within the
    NWRS. Additionally, FWS should allow interested and qualified outside
    parties to submit data relevant to the request above through a public
    comment period of no less than 30 days. FWS should present a report to
    Congress containing this and any other relevant information within 120
    days of this bill's enactment.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
      (ASME) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Task Force of the ASME
                       Environmental Engineering Division
        Mr. Chairman, ranking members, and members of the Subcommittee:

        The ASME Environmental Protection Agency Task Force (Task Force) is
    pleased to provide this testimony on the fiscal year 2016 budget
    request for the EPA Science and Technology (S&T) programs.
                                  introduction
        ASME is a nonprofit, worldwide mechanical engineering professional
    society with more than 130,000 members. It conducts one of the world's
    largest technical publishing operations, holds more than 30 technical
    conferences and 200 professional development courses each year, and has
    authored over 600 industrial and manufacturing standards.
                                   background
        U.S. scientists and engineers have a long-standing professional
    interest in applying Science & Technology (S&T) to improve the
    environment and human health. Mechanical engineers increasingly
    collaborate with other professionals to develop innovative and cost-
    effective environmental technologies and systems.
        The EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) is an essential
    part of the Nation's efforts to protect human health and safeguard the
    environment in a scientifically sound and sustainable manner. ORD's
    efforts improve environmental health, provide innovative environmental
    monitoring techniques, and support environmental technology development
    and implementation.
                   overview of the asme epa task force review
        The fiscal year 2016 budget request for EPA is $8.5 billion, a $452
    million or 5.5 percent increase from the $8.1 billion enacted in fiscal
    year 2015. The EPA's ORD Science and Technology (S&T) accounts would
    increase by $34.4 million to $769 million, a 4.6 percent increase.
        Key research areas for mechanical engineering within the S&T
    portfolio include the Air, Climate, and Energy area, the Safe and
    Sustainable Water Resources research program area, and research at the
    National Risk Management Research Laboratory. Air, Climate, and Energy
    would increase by $8.4 million (9.1 percent) to $100.3 million, and
    Safe and Sustainable Water Resources would increase by 3.4 million (3.3
    percent) to $111 million. Chemical Safety and Sustainability would see
    the largest increase at 13.8 million (10.8 percent) to $140.7 million.
    Funding for the National Risk Management Research Laboratory would be
    reduced slightly from $71 million to $70.6 million.
        EPA has seen declining budget figures for the last several budget
    cycles. Funding proposed for fiscal year 2016 is actually below that
    provided to the agency in fiscal year 1995. The reduced funding has
    resulted in a 10 percent contraction in the S&T workforce over the past
    20 years, which places extraordinary pressure on the agency to provide
    the S&T support required by EPA and other Federal and State
    organizations. The Task Force feels that the President's budget
    allocation for fiscal year 2016 is warranted given the Nation's
    environmental challenges. Additional R&D funds are needed in order to
    enhance study responses to resolve hydraulic fracturing and oil shale
    waste issues, to better understand the impacts of climate change, to
    support the development of terrestrial carbon sequestration and
    management, to help guide the proper development of biofuels, to
    improve our understanding of chemical safety and toxicology, to measure
    the environmental impacts of nanotechnology, to promote sustainable
    waste management, and to better understand water resources utilization
    and development.
        The Task Force's comments on the fiscal year 2016 budget focus on
    the mechanical engineering-intensive activities of the S&T portfolio
    within the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). The change
    in funding levels supporting these core objectives in the last two
    budget cycles along with the proposed fiscal year 2016 budget figures
    are as follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year
                                           2014         2015         2016
                                        (million)    (million)    (million)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indoor Air and Radiation.........         $7.2         $5.9         $6.6
    Homeland Security................         38.5         37.1         38.1
    Clean Air and Climate............        110.3        116.5        124.8
    Safe and Sustainable Water               120.0        107.4        111.0
     Resources.......................
    Human Health Protection..........          3.7          3.5          3.7
    Air, Climate, and Energy Research         99.4         91.9        100.3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  epa office of research and development (ord)
        Through research and technical assistance, ORD provides the
    scientific foundation for EPA by performing research and development to
    identify and solve present and future environmental issues and provide
    responsive technical support to its scientific partners. The ORD
    administers programs addressing both basic research and the development
    of the scientific tools used to understand and evaluate environmental
    health. ORD also conducts problem-driven research designed to provide
    scientific solutions to high-priority environmental problems. It is an
    invaluable national resource.
        We note that the ORD workforce has declined in each of the last 5
    fiscal years--a loss of more than 200 environmental science
    professionals--a staffing level that makes it difficult to permit
    efficient action on a number of topics of national importance,
    particularly toxicology, nanotechnology, sustainable waste management
    and water resources. Effort should be made to bring ORD staff to
    approximately pre-sequestration levels so that EPA can continue to
    support R&D on current and future environmental problems.
        The Task Force supports the increases requested for the EPA's S&T
    directorate, which partially reverses several years of funding
    decreases. An evaluation of EPA's resources is needed to ensure that it
    can balance between existing priorities and new challenges. Program
    specifics are outlined below:

                                                INDOOR AIR AND RADIATION
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                                                      2014 (million)  2015 (million)  2016 (million)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indoor Air: Radon Program.......................................           $0.21           $0.19           $0.0
    Reduce Risks from Indoor Air....................................            0.36            0.31            0.41
    Radiation Protection............................................            2.5             1.9             2.1
    Radiation Preparedness Response.................................            4.1             3.5             4.0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Task Force supports the EPA's replacement of the Radon Program
    with the Federal Radon Action Plan, which will leverage industry and
    nonprofit efforts to amplify existing Federal efforts to reduce radon
    risk.

                                                    HOMELAND SECURITY
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                                                      2014 (million)  2015 (million)  2016 (million)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Critical Infrastructure Protection..............................          $10.2           $10.3           $11.8
    Preparedness, Response and Recovery.............................           27.8            26.2            25.6
    Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure..................            0.54            0.54            0.60
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Homeland security activities are a significant component of the
    EPA's S&T activities, focusing on critical infrastructure protection
    and disaster preparedness and response. The Task Force supports the
    additional funding allocated to the Critical Infrastructure Protection
    program.

                                                  CLEAN AIR AND CLIMATE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                                                      2014 (million)  2015 (million)  2016 (million)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Climate Protection..............................................          $11.7            $8.0            $7.8
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The EPA Task Force views Climate Protection Research as an
    important issue and is somewhat surprised by the funding trajectory for
    this program given funding levels supported in previous fiscal years.
    The Task Force supports this request given the constrained budget
    environment.

                        RESEARCH: AIR, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal year  Fiscal year   Fiscal year
                                          2013         2014         2015
                                       (million)    (million)     (million)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    S&T Activities..................        $99.4        $91.9        $100.3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The EPA Task Force supports the full fiscal year 2016 increased
    request for Air, Climate and Energy Research, particularly the
    additional proposed funding for hydraulic fracturing programs and
    carbon sequestration.

                      SAFE AND SUSTAINABLE WATER RESOURCES
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year   Fiscal year   Fiscal year
                                        2013          2014          2015
                                      (million)     (million)     (million)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Research......................        $120.0        $107.4        $111.0
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Safe and Sustainable Water Resources funding supports a variety of
    activities related to the challenges facing U.S. water resources,
    including drinking water and wastewater from industrial activities. The
    Task Force is pleased that sustainability funding has been increased,
    just over $3.5 million, and supports the fiscal year 2016 request.

                             HUMAN HEALTH PROTECTION
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year
                                           2013         2014         2015
                                        (million)    (million)    (million)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Drinking Water Programs..........         $3.7         $3.5         $3.7
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Overall, the fiscal year 2016 budget request calls for a slight
    increase from the fiscal year 2015 appropriated amount. The Task Force
    considers water quality issues as a high priority of the EPA and
    supports this request given the constrained budget environment.
                   water quality research and support grants
        The EPA Task Force urges Congress to again support funding for the
    Water Quality Research and Support Grants program. Last year, Congress
    provided $4.1 million for this nationally competitive grant program to
    fund water quality and availability research. Given the severe droughts
    and water resource challenges facing many parts of the country, the
    Task Force supports funding at the fiscal year 2015 appropriated level
    for this program.
                            environmental education
        The fiscal year 2016 budget includes $10.9 million in funding to
    support Environmental Education, which was funded at $8.7 million in
    fiscal year 2015. Such investments are critical to providing
    fellowships for U.S. citizens who are scientists and engineers,
    ensuring top quality research and development of our Nation's S&T
    workforce.
        Many of EPA's environmental education activities have been
    transferred to the National Science Foundation (NSF) over the last 2
    years, and we urge improved interagency coordination to ensure that the
    goals of EPA's programs are met under NSF's administration. The Task
    Force urges continued support ($15 million) for EPA's Science to
    Achieve Results (STAR) and Greater Research Opportunities (GRO)
    fellowship programs (program started in 1995) and urges the
    subcommittee to support strong funding for the National Center for
    Environmental Research.
                                   conclusion
        The administration's fiscal year 2016 request reflects of a
    difficult fiscal climate where tough choices have to be made to support
    important national priorities. This is particularly true for basic
    environmental research. As noted above, the Task Force requests
    additional funding be allocated for the toxicology, nanotechnology,
    sustainable waste management, and water resources (quality and quantity
    challenges) programs at EPA to ensure continued progress in our
    understanding of environmental and health impacts in these areas.
    Further, the Task Force proposes strong funding of EPA's National
    Center for Environmental Research and National Risk Management Research
    Laboratory programs, urges the subcommittee to support funding for
    EPA's graduate fellowships, and urges additional funding to ensure that
    full-time S&T staffing needs at EPA ORD are met.
        This statement represents the views of the ASME EPA Task Force and
    is not necessarily a position of ASME as a whole.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Association of American State Geologists
        Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:

        The Association of American State Geologists urges Congress to fund
    USGS 3DEP to at least the level recommended by the President; enhanced
    elevation data will stimulate economic growth, while improving our
    health and security; Federal leadership will increase the efficiency
    and effectiveness of the activity as a whole.
        State Geologists direct State geological surveys and work to ensure
    that their States are supported by optimal information. From time to
    time, a technology matures in a way that offers an opportunity to
    revolutionize everything that we do on the land--resulting in cost
    savings and improved benefits for a broad range of activities in the
    economy. LiDAR and associated technologies offer that opportunity.
        The Association of American State Geologists (AASG) is confident
    that appropriate and desirable Federal leadership through the US
    Geological Survey (USGS) 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) will result in
    significantly improved protection and management of water, better
    recognition of hazards, improved management and discovery of energy and
    mineral resources, more efficient efforts in agriculture, landscape
    restoration, transportation, and construction, as well as tremendous
    improvement in the insights we all can have into our natural heritage.
        We therefore urge Congress to fund 3DEP to at least the level
    recommended by the President. We are confident that doing so will be a
    wise investment that will bring returns far exceeding the expenditure.

        [This statement was submitted by Jonathan D. Arthur, Ph.D., P.G.,
    President, AASG.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Association of Navajo Community Controlled
                               School Board, Inc.
        The Association of Navajo Community Controlled School Board
    (ANCCSB), Inc. is an organization of 11 member school boards who
    operate federally funded schools on the Navajo Reservation in Arizona
    and New Mexico under contracts or grants from the Bureau of Indian
    Education (BIE).
        We urge that the BIE school system be exempted from any further
    reductions in Federal spending, we highlight below four of the most
    pressing areas of need that directly impact our schools' educational
    programs, facilities, student transportation, and administrative
    management.
                           tribal grant support costs
        Since the 1988 Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    reauthorization, tribally operated elementary and secondary schools
    have received funding for the administrative expenses incurred for the
    operation of BIE-funded schools through an Administrative Cost Grant,
    now called Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC). These funds are used for
    costs of essential services such as contract/grant administration;
    program planning and development; human resources; insurance; fiscal,
    procurement, and property management; required annual audits;
    recordkeeping; and legal, security and other overhead services.
        Impact.--Since TGSC appropriations have historically been
    insufficient to meet the level of need without other sources of
    revenue, we must re-direct more and more funds from our education
    program budgets to cover essential administrative costs. Our schools
    must make difficult decisions--such as delaying purchase of new
    textbooks and other materials, paying non-competitive teacher salaries,
    reducing the number school days--to fit within these reduced budgets.
    Even with these cost-saving measures, some schools are still struggling
    with further reductions in management and business-office personnel at
    the risk of prudent internal controls and meeting the federally
    mandated requirements for fiscal processes and operation of education
    grants/programs. TGSC is forward-funded, so the fiscal year 2016
    appropriation would provide TGSC funds for school year 2016-2017.
        We are gratified that this year the administration proposes to
    follow through on commitments to pay full TGSC funding for all BIE-
    funded schools, and to include in its request sufficient funding for
    schools that are deciding to transition to grant or contact school
    status. Up until last year, schools had only received, at most, two-
    thirds of the TGSC needed to cover overhead costs. ANCCSB applauds this
    subcommittee's and the administration's decision to treat schools'
    support costs the same as contractors with the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    and the Indian Health Service.
        Request.--We fully support the administration's proposal that TGSC
    and startup costs be funded at $75.34 million, and request that this
    subcommittee provide this level of funding for TGSC.
                     facilities operations and maintenance
        Facilities Maintenance funds are intended to provide for the
    preventative, routine, and unscheduled maintenance for all school
    buildings, equipment, utility systems, and ground structures. The
    fiscal year 2016 Facilities Maintenance request contains a $10 million
    proposed increase, which is a marked improvement from its current
    level, but will not meet the needs of our schools or others. We are
    faced with rising costs of maintaining school buildings--particularly
    for the older facilities that make up much of the BIE schools.
        There are numerous studies which attest to the fact that there is a
    close correlation between poor or inadequate facility conditions and
    poor student and staff performance. According to the administration's
    fiscal year 2016 request, 42 of the 183 BIE-funded schools and
    dormitories (one-third) are still rated in ``poor'' condition in the
    Bureau's Education Facility Condition Index (FCI). Further, the
    administration's fiscal year 2016 request elaborates that there is
    $377.1 million in deferred maintenance backlogs! It is clear that there
    is a long way to go with regard to upkeep of our schools. Part of the
    maintenance problem will be solved by replacing school wholesale, but
    Federal resources for this crucial need must increase so our schools
    buildings can make it to their replacement date.
        Facilities Operations funding is for the ongoing operational
    expenses such as electricity, heating fuels, custodial services,
    communications, refuse collection, water and sewer service, grounds
    maintenance, etc. This budget category is also underfunded, with the
    latest estimates indicating that Federal funds provide only an
    estimated 46 percent of need. This is the first year the administration
    requests funds that will be over the recent high-water mark of $59.4
    million from fiscal year 2010, as the proposed budget contains $66.1
    million for Facilities Operations. However, this level is still only 60
    percent of the need.
        Impact.--Our schools are making every effort to make do with the
    meager facilities funding. Since we cannot delay paying our utilities
    or avoid taking actions that would impact student safety, we often have
    to resort to using our other education or academic program monies. We
    caution that insufficient funding to for facilities maintenance and
    operations will mean delaying routine, as well as unscheduled,
    maintenance of buildings, equipment, utility systems and grounds--
    thereby jeopardizing student and staff safety. Attempts to moderate
    electrical and/or heating costs, or reduce custodial and refuse
    services and similar costs cutting measures would only make our already
    compromised learning conditions more uncomfortable and unhealthy for
    students and staff. If we cannot provide a decent learning environment,
    how can we expect our students to focus on achieving academic success?
        Request.--To fully fund Facilities Maintenance would require $76
    million, and $109.8 million would be needed to fully fund Facilities
    Operations.
                             student transportation
        The Student Transportation account is intended to cover: (1) the
    costs of the daily bus services for children attending the BIE-funded
    elementary and secondary schools; and (2) air travel for children who
    attend distant boarding schools. School transportation costs include
    vehicle rental (buses, vans), maintenance and repair, fuel, and
    qualified bus driver salaries. The BIE budget justification states that
    students at BIE-funded schools travel 16 percent of their miles on
    unimproved roads, and that the BIE-funded schools have transportation
    routes where the mileage covered is ``significantly higher than in
    metropolitan areas.''
        For the schools located on the Navajo Reservation, the percentage
    of unimproved roads traveled by our buses is much higher and in some
    cases it can be as much as 90 percent. Further, these unpaved roads are
    often subject to becoming ``washboards'' due to adverse weather impacts
    such as mud and snow. At times these roads become impassable so we must
    resort to using 4-wheel drive vehicles to ferry the students to a
    waiting bus. There have been times, however, when even the 4-wheel
    vehicles cannot reach the students so they are prevented from making it
    to class through no fault of their own. These conditions take a
    tremendous toll on vehicles, resulting in greater maintenance and
    repair costs, and greatly increase student travel time as well as the
    drivers' work day.
        The administration must be aware of the enormous increases in costs
    over the past several years. Nonetheless, the administration seeks a
    paltry increase of $197,000 in the proposed fiscal year 2016 budget.
    The administration's proposal will prevent our schools from making any
    forward progress on safely and reliably getting our children to school.
        From our experience, the 66 BIE-funded schools on the Navajo
    Reservation must supplement our Student Transportation allocated
    amounts by at least $70,000 to $100,000 each year. The best estimates
    show that there is a $21 million shortfall in funding for Student
    Transportation as the BIE has allowed funding to fall far behind need,
    and has been willing to allow schools to poach other school funds for
    transportation purposes. This, in the face of multiple challenges for
    schools at Navajo, including transporting students to/from evaluations
    to determine eligibility for Special Education services (when
    evaluators will not drive to our remote areas to conduct assessments),
    additional bus runs related to after-school academic services (many
    parents lack transportation or are not employed close-by to pick up
    children), and extra miles traveled around washouts or road hazards.
        Impact.--As with the other program shortages, varied cost cutting
    measures have been instituted--from reducing the number of bus routes
    (resulting in longer rides for our students) to delaying vehicle
    replacements as long as possible. Nonetheless, underfunding Student
    Transportation will continue to adversely impact classroom programs
    since each year schools have no choice but to use scarce education
    program dollars to subsidize transportation costs.
        Request.--We request that the subcommittee provide at least $73
    million for Student Transportation in the BIE system.
                   indian school equalization formula (isef)
        The Indian School Equalization Formula (ISEF) is the core budget
    account for Educational and Residential programs of the BIE elementary
    and secondary schools and dormitories. These funds are used for
    instructional programs at BIE-funded schools and residential programs
    at dormitories, and include salaries of teachers, educational
    technicians, principals, and other school-level program administration,
    kitchen, and dormitory staff. The ISEF amount due to each school is
    determined by a statutorily mandated formula established by regulation
    (24 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 39.12(g)(1)-(2), 39.13, & 39.14).
        During the eight-year period of fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year
    2010, the ISEF account increased by almost $45.5 million; but in only
    two (2) of those years--fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010--the
    increase was actually an increase in program funding. For the other
    years, the requested increases were limited to amounts needed for fixed
    costs and related changes, as opposed to actual program increases.
    Funding for ISEF began to fall in fiscal year 2011, and the fiscal year
    2015 level was actually $5 million less than in fiscal year 2010.
        Impact.--For most BIE-funded schools, the chronic shortfall in the
    other key school accounts has a negative impact on ISEF funding,
    because ISEF funds are often diverted to make up the shortfalls in
    other accounts such as Student Transportation, Facilities, and Tribal
    Grant Support Costs when a tribe or tribal school board has no other
    source of revenue to satisfy those shortfalls. This means fewer dollars
    are available for the education and residential programs.
        Request.--The administration's proposal of $391.8 million for ISEF
    restores the funding to fiscal year 2010 levels, but does not
    acknowledge the shortfalls that have been building for years. ANCCSB
    Members Schools respectfully request funding of ISEF at least $431
    million.
                                   conclusion
        Thank you Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, and members of
    this subcommittee for the opportunity to relay our needs to you.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Association of Public and Land-Grant
              Universities (APLU) Board on Natural Resources (BNR)
        On behalf of the APLU Board on Natural Resources (BNR), we thank
    you for your support of science and research programs within the United
    States Geological Survey (USGS). We appreciate the opportunity to
    provide recommendations for the following programs within USGS: $8.8
    million for the Water Resources Research Institutes and $18.6 million
    for the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units.
        APLU BNR requests $8.8 million for the Water Resources Research
    Institutes (WRRI). The APLU BNR request is based on the following:
    $7,000,000 in base grants for the WRRI as authorized by section 104(b)
    of the Water Resources Research Act, including State-based competitive
    grants; $1,500,000 to support activities authorized by section 104(g)
    of the Act, which is a competitive matching grants program that
    addresses national and regional water issues and $300,000 to support
    USGS administrative costs. Federal funding for the WRRI program is the
    catalyst that moves States and cities to invest in university-based
    research to address their own water management issues. State WRRIs take
    the relatively modest amount of Federal funding appropriated, match it
    2:1 with State, local and other funds and use it to put university
    scientists to work finding solutions to the most pressing local and
    State water problems that are of national importance. The Institutes
    have raised more than $16 in other funds for every dollar funded
    through this program. The added benefit is that often research to
    address State and local problems helps solve problems that are of
    regional and national importance. Many of the projects funded through
    this program provide the knowledge for State or local managers to
    implement new Federal laws and regulations. Perhaps most important, the
    Federal funding provides the driving force of collaboration in water
    research and education among local, State, Federal and university water
    professionals. This program is essential to solving State, regional and
    inter-jurisdictional water resources problems. As USGS itself has
    stated: ``The Water Institutes have developed a constituency and a
    program that far exceeds that supported by their direct Federal
    appropriations.''
        The institutes also train the next generation of water resource
    managers and scientists. Last year, these institutes provided research
    support for more than 1,400 undergraduate and graduate students at more
    than 150 universities studying water-related issues in the fields of
    agriculture, biology, chemistry, earth sciences, engineering and public
    policy. Institute-sponsored students receive training in both the
    classroom and the field, often working shoulder-to-shoulder with the
    top research scientists in their field on vanguard projects of
    significant regional importance.
        In addition to training students directly, Water Resources Research
    Institutes work with local residents to overcome water-related issues.
    For example, the California Institute for Water Resources, like most of
    its peers, holds field days, demonstrations, workshops, classes,
    Webinars, and offers other means of education in an effort to transfer
    their research findings to as many users as possible. Outreach that
    succeeds in changing a farmer's approach to nitrogen application or
    reducing a homeowner's misuse of lawn treatments can reduce the need
    for restrictive regulation.
        Below are some examples of work being done in various States:
      --The current drought in California is creating serious economic
            hardship for agricultural producers and local communities. The
            University of California's (UC) California Institute for Water
            Resources (CIWR) has responded by creating an information hub
            that is being accessed by agricultural and urban interests to
            gain vital information on how to adapt during the drought. This
            hub contains valuable information from multiple units within
            the UC system. It also brings together information on workshops
            and seminars (many of which are and will be provided in video
            form on the Web). In 2014, UC promoted and hosted over 150
            workshops and has more than 25 planned (ciwr.ucanr.edu). The
            CIWR has also produced a Webinar series of short (15-minute)
            talks with useful information on irrigation practices, salinity
            management, landscape management and more.
      --The Minnesota Water Resources Center has funded a number of
            research projects that address important, nationally relevant
            water resources issues with USGS/WRRA funding over the last 4
            years. This funding has been highly leveraged with university
            funds and the Minnesota Environmental Trust Fund. Researchers
            have addressed critical issues, including determining the
            biogeochemical variables that can be used to predict how much
            arsenic will get into groundwater used for drinking water, and
            determining the degree of antibiotic resistance in wastewater
            treatment plant effluent.
      --Researchers with the Idaho Water Resources Research Institute have
            collaborated with Idaho Department of Water Resources
            scientists to develop technology for assessing crop-water usage
            over large areas using satellite based remote-sensing
            information. This technology is now used routinely within the
            Idaho Department of Water Resources for investigating and
            resolving water rights conflicts, for aquifer depletion
            modeling and for stream flow management. This technology is
            also being adopted by 10 western States and parts of Africa,
            Europe and Australia.
        APLU BNR requests at least $18.6 million for the Cooperative Fish
    and Wildlife Research Units (CRU). This program: (1) trains the next
    generation of fisheries and wildlife managers; (2) conducts research
    designed to meet the needs of unit cooperators; and (3) provides
    technical assistance to State, Federal and other natural resource
    managers. Originally established in the 1930s to provide training for
    students in fisheries and wildlife biology, the units were formally
    recognized by the Cooperative Units Act of 1960 (Public Law 86-686).
    The CRUs provide experience and training for approximately 600 graduate
    students per year, a critical need as State and Federal workforces face
    unprecedented retirements over the next 5 to 10 years. The CRUs also
    provide valuable mission-oriented research for their biggest clients,
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and cooperating State agencies.
    Today, there are 40 Cooperative Research Units in 38 States.
        Each unit is a true Federal-State-university-private sector
    collaboration in that it is a partnership between the U. S. Geological
    Survey, a State natural resources management agency, a host university,
    and the Wildlife Management Institute. For every $1 the Federal
    Government puts into the program, $3 more are leveraged through the
    other partners. The U.S. economy has long relied on the bountiful
    natural resources bestowed upon this land. Federal investment in the
    CRUs will be returned many times over though the training of future
    natural resource managers who will guide the Nation in sustainable use
    of our natural resources. The research conducted by CRU scientists
    directly supports the difficult management challenges faced by natural
    resources managers. The examples below demonstrate the value of the
    CRUs to wildlife issues with local and national importance.
      --Minnesota: The Minnesota CRU is currently researching the olfactory
            sensitivity of Asian carps to putative sex pheromones. This
            work has recently received national attention, because Asian
            carps are an invasive species that threatens many of the
            Nation's freshwater native fishes through competition for food.
            The Minnesota CRU hopes to use the sex pheromones to attract
            and trap Asian carp, removing them permanently from the
            Nation's freshwater lakes and rivers. Minnesota CRU researchers
            are also studying human behavior, working to understand the
            motivations of agricultural producers enrolling in USDA water
            quality and wildlife habitat programs. They hope to gain
            insight into designing and developing programs, practices and
            messages that encourage broader participation in those
            programs.
      --Tennessee: In 2011, an estimated 826,293 anglers fished in
            Tennessee, creating an economic impact of nearly $1.3 billion
            for the State. The Tennessee CRU supports this economic driver
            by assessing fish stocks, working on recovery efforts for
            threatened and endangered species, providing research and
            technical assistance to support State decisions related to
            fishing. For example, research on sauger in the Tennessee River
            showed that minimum size requirements by the State were not
            leading to increased mortality of released fish below the
            minimum size. Their research also kept ``stinger'' hooks
            available for fishermen by showing they also did not contribute
            to increased mortality.
      --Oklahoma: The Oklahoma CRU is celebrating its seventh decade of
            activity. Since opening in 1948, the graduate students that
            conducted research at the CRU have completed over 400 theses
            and dissertations. One on-going research project is to gather
            an accurate count of the black bear population expansion out of
            Arkansas and into eastern Oklahoma. Wildlife managers need this
            information for appropriate management of the bear population
            now that black bear hunting has been reintroduced in Oklahoma.
        Based on the examples provided above, we urge you to support the
    Wildlife Cooperative Research Units and the Water Resources Research
    Institutes.
                 about aplu and the board on natural resources
        APLU's membership consists of 238 State universities, land-grant
    universities, State-university systems and related organizations. APLU
    institutions enroll more than 4.8 million undergraduate students and
    1.3 million graduate students, award 1.2 million degrees, and conduct
    $41 billion annually in university-based research annually. The Board's
    mission is to promote university-based programs dealing with natural
    resources, fisheries, wildlife, ecology, energy, and the environment.
    BNR representatives are chosen by their president's office to serve and
    currently number over 500 scientists and educators, who are some of the
    Nation's leading research and educational expertise in environmental
    and natural-resource disciplines.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Association of State Drinking Water
                                 Administrators
        The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA)
    respectfully submits the following recommendations for fiscal year 2016
    appropriations on behalf of the drinking water programs in the fifty
    States, territories, District of Columbia, and Navajo Nation.
        Summary of Request: ASDWA respectfully requests that, for fiscal
    year 2016, the subcommittee appropriate funding for three programs at
    levels commensurate with Federal expectations for performance; that
    ensure appropriate public health protection; and that will result in
    enhancing economic stability and prosperity in American cities and
    towns. ASDWA requests $200 million for the Public Water System
    Supervision (PWSS) program; $1.186 billion for the Drinking Water State
    Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) program; and $10 million for State drinking
    water program security initiatives. A more complete explanation of the
    needs represented by these requested amounts and their justification
    follows.
    overview: the importance of safe drinking water for our communities and
            the economy & the role of state drinking water programs
        States need increased Federal support to maintain public health
    protection and to support the needs of the water systems they oversee.
    State drinking water programs strive to meet the Nation's public health
    protection goals through two principal funding programs: the Public
    Water System Supervision Program (PWSS) and the Drinking Water State
    Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) Program. These two programs, with their
    attendant State match requirements, provide the means for States to
    work with drinking water utilities to ensure that American citizens can
    turn on their taps with confidence that the water is both safe to drink
    and the supply is adequate. In recent years, State drinking water
    programs have accepted additional responsibilities in the area of water
    system security that include working with all public water systems to
    ensure that critical drinking water infrastructure is protected; that
    plans are in place to respond to both natural and manmade disasters;
    and that communities are better positioned to support both physical and
    economic resilience in times of crisis.
        Vibrant and sustainable communities, their citizens, workforce, and
    businesses all depend on a safe, reliable, and adequate supply of
    drinking water. Economies only grow and sustain themselves when they
    have reliable water supplies. Over 90 percent of the population
    receives water used for bathing, cooking, and drinking from a public
    water system--overseen by State drinking water program personnel. Even
    people who have their own private wells will visit other homes,
    businesses, and institutions served by a public water system. As
    important as public water systems are to the quality of the water we
    drink and our health, the majority of water produced by public water
    systems is used by businesses for a variety of purposes, including
    processing, cooling, and product manufacturing. The availability of
    adequate supplies of safe water is often a critical factor in
    attracting new businesses to communities. Public water systems--as well
    as the cities, villages, schools, and businesses they support--rely on
    State drinking water programs to ensure they are in compliance with all
    applicable Federal requirements and the water is safe to drink. Several
    recent incidents in the U.S. have led to illnesses, death, or
    prohibitions against use, due to unsafe drinking water. These have
    included deaths in several States due to microbiological contaminants;
    unsafe drinking water in Charleston, West Virginia for over a week due
    to an upstream chemical spill; and unsafe drinking water in Toledo,
    Ohio for over a day due to algal toxins. These incidents serve as stark
    reminders of the critical nature of the work that State drinking water
    programs do--every day--and the reason why State drinking water
    programs must be adequately funded.
    state drinking water programs: how they operate, why support is needed,
                    and justifications for requested amounts
    The Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program
        How the PWSS Program Operates.--To meet the requirements of the
    Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), States have accepted primary
    enforcement responsibility for oversight of regulatory compliance and
    technical assistance efforts for over 155,000 public water systems to
    ensure that potential health-based violations do not occur or are
    remedied in a timely manner. Over 90 contaminants are regulated in
    Federal drinking water regulations and the pace of regulatory activity
    has accelerated in recent years. Beyond the contaminants covered by
    Federal drinking water regulations, States are also implementing an
    array of proactive initiatives to protect public health from ``source
    to tap.'' These include source water assessments and protections for
    communities and watersheds; technical assistance for water treatment
    and distribution for challenged utilities; and enhancement of overall
    water system performance. In recent years, States have also taken on an
    increasingly prominent role in working with Federal and local partners
    to help ensure sufficient water quantity. In short, State activities go
    well beyond simply ensuring compliance at the tap--and, States perform
    all of these tasks more efficiently and cheaply than would be the case
    if the program were federally implemented. Well supported State
    drinking water programs are a good deal for America.
        Why Adequate Support is Needed.--Simply put, State drinking water
    programs are extremely hard pressed financially and the funding gap
    continues to grow. States must accomplish all of the above-described
    activities--and take on new responsibilities--in the context of a
    challenging economic climate. State funding has historically
    compensated for inadequate Federal funding, but State budgets have been
    less able to bridge this funding gap in recent years. State drinking
    water programs have often been expected to do more with less and States
    have always responded with commitment and integrity but they are
    currently stretched to the breaking point. Insufficient Federal support
    for this critical program increases the likelihood of contamination
    events that puts the public's health at risk. $101.9 million was
    appropriated for the PWSS program in fiscal year 2015 and the
    administration requested only $109.7 million in fiscal year 2016 (or,
    on average, a paltry $2 million per State per year). These amounts are
    woefully inadequate for the enormity of the task faced by State
    drinking water programs. We believe, based on our rigorous assessment
    of every State's need (in a report we released in January 2014), that
    at least twice that amount is needed. Inadequate Federal funding for
    State drinking water programs has a number of negative consequences.
    Many States are simply unable to implement major provisions of the
    newer regulations, leaving the work undone or ceding the responsibility
    back to EPA, which is also challenged by the Agency's own resource
    constraints and lack of ``on the ground'' expertise. States also want
    to offer the flexibilities allowed under existing rules to local water
    systems. However, fewer State resources mean less opportunity to work
    one-on-one with water systems to meet their individual needs. This
    situation has created a significant implementation crisis in several
    regions of the country and is ultimately delaying or hampering
    implementation of critically needed public health protections.
        For the PWSS Program in fiscal year 2016, ASDWA Respectfully
    Requests $200 million.--The number of regulations requiring State
    implementation and oversight as well as performance expectations
    continue to grow while at the same time, the Federal funding support
    necessary to maintain compliance levels and meet expectations has been
    essentially ``flat-lined.'' Inflation has further eroded these
    inadequate funding levels. The recommended amount is based on ASDWA's
    aforementioned January 2014 resource needs report and begins to fill
    the above-described resource gap. These funds are urgently needed for
    implementing new drinking water rules, taking on a number of other new
    initiatives, and to account for the eroding effects of inflation. We
    further recommend that Congress not allow any Federal funds already
    appropriated to State drinking water programs to be rescinded.
          the drinking water state revolving loan fund (dwsrf) program
        How the DWSRF Program Operates.--Drinking water in the U.S. is
    among the safest and most reliable in the world, but it is threatened
    by aging infrastructure. Through loans provided by the DWSRF, States
    help water utilities overcome this threat. The historical payback to
    the DWSRF on this investment has been exceptional. In the core DWSRF
    program, $17.7 billion in cumulative Federal capitalization grants
    since 1997 have been leveraged by States into over $28 billion in
    infrastructure loans to small and large communities across the country.
    Such investments pay tremendous dividends--both in supporting our
    economy and in protecting our citizens' health. States have very
    effectively and efficiently leveraged Federal dollars with State
    contributions to provide assistance to more than 10,000 projects,
    improving health protection for millions of Americans. The U.S.
    Conference of Mayors estimates that each public dollar invested in
    water infrastructure increases private long-term Gross Domestic Product
    output by $6.35. An important feature of the DWSRF program is States
    ``set-aside'' funds and another key reason for adequately funding this
    critical program. States can reserve up to 31 percent of these funds
    for a variety of critical tasks, such as shoring up the technical,
    managerial, and financial capacity of public water systems. Set-asides
    are thus an essential source of funding for States' core public health
    protection programs and these efforts work in tandem with
    infrastructure loans.
        Drinking Water Infrastructure Investment is Well below the
    Documented Need.--The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the
    Nation's drinking water infrastructure a D+ grade and EPA's most recent
    National Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey (2011) indicated
    that drinking water system infrastructure needs total $384 billion over
    the next 20 years. The American Water Works Association recently
    estimated that 20 year need at $1 trillion (which more fully accounted
    for more of the water distribution system replacement costs).
    Investment is needed for aging treatment plants, storage tanks, pumps,
    and distribution lines that carry water to our Nation's homes,
    businesses and schools. The DWSRF must continue to be a key part of the
    solution to the Nation's infrastructure crisis.
        For the DWSRF Program in fiscal year 16, ASDWA respectfully
    requests $1.186 billion.--States were very encouraged by the $1.387
    billion appropriated for the DWSRF in fiscal year 2010 but have been
    disappointed by the subsequent downward trend--$963 million in fiscal
    year 2011, $919 million in fiscal year 2012, $854 million for fiscal
    year 2013 (a figure not seen since 2006), and, a somewhat better $907
    million in fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015. The primary purpose
    of the DWSRF is to improve public health protection by facilitating
    water system compliance with national primary drinking water
    regulations through the provision of loans to improve drinking water
    infrastructure. Water infrastructure is needed for public health
    protection as well as a sustainable economy, as explained above. In
    light of these indicators of success and documented needs, we believe
    funding at the $1.186 billion level--the level requested in the
    President's fiscal year 2016 budget--will better enable the DWSRF to
    meet the SDWA compliance and public health protection goals for which
    it was designed.
                     state drinking water security programs
        State Drinking Water Security Responsibilities.--State drinking
    water programs are critical partners in emergency planning, response,
    and resiliency at all levels of government. In fact, States are
    typically the critical nexus between Federal and local levels officials
    in emergency situations. State primacy agencies provide key resources
    and critical support--regardless of whether the emergency is rooted in
    terrorism, natural disasters, or cyber intrusions. States continually
    work toward integrating security considerations throughout all aspects
    of their drinking water programs.
        State Drinking Water Security Funds Are Urgently Needed.--After 7
    years of Congressional support for State security programs through a
    small grant of approximately $5 million in EPA's appropriations (from
    fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2008), no funds have been provided
    for this purpose since fiscal year 2009 and none are requested by the
    administration for fiscal year 2015. It is very difficult to understand
    why this small, but essential grant to States has been zeroed out of
    EPA's proposed budget and why Congress has not supported State drinking
    water security programs. State drinking water programs urgently need
    funds to continue to maintain and expand their security activities,
    particularly in partnership with small and medium public water systems.
        For State Drinking Water Security Programs in fiscal year 16, ASDWA
    Respectfully Requests $10 million.--Given the realities and the lessons
    learned from recent catastrophic events such as Hurricane Sandy in New
    York and New Jersey; tornados in central Oklahoma; wildfires and floods
    in Colorado; and continuing drought in California and Texas--to name
    but a few--State drinking water programs are working more closely than
    ever with their water utilities to evaluate, assist, and support
    drinking water systems' preparedness, response, and resiliency
    capabilities. States continue to expand their efforts to reflect a
    resilient, ``all hazards'' approach to water security and to assist
    public water systems of all sizes--with a particular focus on smaller
    water systems that most need help.
        Conclusion.--ASDWA respectfully recommends that the Federal fiscal
    year 2016 budget needs for States' role in the provision of safe
    drinking water be adequately funded by Congress. A strong State
    drinking water program supported by the Federal-State partnership will
    ensure that the quality of drinking water in this country will not
    deteriorate and, in fact, will continue to improve--so that the public
    can be assured that a glass of water is safe to drink no matter where
    they travel or live. States are willing and committed partners.
    However, additional Federal financial assistance is needed to meet
    ongoing and ever growing regulatory, infrastructure, and security
    needs. In 1996, Congress provided the authority to ensure that the
    burden would not go unsupported. For fiscal year 2016, ASDWA asks that
    the promise of that support be realized.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums
        Thank you Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall for
    allowing me to submit written testimony on behalf of the Nation's 215
    AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums. Specifically, I want to express my
    support for the inclusion of $11,100,000 for the Multinational Species
    Conservation Funds (MSCF) operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service and $11,000,000 for National Environmental Education Act
    programs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the fiscal
    year 2016 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations
    bill.
        Founded in 1924, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) is a
    nonprofit 501c(3) organization dedicated to the advancement of zoos and
    aquariums in the areas of conservation, education, science, and
    recreation. AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums annually see more than
    180 million visitors, collectively generate more than $17 billion in
    annual economic activity, and support more than 165,000 jobs across the
    country. Annually, AZA-accredited institutions spend $160,000,000 on
    more than 2,650 field conservation projects in 130 countries.
        MSCF programs support public-private partnerships that conserve
    wild tigers, elephants, rhinos, great apes, and marine turtles in their
    native habitats. Through the MSCF programs, the United States
    supplements the efforts of developing countries that are struggling to
    balance the needs of their human populations and endemic wildlife. MSCF
    programs help to sustain wildlife populations, address threats such as
    illegal poaching, reduce human-wildlife conflict, and protect essential
    habitat. By working with local communities, they also improve people's
    livelihoods, contribute to local and regional stability, and support
    U.S. security interests in impoverished regions. This Federal program
    benefits AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums in their field conservation
    efforts and partnerships with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        I also encourage you to continue to support the valuable
    environmental education initiatives at the EPA. Education programs at
    AZA-accredited institutions provide essential learning opportunities,
    particularly about science, for schoolchildren in formal and informal
    settings. Studies have shown that American schoolchildren are lagging
    behind their international peers in certain subjects including science
    and math. In the last 10 years, accredited zoos and aquariums formally
    trained more than 400,000 teachers, supporting science curricula with
    effective teaching materials and hands-on opportunities. School field
    trips annually connect more than 12,000,000 students with the natural
    world. Increasing access to formal and informal science education
    opportunities has never been more important.
        Finally, much of the important conservation work at accredited zoos
    and aquariums depends on a robust and fully staffed U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service. While I am aware of the budget challenges facing
    Congress and the agencies, I encourage you to ensure that the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service has sufficient resources to employ qualified
    professionals, particularly for the programs handling permits, which
    support the science-based conservation breeding and wildlife education
    programs that require animals to be moved in an efficient, timely
    manner: International Affairs (Management Authority), Endangered
    Species, Law Enforcement, and Migratory Birds.
        AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums are essential conservation and
    education partners at the Federal, State, and local levels domestically
    as well as internationally. To ensure that AZA-accredited zoos and
    aquariums can continue to serve in these important roles, I urge you to
    include $11,100,000 for the Multinational Species Conservation Funds
    operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and $11,000,000 for
    National Environmental Education Act programs at the Environmental
    Protection Agency in the fiscal year 2016 Interior, Environment, and
    Related Agencies appropriations bill.
        Thank you.

        [This statement was submitted by Jim Maddy, President and CEO.]
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Black Mesa Community School
        My name is Lorraine Yazzie, and I serve on the Board of the Black
    Mesa Community School, located in a remote mountainous area, 26 miles
    North of Pinon, Arizona. We are a community grant school, and have an
    enrollment of nearly 60 students in grades K-8th. Our community is
    small, but the Black Mesa Community School lies at the center of it,
    providing a space not only for children to learn, but for parents to
    participate alongside them.
        I testify during a time of both upheaval and promise in education
    for both Navajo and other Indian students. This subcommittee has shown
    an admirable commitment to Native schools with your recognition of
    needs in both program funding and facilities. The administration has
    paid more attention to the issue of Indian education in the last 2
    years than ever before, and has recognized the need to finish work on
    the now 11-year-old school replacement list. However, we recognize that
    with increased attention come new priorities and strategies, which
    could enhance our students' educational opportunities and safety or
    which could adversely impact our small community school depending on
    how these priorities are implemented. We submit this testimony with
    strong hope that our concerns will be considered and that through a
    partnership between the Congress, administration, tribes and schools we
    will succeed in improving Indian education policy by better addressing
    the needs of Native students.
        Our recommendations can be summarized as follows:
      --Increase ISEP funding to $431 million in fiscal year 2016.
      --Fund Student Transportation at $73 million, and BIA road
            maintenance at $40 million.
      --Fully fund Tribal Grant Support Costs and Fund Technology
            Improvements as proposed by the administration.
      --Provide $109 million for facilities operation and $76 million for
            facilities maintenance.
      --Embark on a comprehensive 60-year plan for school replacement and
            upkeep.
      --Protect school funding from the proposed Federal bureaucratic
            expansion.
    1. Increase Funding for Indian School Equalization Programs
        The most critical stream of funding for community grant schools
    like ours is increased funding in the Indian School Equalization
    Program (ISEP). The ISEP funds are those that schools use for their day
    to day operation, whether that is paying teachers and staff, purchasing
    curriculum and supplies, or running student programs.
        For years our ISEP funds have had to cover shortfalls due to the
    significant underfunding of grant support costs, facilities operations
    and maintenance, and school transportation. Thus, our need to use ISEP
    funds to paying utilities to ensure our students have heat or to repair
    one of our school buses has meant that we cannot provide retirement
    benefits to teachers and we must rely on part-time workers to perform
    vital staff services. The need for increases in our available ISEP
    funding is essential to attract and retain teachers for our school,
    since we are remote and some teachers find a small school environment
    challenging. We do not want to be in the situation where we are left
    only with those teachers who cannot find a job elsewhere.
        We also need teachers with the capacity to provide culturally
    appropriate bilingual education consistent with requirements of the
    Navajo Department of Education. We have seen important student
    performance successes thanks to bilingual and cultural education
    programs, but have no additional funding sources for training,
    curriculum development, teacher certification and professional
    development. ISEP funding increases are vital to enhancing learning
    opportunities for all of our students through the training, development
    and retention of excellent teachers.
        The subcommittee should be aware that due to funding limitations,
    year-after-year we have also been forced to go without a school nurse
    or any security personnel. Because ambulance service and law
    enforcement is more than 3 hours away, our school staff members are the
    first responders in our community. Additional ISEP funding is necessary
    so that we can employ a school nurse and security personnel. Inadequate
    funding for these positions must be corrected so that our small size
    and remote location does not make our students vulnerable.
        This year, we are gratified to see the administration has requested
    $391.8 million for ISEP funding, an increase of $5 million to the
    program. This will be an important improvement that we fully support.
    We also stress that ISEP is our schools' lifeblood, and we are still
    struggling to make up for losses in past years. We encourage the
    subcommittee to consider the National Congress of American Indians'
    (NCAI) recommendation of $431 million for ISEP funding.
    2. Increase Funding for Student Transportation
        One of our school's largest challenges is getting our children to
    school and back home. Our community is at high altitude, and our
    weather takes a toll on our roads. In turn, our roads take a toll on
    our school buses, particularly the computer sensors and electrical
    systems that are not designed for the punishing road conditions our
    buses face. Maintenance costs for our vehicles are higher than average
    for this reason and because maintaining our buses requires long
    transport trips to garages in Flagstaff and Gallup which are 150 and
    170 miles away, respectively. Furthermore, although we have the ability
    to perform many bus maintenance activities on site, we do not have the
    funding resources to meet the numerous Federal environmental
    requirements applicable to those maintenance activities. With funds
    stretched so thin, we struggle to get our students to extracurricular
    activities such as sports or field trips that students at non-Indian
    schools enjoy as an everyday convenience. The administration has
    requested $53.14 million for student transportation, but that is simply
    not enough given the challenges of our roads and equipment. We request
    at least $73 million for student transportation in the BIE system.
        We also request that this subcommittee fund BIA road maintenance at
    a sustainable level. For example, we had to cancel school on February
    25-27 and March 2, March 3, March 5, and March 6 because our roads were
    impassable--and we only had a half day on March 4. The condition of our
    roads is directly affecting our students' ability to learn. The
    administration has only requested an increase of $232,000 to the meager
    $26.5 million budget for road maintenance. We echo NCAI's
    recommendation that the subcommittee appropriate $40 million for road
    maintenance in fiscal year 2016.

    3.  We support the President's proposal to fully fund Tribal Grant
    Support Costs and Increase Technology Resources.

        Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC) (formerly known as Administrative
    Cost Grants) are the BIE analogue to Contract Support Costs, and are
    necessary for community grant schools like Black Mesa to operate their
    schools. Not only do the TGSC funds pay for the administration of the
    school, but also fund all indirect costs like payroll, accounting,
    insurance, background checks and other legal, reporting, and
    recordkeeping requirements. TGSC is also critical in order for schools
    to comply with the increasingly burdensome reporting requirements
    imposed by BIE and to comply with grant funding assurances, such as the
    extensive and costly measures required by the Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA).
        Black Mesa School wishes to underscore the importance of TGSC for
    small schools like ours. Although our student population and staffing
    numbers may be smaller than others, the administrative responsibilities
    that we must meet are the same as those of large schools. As a result,
    these administrative duties disproportionately affect us. This year,
    the administration has proposed to fully fund TGSC. Black Mesa
    Community School welcomes this important change, and applauds this
    subcommittee's and the administration's decision to treat schools'
    support costs the same as contractors with the BIA and the Indian
    Health Service. We support the administration's proposal that TGSC and
    startup costs be funded at $75.34 million.
        Additionally, our limited Internet connectivity and no qualified
    computer technician requires members of our staff to travel 4 hours
    roundtrip on a weekly basis to obtain suitable Internet service to
    submit our school's required progress reports (Native STAR school
    improvement planning) and facilities management information system
    (FMIS). Our schools technology needs, only a daily basis, financial
    transaction/data (MIP Accounting software program), student information
    system (NASIS), transportation program, environmental compliance
    through the environmental management system (EMS), food service
    compliance through State Department of Education and related electronic
    sharing/reporting (i.e. fund drawdowns from ASAP/SAM, Clearinghouse to
    report our audits, etc.). Given our dependence on inadequate satellite
    Internet access and the increasing importance of Internet-based
    technologies in the classrooms and administration, we also fully
    support the President's call to expand access to broadband and other
    communications infrastructure and technology with a computer technician
    in every school.
    4. Our schools need full funding for Facilities Operation and
            Maintenance.
        The condition of BIE-funded schools has been the subject of
    national news attention for years. Some schools in the country are
    forced to teach their students in converted bus barns or go without hot
    water. We do the best we can with our facilities at Black Mesa School,
    but constantly struggle with the fact that we do not have enough
    funding for maintenance of our buildings, utilities, and every day
    repairs.
        The effective operation of our facilities is vital not only for the
    learning readiness and comfort of our students, but also to protect
    their health and safety. It is hard to learn and progress if you're too
    cold, or if the lights are dim or flickering. In the last year it was
    reviewed, the BIA listed our school condition as ``poor'' with a
    deferred maintenance backlog of over three-quarters of a million
    dollars. Our backlog has only grown in the intervening 4 years, and our
    students are the ones who suffer as a result. Our facilities face
    significant budgetary challenges, especially as EPA compliance
    requirements must be given priority attention to avoid citations.
    Meanwhile, because Facilities Operation and Maintenance funding for BIE
    schools is allocated based upon square footage, our small school
    receives insufficient funds to meet Federal environmental compliance
    requirements while also covering immediate health, safety and
    maintenance needs.
        We appreciate that the administration has finally moved to complete
    the replacement of schools on a list dated from 2004, but we need to
    stress that these needs are ongoing. Further, it is critical for our
    schools to have the funds to maintain and thus lengthen the useful life
    of our facilities. We support the BIE's request for school
    construction, but request that funding for facilities operation and
    maintenance be increased to $109 million for operations and $76 million
    for maintenance. This will help us meet our ongoing needs, and will set
    us on the path to catching up with deferred maintenance from past
    years.
        We also note that the completion of the 2004 school replacement
    list means that a new round of replacements will begin. We encourage
    this subcommittee and BIE to work together with schools and tribes to
    establish a comprehensive, long-term plan for school construction and
    maintenance. We call on the subcommittee to embark on a 60-year schools
    replacement plan with adequate funding to maintain buildings throughout
    their life. Recent testimony from the Government Accountability Office
    reported that even new construction is starting to fail due to
    inappropriate maintenance or poor construction oversight. Our school
    wants to protect the Federal investment in our students' education, and
    we ask the subcommittee to empower local communities to do so by
    removing and streamlining the bureaucratic hurdles in the facilities
    management system.
    5. Protecting School Funding and Programs from Federal Expansion
        You have heard over the last year from us and other schools about
    our concerns with the BIE's ``Blueprint for Reform'' and its ``One-
    Grant Initiative.'' We do not doubt the administration's commitment to
    Native students or improving the education outcomes at Indian schools--
    even the President himself has commented on the issue. We have a
    different perspective on what will be the best strategies to use to
    achieve that goal and we fear that our views are not being heard.
        Without delving into the detail of the Blueprint for Reform and the
    Secretarial Order that accompanied it in June of last year, we urge the
    limited amounts of new funding proposed by the President be directed to
    the community school level, not the BIE bureaucracy. Accordingly, we
    request that the subcommittee reprogram funds the administration has
    proposed for bureaucratic reforms (like those contained in the
    ``Enhancement'' line item of the budget) to ISEP and Facilities. Any
    funding for the BIE's internal reforms must come from outside the
    Indian budget realm--our funds are scarce as is, and must not be
    diverted away from students.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of John Bradley and Rebecca Bradley of Newark,
                                   California
        Dear Senators Feinstein and Boxer and Members of the Senate
    Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related
    Agencies:

        We urge you to support the President's 2016 budget request for
    $508.2 million for the National Wildlife Refuge System's Operations and
    Maintenance account. For too many years now our National Wildlife
    Refuge System has been operating on a shoe-string budget, trying
    diligently to respond to infrastructure maintenance needs, and working
    heroically with insufficient number of staff to provide us and our
    children with quality interpretation, environmental education, habitat
    protection and restoration, and access to wildlife.
        We urge you to reauthorize and fully fund the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund at $900 million per year, and provide $173.8 million
    of such funding in fiscal year 2016 for procurement of conservation
    easements and refuge in-holdings. We believe that we should be able to
    maintain existing infrastructure and run quality operations, and at the
    same time increase the number of acres that are protected for wildlife
    habitat by investing in conservation easements and purchasing land from
    willing sellers at fair market value.
        We ask you along with our local and county governments to
    appropriate $60 million for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund in fiscal
    year 2016, which offsets losses in tax revenue because lands owned by
    the Federal Government are exempt from property taxes. At the same time
    we are encouraged by the annual reporting that confirms the value which
    refuges provide to communities in economic terms, based on the spending
    patterns of citizens and others who visit refuges. Refuges are not only
    great for wildlife, they're often an asset to local economies. This is
    another reason why we think it is important to maintain infrastructure
    and services.
        Finally, we will plead with you and all your Senate colleagues, to
    pass a ``clean'' Appropriation bill, free from policy riders such as
    removing the Service's authority to establish new refuges
    administratively. This authority has been used by the executive
    department in a non-partisan way to establish 90 percent of all
    existing National Wildlife Refuges. It seems to us that appropriations
    bills are intended to address the annual monetary needs of our
    executive department, and are not meant to formulate or revise policy
    issues or prior legislation. We think such riders can be very
    distracting, counter-productive, and detrimental to responsible,
    efficient legislation and governance.
        We appreciate the opportunity to provide input into the
    appropriations process and try to make a difference for the natural
    heritage we all hold dear.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation
        The requests of the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation for the
    fiscal year 2016 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget and our comments on
    BIA Recognition are as follows:
      --Allocate at least an additional $12.5 million to the IHS to fully
            fund Village Built Clinic (VBC) leases and make it a line item
            in the budget.
      --Active support of the subcommittee to change Contract Support Costs
            funding to a mandatory funded basis.
      --Increased IHS behavioral healthcare funding.
      --Funding for built-in costs.
      --Department of Interior recognition of Knugank.
        The Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) was created in 1973
    to provide healthcare services to Alaska Natives of Southwest Alaska.
    BBAHC began operating and managing the Kanakanak Hospital and the
    Bristol Bay Service Unit for the IHS in 1980, and was the first tribal
    organization to do so under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act (ISDEAA). BBAHC is a co-signer to the Alaska Tribal
    Health Compact with the IHS under the ISDEAA and is now responsible for
    providing and promoting healthcare to the people of 34 Alaska Native
    Villages.
                             village built clinics
        In our Bristol Bay region, our Village Built Clinic (VBC)
    facilities continue to face a significant funding crisis. The VBCs are
    essential for maintaining our Community Health Aide/Practitioner (CHAP)
    programs in our villages. The CHAP program provides the only local
    source of healthcare for our Alaska Native people.
        Because the CHAPs could not operate in most of rural Alaska without
    clinic facilities in the Alaska Native villages, the IHS established
    the VBC leasing program in the 1970s, but the leases have been
    chronically underfunded. Moreover, IHS has taken the position that
    VBCs--unlike comparable facilities in the lower 48--are not eligible
    for maintenance and improvement funding, for which Congress
    appropriated over $53.6 million in fiscal year 2015. Current funding
    for the VBCs is not sufficient to cover the cost of repair and
    renovation as necessary to maintain the facilities in a safe condition.
    Many have been closed due to the hazards to the health service
    employees and patients, leaving villages without a clinic or access to
    CHAP services. Lease rental amounts for VBCs have failed to keep pace
    with costs; the majority of leases have not increased since 1989.
        A very recent estimate is that $12.5 million more per year, in
    addition to the current VBC allocation from IHS of about $4 million,
    would be needed to maintain and operate Alaska VBCs on a par with
    similar tribal health facilities elsewhere. Congress typically has not
    appropriated VBC funding as a separate line item. Instead, IHS
    allocates VBC lease funds from the Hospitals and Clinics line in its
    multi-billion-dollar lump-sum appropriation. This leaves IHS the
    discretion, in its view, to allocate however much--or little--it wishes
    to VBCs. Congress, of course, can override this discretion. We
    respectfully request that you direct IHS to (1) identify the amount
    needed to fully fund all Alaska VBCs, (2) request that amount in a
    separate line in the IHS budget, and (3) allocate that amount to the
    VBC lease program.
                    contract support costs mandatory funding
        We support the administration's proposal to fund Contract Support
    Costs (CSC) on a mandatory basis, although we urge, along with many
    other tribes and tribal organizations, that Congress enable it to
    become effective with fiscal year 2016. The administration's proposal
    differs from our and others in Indian Country proposal that CSC be
    funded indefinitely and not capped, but we gratefully acknowledge this
    proposal as a huge step for the administration. We are hopeful that the
    $718 million proposed for CSC funds for IHS will be sufficient for full
    funding for fiscal year 2016--a lot of work has gone into the estimated
    calculation and that should bode well for future estimates as well.
        We so appreciate your support for full funding of CSC and your
    blunt statement accompanying the fiscal year 2014 appropriations act
    that the legal obligation to fully fund CSC had put the House and
    Senate Committees in the ``untenable position of appropriating
    discretionary funds for the payment of any legally obligated contract
    support costs.''
        We ask for your active help in working with the Budget Committee
    and others in Congress who may want to weigh in on this proposal for
    mandatory CSC funding. You have had a great deal of experience in
    talking with Indian and Alaska Native leaders over the years about the
    frustrations and the inequity of tribes and tribal organizations who
    contract to assume administration of Federal programs not being paid
    for the costs to administer them. We know that member to member
    communications are of the utmost importance and you have much to offer
    others in Congress who will impact this proposal.
                   behavioral health/social services funding
        Alaska faces particular hardships in providing for our communities'
    behavioral and mental health needs. BBAHC has only one social service
    employee. There is a dire need for more prevention funding for suicide
    intervention as well as alcohol and substance abuse prevention,
    particularly for our youth. Alaska has twice the national rate of
    suicide, and ranks second in the Nation in suicide attempts requiring
    hospitalization. Alaska Native teens commit suicide at a rate nearly
    six times that of non-Native teenagers. Compounding and complicating
    the suicide epidemic is alcohol and substance abuse, a mental health
    disorder. The overwhelming majority of the people we lose to suicide
    suffer from diagnosable, treatable mental health or substance abuse
    problems. However, the waiting list for treatment averages nearly 9
    months, and due to lack of funding there is often no place to refer
    people, particularly young people.
        Thus we urge you to support the administration's Generations
    Indigeneous (or ``Gen-I'') proposal for increased resources for tribes
    to address youth behavioral, mental health and substance abuse and
    auxiliary issues. For the IHS, the Gen-I proposal would include a $25
    million increase in Substance Abuse Prevention account for additional
    behavioral health staff and for youth-focused programs. For the BIA the
    proposal is an increase of $15 million to expand the Tiwahe Initiative
    designed to address the inter-related problems of poverty, violence and
    substance abuse faced by Native communities. Of note, but not under
    this subcommittee's jurisdiction, is the request for a $25 million
    increase for SAMHSA as part of Gen-I--$10 million from the Mental
    Health account and $15 million from the Substance Abuse Prevention
    account.
                                 built-in costs
        We appreciate the administration's fiscal year 2016 request of
    $147.3 million for built-in costs consisting of $71.2 million for
    medical inflation at a 3.8 percent rate; $19.4 million for a 1.3
    percent pay raise; and $56.7 million to partially fund population
    growth ($70.3 million needed for full funding according to IHS) and
    urge Congress to fund this request.
        Built-in costs are often sacrificed in the budget negotiation
    process, but lack of them impacts all programs. Inflation--medical and
    non-medical; required pay raises, and population growth are real facts
    of life and affect our ability to provide sufficient healthcare
    services.
        While for fiscal year 2015 the administration requested $63 million
    for medical inflation and $2.6 million to partially fund pay raises,
    the final bill provided only $2.6 million for pay raises (estimated
    cost is $20 million) but no other built-in costs. For fiscal year 2014
    the only IHS built-in costs included in the appropriations act was $35
    million for medical inflation for the Purchased/Referred Care program.
    In fiscal year 2013 the only built-in costs provided was $1.7 million
    for a pay raise the Commissioned Corps program, and fiscal years 2011
    and 2012 appropriations acts were similarly bleak in terms of built-in
    costs funding. The cumulative effect of underfunding of built-in costs
    takes a toll.
                              knugank recognition
        We bring to your attention the efforts to get the Department of
    Interior to correct the omission of Knugank (which is in the Bristol
    Bay region) from the list of federally recognized tribes. We are
    supporting Knugank in this effort and are hopeful this this situation
    will be corrected soon although there has been a series of delays in
    issuing a decision.
        In a January 2012 letter to Senator Murkowski, the Assistant
    Secretary of Indian Affairs explained that Knugank could be added to
    the list of recognized tribes if it meets the standards established by
    Congress in Section 1 of the Alaska Amendment to the Indian
    Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. Sec. 473a). Several months later, the
    office of the Assistant Secretary agreed to evaluate Knugank's
    extensive documentation, and based on the statutory standards, issue a
    decision regarding Knugank's eligibility to be included on the list of
    recognized tribes. Several times we have been told that a decision
    (which we believe will be favorable to Knugank) is imminent and that
    all needed information has been provided. It appears that, despite the
    significant investments made over the course of many years by BBAHC,
    Knugank, Members of Congress and the Agency to resolve this matter, the
    Offices of the Solicitor and Assistant Secretary now seem unable to
    find the time to take the final steps to finalize a decision. We and
    our attorneys are in frequent communication with the Offices of the
    Solicitor and Assistant Secretary and can tell you that delays at this
    point are not about serious questions, but are due to an unwillingness
    to give the issue the attention it deserves.
        Knugank should be immediately added to the list of federally
    recognized tribes, affirming their eligibility to organize as a tribe
    under the standards and precedent established by the Alaska Amendment
    to the Indian Reorganization Act, thus allowing them their rightful
    government-to-government status and access to an array of Federal
    resources.
                                     other
        There is no room within the page limits to comment on every major
    issue of importance to us but want you to know that we join others in
    full support of extending the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, for
    establishment of Medicare-like Rates for non-hospital services thus
    stretching our Purchased/Referred Care dollars, and, as Congress has
    done for the Veterans Administration medical accounts, providing
    funding to IHS on an advance appropriations basis so that may have
    better lead time for our planning, budgeting, and purchasing processes
    and for our recruitment of personnel.
        Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and needs.

        [This statement was submitted by Robert J. Clark, President/CEO.]
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Central Arizona Project
        On behalf of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District
    (CAWCD), I encourage you to include $1.5 million for salinity specific
    projects in the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Soil, Water and Air
    Program in fiscal year 2016. This funding will help protect the water
    quality of the Colorado River that is used by approximately 40 million
    people for municipal and industrial purposes and used to irrigate
    approximately 4 million acres in the United States.
        CAWCD manages the Central Arizona Project, a multi-purpose water
    resource development and management project that delivers Colorado
    River water into central and southern Arizona. The largest supplier of
    renewable water in Arizona, CAP diverts an average of over 1.6 million
    acre-foot of Arizona's 2.8 million acre-foot Colorado River entitlement
    each year to municipal and industrial users, agricultural irrigation
    districts, and Indian communities.
        Our goal at CAP is to provide an affordable, reliable and
    sustainable supply of Colorado River water to a service area that
    includes more than 80 percent of Arizona's population.
        These renewable water supplies are critical to Arizona's economy
    and to the economies of Native American communities throughout the
    State. Nearly 90 percent of economic activity in the State of Arizona
    occurs within CAP's service area. CAP also helps the State of Arizona
    meet its water management and regulatory objectives of reducing
    groundwater use and ensuring availability of groundwater as a
    supplemental water supply during future droughts. Achieving and
    maintaining these water management objectives is critical to the long-
    term sustainability of a State as arid as Arizona.
                     negative impacts of concentrated salts
        Natural and man-induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates
    environmental and economic damages. EPA has identified that more than
    60 percent of the salt load of the Colorado River comes from natural
    sources. The majority of land within the Colorado River Basin is
    federally owned, much of which is administered by BLM. Human activity,
    principally irrigation, adds to salt load of the Colorado River.
    Further, natural and human activities concentrate the dissolved salts
    in the River.
        The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has estimated the
    current quantifiable damages at about $382 million per year to U.S.
    users with projections that damages would increase to more than $600
    million by 2035 if the program were not to continue. These damages
    include:
      --a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
            water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
            sector;
      --increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine
            disposal for recycling water in the municipal sector;
      --a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
            water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
            dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
            softeners in the household sector;
      --an increase in the cost of cooling operations and the cost of water
            softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
            commercial sector;
      --an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
            and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
      --a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
            utility sector; and
      --difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
            with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
            terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
            disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
            basins.
        Adequate funding for salinity control will prevent the water
    quality of the Colorado River from further degradation and avoid
    significant increases in economic damages to municipal, industrial and
    irrigation users.
        history of the blm colorado river basin salinity control program
        In implementing the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of
    1974, Congress recognized that most of the salts in the Colorado River
    originate from federally owned lands. Title I of the Salinity Control
    Act deals with the U.S. commitment to the quality of waters being
    delivered to Mexico. Title II of the Act deals with improving the
    quality of the water delivered to users in the United States. This
    testimony deals specific with Title II efforts. In 1984, Congress
    amended the Salinity Control Act and directed that the Secretary of the
    Interior develop a comprehensive program for minimizing salt
    contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by BLM.
        In 2000, Congress reiterated its directive to the Secretary and
    requested a report on the implementation of BLM's program (Public Law
    106-459). In 2003, BLM employed a Salinity Coordinator to increase BLM
    efforts in the Colorado River Basin and to pursue salinity control
    studies and to implement specific salinity control practices. With a
    significant portion of the salt load of the Colorado River coming from
    BLM administered lands, the BLM portion of the overall program is
    essential to the success of the effort. Inadequate BLM salinity control
    efforts will result in significant additional economic damages to water
    users downstream.
        The threat of salinity continues to be a concern in both the United
    States and Mexico. On November 20, 2012, a 5-year agreement, known as
    Minute 319, was signed between the U.S. and Mexico to guide future
    management of the Colorado River. Among the key issues addressed in
    Minute 319 included an agreement to maintain current salinity
    management and existing salinity standards. The CAWCD and other key
    water providers are committed to meeting these goals.
                                   conclusion
        Implementation of salinity control practices through BLM program
    has proven to be a very cost effective method of controlling the
    salinity of the Colorado River. In fact, the salt load of the Colorado
    River has now been reduced by roughly 1.2 million tons annually,
    reducing salinity in the Lower Basin by more than 100 ppm. However,
    shortfalls in funding levels have led to inefficiencies in the
    implementation of the overall program. Therefore, additional funding is
    required in 2014 to meet this goal and prevent further degradation of
    the quality of the Colorado River with a commensurate increase in
    downstream economic damages.
        The current drought that has significantly impacted the West
    affects the amount of and quality of available water, which in turn has
    the potential to exacerbate the salinity concentration levels. In
    addition to initiatives such as the Drought Response program and
    WaterSMART Grants, adequate funding for salinity control will prevent
    water quality of the Colorado River from further degradation and ensure
    the availability of supplies for future generations.
        CAWCD urges the subcommittee to include $1.5 million for salinity
    specific projects in the BLM's Soil, Water and Air Program. If adequate
    funds are not appropriated, significant damages from the higher salt
    concentrations in the water will be more widespread in the United
    States and Mexico.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority
                                   i. summary
        The Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority (CORA), on behalf of its
    five member Indian tribes, requests $54,463,464 in recurring base
    funding from the Department of Interior's fiscal year 2016
    appropriation bill, to support tribal natural resource management
    programs pursuant to two recently enacted Consent Decrees and support
    for all intertribal resource management organizations under
    ``Evaluation and Research Activities--Climate Change''.
        CORA is a coalition of five federally recognized Michigan tribes
    including, the Bay Mills Indian Community, the Grand Traverse Band of
    Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians,
    the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and the Sault Ste Marie
    Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
        The tribes are parties to the historic United States v. Michigan, a
    court case concerning the exercise of treaty-reserved fishing, hunting,
    and gathering rights as they pertain to Article 13 of the 1836 Treaty
    of Washington. Article 13 states that the tribes ``stipulate for the
    right of hunting on the lands ceded, with the other usual privileges of
    occupancy, until the land is required for settlement.''
                     ii. great lakes consent decree (2000)
        In 1979, following nearly a decade of litigation in State and
    Federal courts (United States v. Michigan), the Federal district court
    affirmed the existence of treaty-reserved fishing rights in the upper
    Great Lakes of Michigan. These court rulings also determined that the
    tribes could regulate and manage their respective members' fishing
    activities. Accordingly, the tribes have developed the biological,
    enforcement, and judicial programs necessary to properly protect and
    manage the Gieat Lakes fishery resource while continuing to exercise
    commercial and subsistence fishing activities.
        While these court decisions recognized that the tribes' right to
    utilize the Great Lakes fishery resource was in fact reserved in the
    1836 Treaty of Washington, the allocation of fishing opportunities
    among competing user groups, and the inter-jurisdictional management
    authority was not addressed. Subsequently, the seven parties to U S. v.
    Michigan, which included the five CORA tribes, the State of Michigan,
    and the United States initiated negotiations in the early 1980's that
    culminated in a 15-year court-ordered settlement in 1985. In 2000, the
    parties successfully renegotiated a comprehensive agreement that will
    govern allocation and management of the Great Lakes fishery resource
    through the year 2020. This agreement was entered into Federal court as
    a Consent Decree on August 8, 2000.
        The Great Lakes Consent Decree was a complex agreement that imposed
    many new management obligations on the parties, particularly the
    tribes. Recurring base funding levels for each tribe were established
    prior to adoption of the 2000 Great Lakes Consent Decree; however,
    since 2001, CORA has been annually requesting a modest increase in base
    funding to help the tribes accomplish the extensive mandates imposed by
    the Great Lakes Decree, and to offset over a decade of inflation.
                       iii. inland consent decree (2007)
        In the early 2000's, the parties to U.S. v Michigan, strongly
    desired to settle the Inland portion of the case through a joint
    agreement, rather than contentious and costly litigation, such as
    occurred during the Great Lakes phase. After some 2 years of complex
    negotiations, the parties were successful in negotiating an agreement
    that resolved the question of Inland treaty rights. This agreement was
    also entered into Federal law as a Consent Decree on November 2, 2007
    and has no expiration date. Similar to the Great Lakes Consent Decree,
    it describes the allocation, management, and enforcement processes that
    will govern the tribes' Inland (i.e. non-Great Lakes) treaty-reserved
    hunting, gathering, and fishing rights throughout nearly 14 million
    acres in northern Michigan. As with the Great Lakes Decree the Federal
    Government is a signatory party.
        The 2007 Inland Consent Decree is a comprehensive and complex
    document that resolves the final phase of U.S. v. Michigan. In order to
    achieve an agreement of this scope and magnitude, the CORA tribes made
    many concessions, assumptions, sub-agreements, and politically
    difficult changes in their natural resource harvesting activities and
    associated management structures, including the forfeiture of
    commercial opportunities. The Inland Consent Decree also establishes
    many new obligations and responsibilities for all parties. For the
    tribes, these responsibilities are heavily weighted toward development
    of regulations, biological monitoring and assessment, enforcement of
    the newly enacted regulations, and numerous inter-governmental
    processes; all of which impose a substantial and permanent financial
    burden for the tribes and of which Congress has provided initial
    dollars for the implementation of tribal programs.
        In order to meet the obligations mandated by the Inland Consent
    Decree, while providing for long-term sustainable use of the resources
    for the next seven generations, each of the tribes will need to
    establish a management capability in several core areas, including
    Conservation Enforcement, Biological Monitoring and Assessment, Tribal
    Court, and Administration. These dollars will assist with establishing
    management programs for each tribe under the 2007 Consent Decree to
    ensure that the tribes can meet their obligations.
                       iv. funding request justification
        Clearly, both the Great Lakes and Inland Consent Decrees represent
    landmark accomplishments in resolving disputes related to rights
    reserved in treaties between the United States and Indian tribes. These
    two Decrees cover the geographic majority of the State of Michigan and
    its Great Lakes waters; however, the viability and success of both the
    Great Lakes Decree and the new Inland Consent Decree hinges on the
    ability of all the parties (tribal, State, and Federal) to deliver
    effective resource management programs--and the onus is on the tribes.
        In order to properly meet the responsibilities and mandates
    associated with both the Great Lakes and Inland Consent Decrees, CORA
    requests funding for the following activities:
      --Maintain and provide the current recurring base funding for
            continued operation under the Great Lakes Consent Decree.
      --Maintain newly enacted recurring base funding level to support
            programs necessary for implementation of the 2007 Consent
            Decree.
        After making such landmark, long-term commitments, it is imperative
    that the tribes not be placed in a position where inadequate funding
    prohibits them from meeting their obligations, responsibilities, and
    opportunities under either the Inland or Great Lakes Consent Decrees.
    Adequate funding is absolutely critical to achieving the objectives and
    responsibilities described in both Consent Decrees; agreements that
    were designed to resolve complicated and culturally significant Treaty
    Rights issues. Moreover, failure to meet mandated obligations risks a
    ``re-opening'' of these negotiated agreements or, at a minimum,
    modifying certain terms of either Decree in a manner that would
    adversely affect the tribes' ability to exercise their treaty-reserved
    rights, or upset the delicate balance of allocation and management
    strategies among the parties, which of course, includes the Federal
    Government as a party. The CORA member tribes appreciate the initial
    dollars received which will assist with implementation of the 2007
    Inland Consent Decree.
     v. distribution of fiscal year 2016 funding request among cora tribes
        On behalf of CORA and its five member tribes, I would like to thank
    you for your past financial support, and request your continued support
    in fiscal year 2016 in maintaining CORA's current base funding for
    Great Lakes activities, and maintaining the newly enacted recurring
    base funding for implementing CORA's responsibilities under the Inland
    Consent Decree.
             vi. evaluation and research activities--climate change
        The CORA tribes respectfully request your support for fiscal year
    2016 RPI funding for all intertribal resource management organizations
    for the Climate Change line item and to provide to CORA its
    proportionate share of those funds. That amount is $398,464.00.

                                             2000 GREAT LAKES CONSENT DECREE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Great Lakes
                                                                                     Increase
                                                                                    ($14,000)        Total Request
                       CORA Member Tribe                      2014 Great Lakes      Requested         (Fiscal Year
                                                                                 Increase (Fiscal        2016)
                                                                                    Year 2015)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bay Mills..............................................           $845,430             $2,800           $848,230
    Little Traverse........................................            650,900              2,800            653,700
    Little River...........................................            650,900              2,800            653,700
    Sault Ste. Marie (OSG Base)............................            151,885              2,800            154,685
    Grand Traverse (OSG Base)..............................            151,885              2,800            154,685
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------
          Totals...........................................          2,451,000             14,000          2,465,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           2007 INLAND CONSENT DECREE
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bay Mills............................................           $320,000
    Little Traverse......................................            320,000
    Little River.........................................            320,000
    Sault Ste. Marie.....................................            320,000
    Grand Traverse.......................................            320,000
                                                          ------------------
          Total..........................................          1,600,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

         OSG CUMULATIVE BASE, WHICH IS NOT PART OF THE RIGHTS PROTECTION
                                  DISTRIBUTIONS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Chippewa/Ottawa Treaty
                Self-Governance Tribe                   Voight Non-TPA
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sault Ste. Marie (OSG Base).................                    $633,607
    Grand Traverse (05G Base)...................                     616,832
                                                 ---------------------------
          Subtotal..............................                   1,250,439
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Evaluation and Research Activities--Climate Change--CORA Tribes--
    $398,464
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
        Good morning to distinguished members of this subcommittee and a
    special congratulation to new members, Messrs. Derek Kilmer and Steve
    Israel. Thank you for inviting the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma to
    present oral testimony on the fiscal year 2016 President's proposed
    budgets for the Indian Health Service (IHS) and the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA). I submit this testimony which identifies the funding
    priorities and budget issues important to the Choctaw Nation and its
    citizens.
        This is a very important subcommittee for American Indians and
    Alaska Natives because you determine just how much funding will be
    appropriated for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health
    Service to support basic essential services for Indian people to
    fulfill the United States' trust responsibility. While there have been
    increases in both agencies over the past decade, tribal programs remain
    underfunded and tribes are expected to do more with less. We incurred
    the wrath of cuts from the 2013 sequester and we were hit with
    additional cuts in 2014 and 2015 to fully pay Contract Support Costs
    (CSC). We remain resilient and are optimistic that the fiscal year 2016
    President's budget proposal will address the long-term fix for CSC and
    bring attention to the forefront regarding the lack of budget equity
    for tribal program funding that has persisted for far too long. We want
    to rebuild our faith in the government-to-government relationship that
    we have invested in for many generations--but partnerships involve more
    than one party to make it happen!

        We recommend the following:
    INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
        1.  Joint Venture Program--Increase President's request to $100
    million.
        2.  Special Diabetes Program for Indians--Reauthorize for 5 years
    at $200 million/year for 5 years.
    INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE AND BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
        1.  Contract Support Costs--Fully fund in 2016 and shift into
    mandatory funding beginning in 2017 with 3-Year Spending Authority.
        2.  Exempt tribal government services and program funding from
    sequestrations, unilateral rescissions and budget cuts.
        3.  Provide funding increases--Office of Tribal Self-Governance
    (IHS) and the Office of Self-Governance (DOI) to fully staff to support
    the number of tribes entering Self-Governance.

        The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma is the third largest Native American
    tribal government in the United States, with over 208,000 members. The
    Choctaw Nation territory consists of all or part of 10 counties in
    southeast Oklahoma, and we are proudly one of the State's largest
    employers. The Nation operates numerous programs and services under
    Self-Governance compacts with the United States, including but not
    limited to: a sophisticated health system serving over 33,000 patients
    with a hospital in Talihina, Oklahoma, nine (9) outpatient clinics,
    referred specialty care and sanitation facilities construction; higher
    education; Johnson O'Malley program; housing improvement; child welfare
    and social services; law enforcement; and, many others. The Choctaw
    Nation has operated under the Self-Governance authority in the
    Department of the Interior (DOI) since 1994 and in the Department of
    Health and Human Services' IHS since 1995. As a Self-Governance tribe,
    the Nation is able to re-design programs to meet tribally specific
    needs without diminishing the United States' trust responsibility.
    Self-Governance is now a permanent reality for many tribes.
        In 2014 the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma was designated one of the
    five, and the only tribal, Promise Zones in the United States. The
    initiative will enhance cooperation between Federal agencies, local
    government branches, community advocates and the Choctaw Nation to
    focus on key areas that will contribute to economic growth and
    revitalize opportunities for a better quality of life in southeastern
    Oklahoma.
      joint venture construction program--increase president's request to
                                  $100 million
        The Joint Venture Construction Program (JVCP) is a unique
    opportunity for the Indian Health Service to partner with tribes and
    make scarce Federal dollars stretch much farther than in the
    traditional Federal construction programs. The President's proposed
    level of $18 million will not support the intent of the JVCP and should
    be increased to $100 million at a minimum. Tribes have taken on great
    risks in financing the construction of new or replacement facilities.
    These risks are taken with a commitment from the IHS to fund necessary
    staffing and operating costs upon completion of facility construction.
    Failure to fund staffing and operating costs in a sufficient and timely
    manner leaves tribes without the means to safely operate these
    facilities, compromising their ability to service loan agreements while
    jeopardizing the health and safety of our entire communities.
        In 2014 the Choctaw Nation applied for and was awarded a JVCP for a
    new Regional Health Care Facility in Durant, Oklahoma. There are no IHS
    facilities in the County and the 2014 estimated user population is
    6,939 with projected primary provider visits of almost 29,000 which
    speak volumes to the need. The Nation will design, construct, and equip
    the new facility consisting of 123,780 sq. ft. (11,500 sq. m) in size
    and it will be operated under the Nation's Self-Governance Agreement.
        Upon projected completion of construction the IHS agrees to request
    congressional appropriations for additional staffing and operations
    based on the tribes' projected dates of completion, beneficial
    occupancy and opening. Another key element to a successful JVCP
    partnership is full payment of Contract Support Costs (CSC). Without
    reimbursement of Contract Support Cost, offsetting program reductions
    must be made and services reduced. Upon entering into an agreement the
    IHS should include staffing and Contract Support Costs in the IHS
    annual appropriations requests to ensure that the facility can open and
    begin operations as planned.
    special diabetes program for indians--support 5-year reauthorization at
                               $200 million/year
        The Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) has been a top
    priority for the Choctaw Nation since it was initially authorized in
    1997. SDPI is currently reauthorized through March 31, 2015 at a flat-
    line rate of $150 million/year (since 2004). Continuing support of the
    SDPI will maintain critical momentum in diabetes research and care to
    help bring diabetes-related costs under control. The permanency of SDPI
    would be a great asset to promoting stability for this important health
    program and for reversing the trend of Type 2 diabetes in Indian
    Country. In addition it will provide for staff retention, programmatic
    long-term planning which increases and improves patient care, and more
    stable outside contracts with vendors and suppliers.
        Congressional funding remains the critical factor in the battle
    against diabetes and we request that as we continue to work for
    permanent authorization and mandatory program status, that you urge
    your colleagues to extend the reauthorization to 5 years and increase
    funding to $200 million/year for the SDPI program.
      contract support costs--full funding for bia and ihs in 2017 with 3-
                             year re-authorization
        Full funding of contract support costs in the fiscal year 2014 and
    fiscal year 2015 budgets was timely and appreciated, however it was at
    a price that severely impacted tribal program funding in both the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the IHS. The Choctaw Nation supports
    the President's fiscal year 2016 budget proposal which bears the likes
    of a two-prong conundrum: (1) obtaining fair compensation for past CSC
    shortfalls; and (2) ensuring full CSC funding for all contracts or
    Self-Governance compacts to manage programs previously administered by
    the Department of the Interior and Department of Health and Human
    Services. The law is very specific, ``Tribes contracting and compacting
    under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
    (ISDEAA) are entitled to full Contact Support Costs.''
        Today, we find ourselves at a place that many thought was not in
    the foreseeable future. However, a long-term proposed fix to fully fund
    CSC is underway. Over the years, both the BIA and IHS established CSC
    workgroups, consisting of tribal and Federal representatives, to work
    on resolving the CSC shortfall and to develop strategies to fully fund
    CSC. While many tribes have settled their CSC claims in IHS, it was an
    onerous and costly exercise for most of us.
        The Choctaw Nation engaged in negotiations with the IHS and because
    of the recalcitrance of the agency representatives, we had to engage
    legal counsel. The CSC shortfall due Choctaw was reduced to 75 percent
    after we incurred the legal cost, 25 percent, to get through the
    negotiations. The unfortunate part for the tribe is that the total
    amount paid by IHS was the ``original'' full CSC shortfall amount due
    to the Nation. However because of the haranguing and lack of
    facilitating in good-faith on behalf of the United States, the Nation
    did not receive the full 100%--simply put because we had to pay legal
    fees which should have been spent on services for tribal citizens.
        The BIA has been just as asinine. The Choctaw Nation cannot settle
    our claim because ``not all tribes [17]'' have negotiated their
    settlement and the agency is withholding ALL of the payments to avoid
    incurring overpayments to tribes. So rather than settle and close
    claims with tribes at the table, BIA has put a hold on payments unless
    settlements for all tribes have been negotiated. There is nothing in
    the law that allows the agency to withhold funds. Tribes continue to
    bear the brunt of their ineptness at math and their unwillingness to
    follow the intent of Congress and fully implement the law to pay ALL
    CSC claims.
        The Choctaw Nation asks that Congress directs the BIA and IHS to
    enter into these negotiations with the honor and respect intended by
    Congress and not to invoke its own judgement during these proceedings.
    Lawyers should not be factored into the government-to-government
    relationship that is between tribal governments and the United States.
          exempt tribal government services and program funding from
                                 sequestrations
        The Choctaw Nation requests that Congress exempts ALL tribal
    programs from future sequestrations, unilateral rescissions and budget
    cuts. American Indian and Alaska Natives are the most at risk
    population in the United States and we do not rebound from extreme
    cuts, such as the 2013 sequestration, in a few years because our
    programs are disproportionately underfunded. Traditionally, tribes have
    borne an unfair share of the budget deficits to our healthcare systems,
    law enforcement, education and essential governmental services, just to
    name a few. Sequestration reneges on the United States contract with
    tribal governments and cripples services and benefits to our citizens.
        We are continually subjected to the broken and empty promises by
    our Federal trustees. We ask the United States to step up and honor the
    agreements and treaties between our great Nations and protect the
    funding of Native American programs.
        The Choctaw Nation supports the budget requests of the National
    Congress of American Indians and the National Indian Health Board.
    Thank you.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Choose Clean Water Coalition
                                                          March 4, 2015
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Chair,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies,
    S-128 Capitol,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Tom Udall, Ranking Minority Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies,
    S-146A Capitol,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC.

        Dear Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:

        As members of the Choose Clean Water Coalition, we are requesting
    continued support for programs that are essential to maintaining and
    restoring clean water to the rivers and streams throughout the
    Chesapeake Bay region, and to the Bay itself. More than 11 million
    people in this region get their drinking water directly from the rivers
    and streams that flow through the cities, towns and farms throughout
    our region. The quality of this water is critical to both human health
    and to the regional economy.
        The efforts to clean the Chesapeake began under President Reagan in
    1983. In his 1984 State of the Union speech President Reagan said,
    ``Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative
    challenge, it's common sense.''
        To follow a common sense path to maintain healthy local water and
    restore Chesapeake Bay, which is critical for our regional economy, we
    request funding for the following programs in fiscal year 2016:
                      u.s. environmental protection agency
    Chesapeake Bay Program--$73.0 million
        We support level funding of $73.0 million for the base budget of
    the Chesapeake Bay Program, which coordinates Chesapeake Bay watershed
    restoration and protection efforts. The majority of the program's funds
    are passed through to the States and local communities for on-the-
    ground restoration work through programs such as the Small Watershed
    Grants, Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Grants, State
    Implementation Grants, and the Chesapeake Bay Regulatory and
    Accountability Program grants.
        We strongly oppose the $6 million cuts to the Chesapeake Small
    Watershed Grants and the Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction
    Grants that are in the President's 2016 budget request. Much of this
    money is proposed to be reallocated from on-the-ground restoration at
    the local level to personnel costs; contract support for permit
    reviews, rule implementation and enforcement; and the revision of 25
    management strategies.
        We urge you to retain the critical funding for both the Chesapeake
    Small Watershed Grants Program and the Innovative Nutrient and Sediment
    Reduction Grants--$6 million each. These are two well-run, competitive
    grant programs that have contributed significantly to water quality
    improvements throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These are the Bay
    Program's only grants that go to restoration efforts by local
    governments and communities. The President's budget offers no
    justification for the cuts and acknowledges that cutting these two
    grant programs ``. . . will reduce the number of restoration projects
    that watershed groups and local governments will be able to implement
    to reduce nutrient and sediment pollutant loadings to the Bay and its
    tributaries.'' This is not the time to stop local implementation of
    restoration work.
        We strongly support the language in last year's 2015 Consolidated
    and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, where Congress protected
    these critical local grant programs: ``The bill provides $73,000,000.
    From within the amount, the Committees direct $6,000,000 for nutrient
    and sediment removal grants and $6,000,000 for small watershed grants
    to control polluted runoff from urban, suburban and agricultural lands,
    and include no further directives.'' We urge you to retain the same
    language in the fiscal year 2016 Interior, Environment and Related
    Agencies Appropriations Bill.
    Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) --$1.448887 billion
        This program is critical to the 1,779 local governments throughout
    the Chesapeake region. The funding level has eroded over the years as
    the clean water needs of local communities have increased dramatically,
    but Congress has stabilized this important program for the past few
    years and we urge you to do so again in fiscal year 2016. These low
    interest loans are critical for clean water and for ratepayers in the
    Chesapeake region and nationwide. We urge you to support the same
    funding level as fiscal year 2015 that provided $312 million in low
    interest loans to local governments in Delaware, Maryland, New York,
    Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. The
    President's 2016 budget request would cut $73.748 million from those
    six Chesapeake watershed States and the District of Columbia--a drastic
    23.6 percent cut. The SRF allocates money to the States based on a set
    formula, which is then used for low interest loans to local governments
    for critical capital construction improvement projects to reduce
    nutrient and sediment pollution from wastewater treatment and
    stormwater facilities; nonpoint sources of pollution, such as farms and
    development; and other sources. The SRF enables local governments in
    the Chesapeake watershed to take actions to protect their local waters
    to meet Clean Water Act requirements. As the list of clean water
    infrastructure needs in the Chesapeake region continues to expand we
    request that the Clean Water SRF not be cut in 2016.
                           department of the interior
    U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)--Chesapeake Bay Studies--$11.689 million
        We support the President's 2016 budget request of $11.689 million
    for the USGS to provide the critical science necessary for restoration
    and protection efforts in the Chesapeake Bay region, and to implement
    the 2014 Chesapeake Watershed Agreement. This includes $500,000 to
    collect land-elevation data needed for water-quality and sea-level rise
    investigations. This would allow the USGS to systematically collect and
    manage high-quality elevation data for the eastern shore of the
    Chesapeake Bay--in Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. The results will
    help the Chesapeake Bay Program to develop high-resolution, land-cover
    information to more effectively place conservation practices to improve
    water quality and help conserve healthy watersheds.
        The USGS will focus on: (1) understanding the factors affecting
    freshwater fisheries and streams, including the effects of shale-gas
    drilling; (2) identifying sources and effects of endocrine-disrupting
    compounds and other contaminants that threaten fisheries and wildlife;
    (3) modeling the effects of sea-level rise on coastal wetlands near
    wildlife refuges important for waterfowl; (4) forecasting the effects
    of land and climate change to inform land conservation; and (5)
    monitoring and explaining water-quality response to reduce nutrient and
    sediment reduction practices.
    National Park Service--Chesapeake Regional Programs--$3.036 million
        The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Office runs a number of
    small, but very important programs that focus on increasing public
    access and the use of ecological, cultural and historic resources of
    the Chesapeake region. Expanding access and public awareness fosters
    stewardship and protection efforts.
        The key programs in the President's fiscal year 2016 budget request
    that we support are: Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Trails ($2,014,000);
    Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail ($387,000); Star
    Spangled Banner National Historic Trail ($151,000); and, support for
    coordinating these programs through the National Park Service
    Chesapeake Bay Office ($484,000).
           department of the interior/u.s. department of agriculture
    National Park Service/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Bureau of Land
            Management/U.S. Forest Service--Rivers of the Chesapeake
            Collaborative Landscape Planning Projects--Land and Water
            Conservation Fund--$33.326 million
        We support the President's 2016 budget that calls for the strategic
    use of funds for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and for the
    first time, requests funding for the Rivers of the Chesapeake
    Collaborative Landscape Planning initiative. This new effort targets
    conservation funds for priority landscapes throughout the country--and
    the Rivers of the Chesapeake is one of eight such priority areas. These
    projects will enhance public access and education, preserve key
    historic and heritage sites, conserve forests, and protect important
    freshwater and tidal habitat areas critical to migratory birds and
    economically important fish and shellfish.

                           Bureau of Land Management

        Nanjemoy National Resource Management Area (MD)--$191,000*
        Nanjemoy National Resource Management Area (MD)--$465,000
        Meadowood Special Recreation Management Area (VA)--$2.4 million*

                         U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

        Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge (MD)--$1.511 million*
        Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge (MD)--$1.9 million
        Rappahannock River National Wildlife Refuge (VA)--$1.6 million*
        Rappahannock River National Wildlife Refuge (VA)--$3.89 million
        James River National Wildlife Refuge (VA)--$950,000

                              U.S. Forest Service

        George Washington/Jefferson National Forests (VA)--$1.99 million*
        George Washington/Jefferson National Forests (VA)--$2.7 million
        George Washington/Jefferson National Forests (WV)--$3.0 million

                             National Park Service

        Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (DC/DE/MD/
                VA)--$2.237 million*
        Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (DC/DE/MD/
                VA)--$5.178 million
        Appalachian National Scenic Trail (VA)--$3.0 million
        Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historic Park (VA)--$500,000
        Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park (VA)--$1.814
                million

    * Indicates projects with Current/Discretionary Authority.

    National Park Service --Land Protection in Maryland and Pennsylvania
            through the Land and Water Conservation Fund--$856,000
        We support the President's 2016 budget that calls for the strategic
    use of funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to protect and
    preserve key assets in the National Park System at Gettysburg National
    Military Park ($285,000) in Pennsylvania and Piscataway Park ($571,000)
    in Maryland. These projects will enhance public access and education,
    preserve key historic and heritage sites and protect key habitat areas
    critical to an array of fish and wildlife species. Both of these
    projects have Current/Discretionary Authority.
        Thank you for your consideration of these very important requests
    to maintain funding for these programs which are critical to clean
    water throughout the mid-Atlantic region.

                Sincerely,

    1000 Friends of Maryland
    American Rivers
    Anacostia Watershed Society
    Audubon Naturalist Society
    Blue Heron Environmental Network, Inc.
    Blue Water Baltimore
    Blue Ridge Watershed Coalition
    Cacapon Institute
    Cecil Land Use Association
    Center for the Celebration of Creation
    Chapman Forest Foundation
    Chesapeake Bay Foundation
    Chesapeake Legal Alliance
    Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage
    Clean Water Action
    Delaware Nature Society
    Earth Forum of Howard County
    Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation
    Environment America
    Environment Maryland
    Environment New York
    Environment Virginia
    Float Fishermen of Virginia
    Friends of Lower Beaverdam Creek
    Friends of the Rappahannock
    Friends of the Rivers of Virginia
    Interfaith Partners for the Chesapeake
    Izaak Walton League of America
    James River Association
    Lackawanna River Corridor Association
    Lancaster Farmland Trust
    Little Falls Watershed Alliance
    Loudoun Wildlife Conservancy
    Maryland Academy of Science at the Maryland Science Center
    Maryland Conservation Council
    Maryland League of Conservation Voters
    Mattawoman Watershed Society
    Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy
    National Parks Conservation Association
    National Aquarium
    National Wildlife Federation
    Natural Resources Defense Council
    Nature Abounds
    PennEnvironment
    PennFuture
    Pennsylvania Council of Churches
    Pennsylvania Council of Trout Unlimited
    Piedmont Environmental Council
    Port Tobacco River Conservancy
    Potomac Conservancy
    Potomac Riverkeeper
    Prince William Conservation Alliance
    Queen Anne's Conservation Association
    Richmond Audubon Society
    Rivanna Conservation Society
    Riverkeepers Chesapeake
    Rock Creek Conservancy
    St. Mary's River Watershed Association
    Savage River Watershed Association
    Severn River Association
    Shenandoah Riverkeeper
    Shenandoah Valley Network
    Sidney Center Improvement Group
    Sierra Club, Maryland Chapter
    Sleepy Creek Watershed Association
    South River Federation
    Susquehanna Gateway Heritage Area
    Trash Free Maryland Alliance
    Trout Unlimited
    Upper Susquehanna Coalition
    Virginia Conservation Network
    West/Rhode Riverkeeper
    West Virginia Highlands Conservancy
    West Virginia Rivers Coalition
    Wicomico Environmental Trust
    Wild Virginia

                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Chugach Regional Resources Commission
        My name is Patty Brown-Schwalenberg. As Executive Director of the
    Chugach Regional Resources Commission (``CRRC''), located in Alaska, I
    am pleased to submit this testimony reflecting the needs, concerns and
    requests of CRRC regarding the proposed fiscal year 2016 budget. Like
    everyone, we are aware of the ongoing economic problems in the United
    States, and the growing concern over the Federal deficit. While the
    Government is trimming its spending, the Federal Government must still
    fulfill its legal and contractual spending obligations. The Bureau of
    Indian Affairs not only has a legal and contractual obligation to
    provide funding for the CRRC, but the CRRC is able to translate this
    funding into real economic opportunity for those living in the small
    Alaska Native villages located in Prince William Sound and Lower Cook
    Inlet.
        We describe first, our specific requests and recommendations on the
    budget, and then why these are so important to us and the Alaska Native
    Villages and their members who we serve.
                      budget requests and recommendations
        CRRC funding.--We are once again very pleased that the BIA has
    recognized the importance of natural resource funding for CRRC and has
    requested at least $410,000 for CRRC in fiscal year 2016 as part of the
    Trust-Natural Resources program, Tribal Management/Development
    subactivity. In its fiscal year 2016 Budget Justification, the BIA
    recognized CRRC's role in developing the capabilities of its member
    Alaska Native Villages to better facilitate their active participation
    in resource use and allocation issues in Alaska. We urge the
    subcommittee to include CRRC funding as proposed by the BIA.
        BIA Trust-Natural Resources Management.--We support the President's
    overall proposal to increase the BIA's Trust--Natural Resources
    Management programs, particularly the increases to Fish, Wildlife and
    Parks, and funding for projects that engage youth in the natural
    sciences and climate resiliency initiatives. We urge the subcommittee
    to support this funding and include it in the final bill.
        Contract Support Costs.--In regards to Contract Support Costs, we
    fully support the administration's proposal to fully fund Contract
    Support Costs.
                    justification for crrc's budget requests
        The importance of adequate funding for these programs is based on
    the following.

        Chugach Regional Resource Commission History and Purpose.--CRRC is
    a non-profit coalition of Alaska Native Villages, organized in 1987 by
    the seven Native Villages located in Prince William Sound and Lower
    Cook Inlet in south-central Alaska: Tatitlek Village IRA Council,
    Chenega IRA Council, Port Graham Village Council, Nanwalek IRA Council,
    Native Village of Eyak, Qutekcak Native Tribe, and Valdez Native Tribe.
    CRRC was created to address environmental and natural resources issues
    and to develop culturally sensitive economic projects at the community
    level to support the sustainable development of the region's natural
    resources. The Native Villages' action to create a separate entity
    demonstrates the level of concern and importance they hold for
    environmental and natural resource management and protection--the
    creation of CRRC ensured that natural resource and environmental issues
    received sufficient attention and focused funding. The BIA, in its
    Budget Justification, summarizes CRRC's work, stating

            Initially, the emphasis of the CRRC natural resource program
            was on the development of fisheries projects that would provide
            either an economic base for a village or create economic
            opportunities for tribal members. In fiscal year 1996, CRRC
            initiated a natural resource management program with the
            objective of establishing natural resource management
            capabilities in the villages to facilitate their active
            participation in resource use and allocation issues that affect
            the tribes and their members. The success of these programs
            from both an economic and a social standpoint have made them an
            integral part of overall tribal development.

        Through its many important programs, CRRC has provided employment
    for up to 35 Native people in the Chugach Region annually--an area that
    faces high levels of unemployment--through programs that conserve and
    restore our natural resources.
        An investment in CRRC has been translated into real economic
    opportunities, savings and community investments that have a great
    impact on the Chugach region. Our employees are able to earn a living
    to support their families, thereby removing them from the rolls of
    people needing State and Federal support. In turn, they are able to
    reinvest in the community, supporting the employment of and
    opportunities for other families. Our programs also support future
    economic and commercial opportunities for the region--protecting and
    developing our shellfish and other natural resources.

        Programs.--CRRC has leveraged its BIA funding into almost $2
    million annually to support its several community-based programs.
    Specifically, the base funding provided through BIA appropriation has
    allowed CRRC to maintain core administrative operations, and seek
    specific projects funding from other sources such as the Administration
    for Native Americans, the State of Alaska, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
    U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department
    of Education, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, the North
    Pacific Research Board and various foundations. This diverse funding
    pool has enabled CRRC to develop and operate several important programs
    that provide vital services, valuable products, and necessary
    employment and commercial opportunities. These programs include:
        Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery.--The Alutiiq Pride Shellfish
    Hatchery is the only shellfish hatchery in the State of Alaska. The
    20,000 square foot shellfish hatchery is located in Seward, Alaska, and
    houses shellfish seed, brood stock and algae production facilities.
    Alutiiq Pride is undertaking a hatchery nursery operation, as well as
    grow-out operation research to adapt mariculture techniques for the
    Alaskan Shellfish industry. The Hatchery is also conducting scientific
    research on blue and red king crab as part of a larger federally
    sponsored program. Alutiiq Pride has already been successful in
    culturing geoduck, oyster, littleneck clam, and razor clam species and
    is currently working on sea cucumbers. This research has the potential
    to dramatically increase commercial opportunities for the region in the
    future. The activities of Alutiiq Pride are especially important for
    this region considering it is the only shellfish hatchery in the State,
    and therefore the only organization in Alaska that can carry out this
    research and production.
        Natural resource curriculum development.--Partnering with the
    University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration, CRRC has developed and implemented a model
    curriculum in natural resource management for Alaska Native students.
    This curriculum integrates traditional knowledge with Western science.
    The goal of the program is to encourage more Native students to pursue
    careers in the sciences. In addition, we are working with the Native
    American Fish & Wildlife Society and tribes across the country
    (including Alaska) to develop a university level textbook to accompany
    these courses.
        In addition, we have completed a K-12 Science Curriculum for Alaska
    students that integrates Indigenous knowledge with western science.
    This curriculum is being piloted in various villages in Alaska and a
    thorough evaluation process will ensure its success and mobility to
    other schools in Alaska.
        Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council.--CRRC is a member of
    the Council responsible for setting regulations governing the spring
    harvest of migratory birds for Alaska Natives, as well as conducting
    harvest surveys and various research projects on migratory birds of
    conservation concern. Our participation in this statewide body ensures
    the legal harvest of migratory birds by Indigenous subsistence hunters
    in the Chugach Region.
        Statewide Subsistence Halibut Working Group.--CRRC participates in
    this working group, ensuring the halibut resources are secured for
    subsistence purposes, and to conduct harvest surveys in the Chugach
    Region.
                                   conclusion
        At the very least, we urge Congress to sustain the current level of
    funding of $410,000 included in the BIA's fiscal year 2016 budget for
    CRRC, but a modest increase in our funding will permit us to leverage
    those dollars to do more for the Alaska Native villages located in
    Prince William Sound and Lower Cook Inlet. With a five-to-one return on
    every Federal dollar invested in CRRC, we believe this to be a terrific
    return for the Federal Government and our communities.
        We appreciate the opportunity to submit this important testimony.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the City Parks Alliance
        Dear Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Mikulski:

        City Parks Alliance, the only independent national organization
    solely dedicated to urban parks, representing hundreds of park agencies
    and supporting nonprofit organizations, has great interest in the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and its equitable distribution to
    Federal, State, and urban parks. We are writing to you today to bring
    your attention to the lack of LWCF funds that reach urban communities.
        While 98 percent of our counties in the Nation have a park project
    funded by LWCF, what is often overlooked is that over the past 50 years
    urban parks have received less than 3 percent of the overall funds
    distributed through LWCF.
        Eighty percent of Americans live in cities and cities generate 85
    percent of our GDP. More than any other time in our history, cities are
    the engines generating our Nation's wealth. Strong cities are the key
    to keeping America competitive in the rapidly changing global economy.
    One of the most important but least recognized essentials to an
    attractive and healthy urban environment is a well-designed and well-
    maintained network of city parks--a vital component of any city's
    infrastructure. Parks support public health, workforce development,
    local economies, the environment, education, and community cohesion.
    They are critical to creating resilient, livable, and vibrant cities.
    LWCF funding is an essential resource for cities as they seek to
    develop new or revitalize existing urban parks, green spaces, and
    recreation opportunities.
        However, many cities continue to have deteriorated parks and
    recreation facilities and greatly need the additional funding to
    achieve demonstrated benefits. We support the recent grants to cities
    for park improvements provided by the National Park Service through the
    ``competitive grants'' component of the fiscal year 2014
    Appropriations. In the first year of this new program, approved by your
    subcommittee, $3 million was awarded to eight cities, including:
    Mobile, Alabama; Denver, Colorado; Bridgeport, Connecticut; Atlanta,
    Georgia; Detroit, Michigan; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Portland, Oregon;
    and Madison, Wisconsin. However, much more funding is needed.
        City Parks Alliance asks the subcommittee for a more equitable and
    robust distribution of LWCF to urban communities. When cities receive
    LWCF grants, those grants are matched and often leverage millions more
    in public and private investments. For example, LWCF's $1.2 million in
    grants for the South Platte River in Denver galvanized more than $2.5
    billion in local public and private funding, an investment that has
    revitalized Denver's downtown and continues to drive economic
    development and job creation. Greenville, South Carolina transformed
    its downtown by restoring Reedy River Falls Park, which was originally
    protected by a $16,000 LWCF grant. This park has now generated about
    $100 million in private investment in the adjacent area. There are many
    other examples across the country in cities large and small that show
    the true economic and health benefits that LWCF grants can have on
    communities.
        Indeed, the bipartisan Mayors for Parks Coalition, managed by City
    Parks Alliance, brings together mayors from around the country who have
    seen the success of LWCF-funded projects in their cities and are urging
    Congress to reauthorize and fully fund LWCF. Co-chairs of the 43-member
    coalition are Mayor Michael B. Hancock (D) of Denver, Colorado, and
    Mayor Betsy Price (R) of Fort Worth, Texas.
        In addition to urban parks, LWCF improves access to America's vast
    network of public lands, providing city dwellers greater opportunities
    to enjoy the mountains, deserts, and streams that are a day trip or
    less away. Proximity to public lands has shown to be an economic asset
    for cities across the country. The LWCF bolsters this asset for
    businesses and residents alike.
        City Parks Alliance praises the President's fiscal year 2016
    request of $5 million for the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership
    Program (ORLPP) and recognizes the transformative impact it will have
    in the few cities selected to benefit from this competitive pilot
    program. However, much more is needed to strengthen the health and
    future growth of our urban communities.
        We also praise the President's request of $25 million from LWCF by
    reestablishing the Urban Parks Recreation and Recovery (UPARR) program
    within the National Park Service.
        City Parks Alliance is conscious and respectful of the Federal
    budget challenges. But LWCF has been proven as a smart investment where
    funds can be leveraged effectively through public private partnerships.
    We look forward to working with you to provide more funding to urban
    communities where this public investment is critically needed.
        Thank you for your consideration.

        [This statement was submitted by Catherine Nagel, Executive
    Director.]
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Civil War Trust
                                  introduction
        Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide written testimony. My name is James Lighthizer,
    and I am the president of the Civil War Trust. I respectfully request
    that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Interior, Environment,
    and Related Agencies fund the National Park Service's American
    Battlefield Protection Program at its authorized amount of $10 million.
        The Civil War Trust is a national nonprofit organization dedicated
    to preserving America's remaining Civil War, Revolutionary War and War
    of 1812 battlefields. Thanks to the generosity of our 200,000 members
    and supporters, the Civil War Trust has protected more than 41,000
    acres of critically important battlefield land in 20 States.
        The American Battlefield Protection Program's land acquisition
    grants program is an authorized competitive matching grants program
    that requires a 1-to-1 Federal/non-Federal match, although on most
    occasions the Federal dollars are leveraged much more than 1-to-1. The
    program promotes cooperative partnerships between State and local
    governments and the private sector to protect high priority
    battlegrounds outside National Park Service boundaries.
               battlefield lands are our shared american heritage
        America's battlefields are an irreplaceable part of our shared
    national heritage. When preserved, these battlefields serve as outdoor
    classrooms to educate current and future generations about the defining
    moments in our country's history. They are living monuments, not just
    to the men who fought and sacrificed there, but to all who have proudly
    worn our Nation's uniform. Preserved battlefields are also economic
    drivers for communities, bringing in tourism dollars that are extremely
    important to State and local economies. When these hallowed grounds are
    lost, they are lost forever.
                             origins of the program
        In 1990, Congress created the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission
    (CWSAC), a blue-ribbon panel composed of lawmakers, historians and
    preservationists, to examine the status of America's Civil War
    battlefields. Three years later, the Commission released a report
    identifying the most important Civil War battlegrounds, prioritizing
    them according to preservation status and historic significance. In
    addition, the Commission also recommended that Congress establish a
    Federal matching grant program to encourage the private sector to
    invest in battlefield preservation. The Commission's proposal for
    Federal matching grants was the genesis of today's American Battlefield
    Protection Program land acquisition grants program.
        The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015 (Public
    Law 113-291) reauthorized the battlefield acquisition grants program
    and expanded its eligibility to include Revolutionary War and War of
    1812 battlefields, in addition to Civil War battlefields. Similar to
    the Civil War grants, which are awarded for priority battlefield land
    identified in the CWSAC report, funding for Revolutionary War and War
    of 1812 battlefields will target sites listed in a 2007 study by the
    National Park Service. Among the battlefields that could potentially
    benefit from the expanded program are: Bennington, New York and
    Vermont; Brandywine, Pennsylvania; Cowpens, South Carolina; Caulk's
    Field, Maryland; Guilford Courthouse, North Carolina; Princeton, New
    Jersey; River Raisin, Michigan; Saratoga, New York; and Yorktown,
    Virginia.
        Since the program was first funded in fiscal year 1999, grants have
    been used to protect 24,000 acres of hallowed ground in 17 States.
    Among the many battlefields that have benefited from this program are:
    Antietam, Maryland; Bentonville, North Carolina; Champion Hill,
    Mississippi; Chancellorsville, Virginia; Chattanooga, Tennessee;
    Gettysburg, Pennsylvania; Harpers Ferry, West Virginia; Mill Springs,
    Kentucky; Prairie Grove, Arkansas; and Wilson's Creek, Missouri. It is
    important to note that grants are awarded for acquisition of lands from
    willing sellers only; there is not--and never has been--any eminent
    domain authority.
                            urgent need for funding
        The Civil War Trust wishes to thank the subcommittee for its
    previous support for this valuable program. We recognize that these are
    challenging economic times and appreciate the constraints on this
    subcommittee. However, we must point out that the clock is ticking on
    the remaining battlefields of the Revolutionary War, War of 1812 and
    Civil War. The Civil War Trust estimates that, in the next decade, most
    unprotected battlefield land will be either developed or preserved.
    Full funding for the American Battlefield Protection Program at its
    authorized level of $10 million a year will enable nonprofit groups
    like the Trust to protect as many key battlefield lands as possible in
    the limited time remaining.
                                   conclusion
        The Revolutionary War, the War of 1812 and the Civil War were
    defining moments in our country's history. Our forebears secured our
    independence from Great Britain and forged our democratic ideals during
    the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. During the Civil War, the great
    armies of the North and South clashed in hundreds of battles that
    reunited the Union and sounded the death knell for slavery. Preserved
    battlefields help ensure that the sacrifices of these turbulent periods
    in our Nation's history are never forgotten.
        Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall, I sincerely hope that
    you and the subcommittee will consider our request to provide funding
    of the American Battlefield Protection Program's land acquisition
    grants program at its authorized level of $10 million. We look forward
    to working closely with you as we continue our important work to
    preserve America's sacred battlefield lands. Thank you for the
    opportunity to address the subcommittee.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Coalition Against Forest Pests
        Our organizations write to express strong support for the Forest
    Health Management programs--both Federal and cooperative lands--and the
    Forest and Rangeland Research programs at the USDA Forest Service
    (USFS). We respectfully request your support in funding the Forest
    Health Management programs at $111 million--$63 million Federal Lands
    and $48 million Cooperative Lands--and the Forest and Rangeland
    Research program at $303 million in fiscal year 2016.
        Our Nation's forests and trees provide numerous benefits in both
    rural and urban areas. They sustain the health of our environment and
    our economy by providing clean air and water, wildlife habitat,
    enhanced property values, renewable energy sources, and carbon
    sequestration. Healthy forests also support jobs; for example, the U.S.
    forest products industry employs nearly 900,000 people in all 50
    States. Visitors to National Forest System lands generate more than $13
    billion of recreation and other related economic activity. One million
    tourists view fall foliage displays, generating $1 billion in revenue
    in New England annually.
        The myriad benefits our forests produce are at risk. The ability of
    forests to continue providing benefits is threatened by damaging
    invasive species that are arriving and spreading at an increasing rate.
    At least 28 new tree-killing pests have been detected over the last
    decade. Some cause enormous damage. For instance, thousand cankers
    disease threatens black walnut trees; walnut growing stock is valued at
    $539 billion. Already, municipal governments across the country are
    spending more than $2 billion each year to remove trees on city
    property killed by non-native pests. Homeowners are spending an
    additional $1 billion to remove and replace trees on their properties
    and are absorbing an additional $1.5 billion in reduced property
    values.
        The USFS Forest Health Management Program is a critical resource
    supporting efforts to prevent, contain, and eradicate these costly and
    dangerous pests and pathogens affecting trees and forests. In fiscal
    year 2014, the Program helped combat native and invasive pests on over
    327,000 acres of Federal lands and over 486,000 acres of Cooperative
    lands.\1\ While these numbers represent a vital component of our
    efforts to protect the Nation's forests and trees, they also represent
    the real consequences of reductions in funding over the past 5 years,
    which have resulted in fewer acres treated. Any further cuts to this
    program will necessitate deeper reductions in support for communities
    already facing outbreaks and expose more of the Nation's forests and
    trees to the devastating and costly effects of the forest pests. With
    this in mind, we are concerned with the President's budget proposal to
    reduce funding for the Cooperative Lands program and corresponding
    reductions for work to address Sudden Oak Death, Asian Longhorned
    Beetle, goldspotted oak borer, and other serious threats to our
    forests.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ USDA Forest Service fiscal year 2016 President's Budget
    Justification.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The USFS Forest and Rangeland Research program provides the
    scientific foundation for developing effective tools to detect and
    manage forest pests and the pathways by which they are introduced and
    spread. As forests face increasing pressure from the growing number of
    non-native pests support for research programs is critical. New
    pathways of introduction and spread have required analysis, e.g., wood
    packaging and firewood. We are concerned that the President's budget
    request for Forest and Rangeland Research would further limit our
    ability to prevent, contain, and eradicate damaging forest pests. We
    respectfully request your support in funding the USFS Forest and
    Rangeland Research program at $303 million in fiscal year 2016.
        In a time when America's forests and trees faces significant
    threats to their current and long-term health, the USFS needs adequate
    funding for the Forest Health Management and Forest and Rangeland
    Research programs to address current and emerging pests and keep their
    already staggering costs to a minimum. Accordingly, we urge the
    subcommittee to restore funding for these critical programs in fiscal
    year 2016. We request that you support the Forest Health Management
    programs at a total funding level of $111 million--with $63 million for
    Federal Lands and $48 million for Cooperative Lands--and the Forest and
    Rangeland Research program at $303 million.
        We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you
    for your time and consideration of this request.

                Sincerely,

                        American Forest Foundation, American Forests,
                                American Public Gardens Association,
                                California Forest Pest Council, Center for
                                Invasive Species Prevention, National
                                Alliance of Forest Owners, National
                                Association of Conservation Districts,
                                National Association of State Foresters,
                                National Network of Forest Practitioners,
                                National Wild Turkey Federation, National
                                Woodland Owners Association, Society of
                                American Foresters, The Nature Conservancy,
                                Tree Care Industry Association, and Vermont
                                Woodlands Association.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Coalition for Healthier Schools
        Dear Senator/Representative:

        On behalf of more than 150 participating parent, public health,
    environment, and education groups in the Coalition, we urge you to make
    healthy children and healthy indoor environments a priority in the
    final fiscal year 2016 appropriations for U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA). EPA has more than a 15 year history in working with Prek-
    12 schools, child care centers, and communities to advance healthier
    indoor environments with voluntary grants and annual symposiums.
        Specifically, we request $21.1 million for EPA's Indoor
    Environments Division/Indoor Air-Reducing the Risks to educate non-
    governmental organizations (NGOs), local schools and communities on how
    to prevent risks and promote healthy indoor environments in PreK-12
    schools and child care centers. The $21.1 million is the average of its
    enacted budget from 2004-2009 in the Bush Administration. In that
    period, it educated thousands of school personnel and hosted annual
    symposiums that highlighted best practices by schools. We support and
    ask that you ensure that EPA's Office of Children's Health Protection
    has $8 million as in the President's fiscal year 2016 budget request,
    allowing it to offer grants to encourage work by State agencies to
    address children's health at school.
        Some 55 million children attend public and private schools every
    day, yet our Nation's schools--places where 20 percent of Americans (95
    percent of whom are women and children) learn and work every day--are
    woefully unaware or under-prepared to manage their facilities, as
    numerous facility studies have shown. Research also shows that
    environmentally healthy learning places that are clean, dry and quiet,
    and have good indoor air, have better attendance and higher test
    scores. Poor indoor environments in schools decrease test scores, and
    increase absenteeism, asthma, and healthcare costs.
        The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) 2012
    School Health Policy Survey found far too few States and districts
    adopting environmental management policies that promote attendance and
    achievement. CDC found for example:
      --only 42.9 percent of States helping districts with Indoor Air
            Quality; and
      --36.3 percent of districts having a policy to purchase low-emitting
            products which can help reduce contaminants of indoor air.
        Thank you for your attention and we look forward to working with
    you on this critical public health and education issue.

                Sincerely,

    Alaska Community Action on Toxics
    American Public Health Association
    Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America
    Association of School Business Officials International
    Center for Cities + Schools (California)
    Clean and Healthy New York
    Coalition for Environmentally Safe Schools (Washington)
    Connecticut Foundation for Environmentally Safe Schools
    Earth Day Network
    Empire State Consumer Project (New York)
    Green & Healthy Homes Initiative
    Green Schools Initiative (California)
    Green Schools National Network
    Health Promotion Consultants (Virginia)
    Health Resources in Action (Massachusetts)
    Healthy Schools Network
    IPM Institute of North America
    Learning Disability Association of New York State
    Maine PTA
    Maryland Children's Environmental Health Coalition
    Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health
    Massachusetts Healthy Schools Network
    National Center for Environmental Health Strategies
    National Education Association--Healthy Schools Caucus
    NEA Healthy Futures
    New York State PTA
    Northwest Clean Air Agency (Washington)
    OHIAS--Our Health Is At Stake (California)
    PCBsInSchools
    Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units--West
    Physicians for Social Responsibility--Florida
    Sheet Metal Occupational Health Institute Trust (SMOHIT)
    Southwest Environmental Health Sciences Center (Arizona)
    Take Care of Your Classroom Air (Texas)
    Toxics Information Project (Rhode Island)
    U.S. Green Building Council
    Washington Asthma Initiative
    West Harlem Environmental Action (WEACT)
    Women for a Healthy Environment/Healthy Schools PA
    Zinner Consultants (California)

                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
        Waters from the Colorado River are used by nearly 40 million people
    for municipal and industrial purposes and used to irrigate
    approximately 5.5 million acres in the United States. Natural and man-
    induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates environmental and
    economic damages. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has
    estimated the current quantifiable damages at about $382 million per
    year. Congress authorized the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
    Program (Program) in 1974 to offset increased damages caused by
    continued development and use of the waters of the Colorado River.
    Modeling by Reclamation indicates that the quantifiable damages would
    rise to approximately $614 million by the year 2035 without
    continuation of the Program. Congress has directed the Secretary of the
    Interior to implement a comprehensive program for minimizing salt
    contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by the
    Bureau of Land Management (BLM). BLM funds these efforts through its
    Soil, Water and Air Program. BLM's efforts are an essential part of the
    overall effort. A funding level of $1.5 million for salinity specific
    projects in 2016 is requested to prevent further degradation of the
    quality of the Colorado River and increased downstream economic
    damages.
        EPA has identified that more than 60 percent of the salt load of
    the Colorado River comes from natural sources. The majority of land
    within the Colorado River Basin is federally owned, much of which is
    administered by BLM. In implementing the Colorado River Basin Salinity
    Control Act in 1974, Congress recognized that most of the salts in the
    Colorado River originate from federally owned lands. Title I of the
    Salinity Control Act deals with the U.S. commitment to the quality of
    waters being delivered to Mexico. Title II of the Act deals with
    improving the quality of the water delivered to users in the United
    States. This testimony deals specifically with Title II efforts. In
    1984, Congress amended the Salinity Control Act and directed that the
    Secretary of the Interior develop a comprehensive program for
    minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands
    administered by BLM. In 2000, Congress reiterated its directive to the
    Secretary and requested a report on the implementation of BLM's program
    (Public Law 106-459). In 2003, BLM employed a Salinity Coordinator to
    increase BLM efforts in the Colorado River Basin and to pursue salinity
    control studies and to implement specific salinity control practices.
    BLM is now working on creating a comprehensive Colorado River Basin
    salinity control program as directed by Congress and will be seeking a
    line-item appropriation in its 2017 budget request. With a significant
    portion of the salt load of the Colorado River coming from BLM
    administered lands, the BLM portion of the overall program is essential
    to the success of the effort. Inadequate BLM salinity control efforts
    will result in significant additional economic damages to water users
    downstream.
        Concentration of salt in the Colorado River causes approximately
    $382 million in quantified damages and significantly more in
    unquantified damages in the United States and results in poor water
    quality for United States users. Damages occur from:
      --a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
            water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
            sector,
      --increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine
            disposal for recycling water in the municipal sector,
      --a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
            water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
            dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
            softeners in the household sector,
      --an increase in the cost of cooling operations and the cost of water
            softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
            commercial sector,
      --an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
            and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector,
      --a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
            utility sector, and
      --difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
            with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
            terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
            disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
            basins.
        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed
    of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
    New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum is charged with reviewing the
    Colorado River's water quality standards for salinity every 3 years. In
    so doing, it adopts a Plan of Implementation consistent with these
    standards. The level of appropriation requested in this testimony is in
    keeping with the adopted Plan of Implementation. If adequate funds are
    not appropriated, significant damages from the higher salinity
    concentrations in the water will be more widespread in the United
    States and Mexico.
        In summary, implementation of salinity control practices through
    BLM is a cost effective method of controlling the salinity of the
    Colorado River and is an essential component to the overall Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Program. Continuation of adequate funding
    levels for salinity within the Soil, Water and Air Program will assist
    in preventing the water quality of the Colorado River from further
    degradation and significant increases in economic damages to municipal,
    industrial and irrigation users. A modest investment in source control
    pays huge dividends in improved drinking water quality to nearly 40
    million Americans.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
        This testimony is in support of fiscal year 2016 funding for the
    Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) associated
    with the sub-activity that assists Title II of the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-320). This long-standing
    successful and cost-effective salinity control program in the Colorado
    River Basin is being carried out pursuant to the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act and the Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500).
    Congress has directed the Secretary of the Interior to implement a
    comprehensive program for minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado
    River from lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
    BLM funds these efforts through its Soil, Water and Air Program. BLM's
    efforts are an essential part of the overall effort. A funding level of
    $1.5 million for salinity specific projects in 2016 is requested to
    prevent further degradation of the quality of the Colorado River and
    increased downstream economic damages.
        The Colorado River Board of California (Colorado River Board) is
    the State agency charged with protecting California's interests and
    rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River system.
    In this capacity, California participates along with the other six
    Colorado River Basin States through the Colorado River Basin Salinity
    Control Forum (Forum), the interstate organization responsible for
    coordinating the Basin States' salinity control efforts. In close
    cooperation with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
    pursuant to requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Forum is charged
    with reviewing the Colorado River water quality standards every 3
    years. The Forum adopts a Plan of Implementation consistent with these
    water quality standards. The level of appropriation being supported in
    this testimony is consistent with the Forum's 2014 Plan of
    Implementation. The Forum's 2014 Plan of Implementation can be found on
    this Web site: http://coloradoriversalinity.org/docs/
    2014%20Final%20REVIEW%20-%20complete.pdf. If adequate funds are not
    appropriated, significant damages associated with increasing salinity
    concentrations of Colorado River water will become more widespread in
    the United States and Mexico.
        The EPA has determined that more than 60 percent of the salt load
    of the Colorado River comes from natural sources. The majority of land
    within the Colorado River Basin is federally owned, much of which is
    administered by BLM. Through passage of the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act in 1974, Congress recognized that much of the
    salts in the Colorado River originate on federally owned lands. Title I
    of the Salinity Control Act deals with the U.S. commitment to efforts
    related to maintaining the quality of waters being delivered to Mexico
    pursuant to the 1944 Water Treaty. Title II of the Act deals with
    improving the quality of the water delivered to U.S. users. In 1984,
    Congress amended the Salinity Control Act and directed that the
    Secretary of the Interior develop a comprehensive program for
    minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands
    administered by BLM. In 2000, Congress reiterated its directive to the
    Secretary and requested a report on the implementation of BLM's program
    (Public Law 106-459). In 2003, BLM employed a Salinity Coordinator to
    coordinate BLM efforts in the Colorado River Basin States to pursue
    salinity control studies and to implement specific salinity control
    practices. BLM is now working on creating a comprehensive Colorado
    River Basin salinity control program as directed by Congress and will
    be seeking a line-item appropriation in its 2017 budget request. With a
    significant portion of the salt load of the Colorado River coming from
    BLM-administered lands, the BLM portion of the overall program is
    essential to the success of the entire effort. Inadequate BLM salinity
    control efforts will result in significant additional economic damages
    to water users downstream.
        Over the 31 years since the passage of the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act, much has been learned about the impact of salts
    in the Colorado River system. Currently, the salinity concentration of
    Colorado River water causes about $382 million in quantifiable damages
    in the United States annually. Economic and hydrologic modeling by
    Reclamation indicates that the quantifiable damages could rise to more
    than $614 million by the year 2035 without the continuation of the
    Salinity Control Program. For example, damages can be incurred related
    to the following activities:
      --a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
            water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
            sector,
      --an increase in the amount of imported water,
      --an increased cost of desalination and brine disposal for recycling
            water in the municipal sector,
      --a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
            water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
            dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
            softeners in the household sector,
      --an increase in the cost of cooling operations and the cost of water
            softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
            commercial sector,
      --an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
            and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector,
      --a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
            utility sector, and
      --difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
            with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
            terms and conditions.
        The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
    water resource to the nearly 20 million residents of southern
    California, including municipal, industrial, and agricultural water
    users in Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San
    Diego, and Ventura Counties. The protection and improvement of Colorado
    River water quality through an effective salinity control program will
    avoid the additional economic damages to users in California and the
    other States that rely on Colorado River water resources.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Columbia River
    Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) is pleased to share its view on
    the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) fiscal year
    2016 budget. We have specifically identified the following funding
    needs and one request for review:

        (1)  $8.95 million for Columbia River Fisheries Management under
    Rights Protection Implementation, ($4.4 million above fiscal year
    2015), to meet the base program funding needs of the Commission and the
    fisheries programs of our member tribes;
        (2)  $4.8 million for U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty, ($520,000
    above fiscal year 2015) to implement obligations under the recent
    agreements adopted by the U.S. and Canada;
        (3)  $4.5 million in Rights Protection Implementation to assist
    tribes in climate change adaptation and planning; and
        (4)  $352.5 million for Public Safety and Justice, of which $716,00
    supports enforcement of Federal laws at In-Lieu and Treaty Fishing
    Access Sites on the Columbia River.
                             history and background
        CRITFC was founded in 1977 by the four Columbia River treaty
    tribes: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation,
    Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon,
    Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and the Nez Perce
    Tribe. CRITFC provides coordination and technical assistance to these
    tribes in regional, national and international efforts to protect and
    restore our shared salmon resource and the habitat upon which it
    depends. Our collective ancestral homeland covers nearly one-third of
    the entire Columbia River Basin in the United States, an area the size
    of the State of Georgia.
        In 1855, the U.S. entered into treaties with the four tribes \1\
    whereupon we ceded millions of acres of our homelands to the U.S. In
    return, the U.S. pledged to honor our ancestral rights, including the
    right to fish in all Usual and Accustomed locations. Unfortunately, a
    perilous history brought the salmon resource to the edge of extinction
    with 12 salmon and steelhead populations in the Columbia Basin listed
    under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Treaty with the Yakama Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 951;
    Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 12 Stat. 963;
    Treaty with the Umatilla Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 945; Treaty with
    the Nez Perce Tribe, June 11, 1855, 12 Stat. 957.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The CRITFC tribes have arrived as globally-recognized leaders in
    fisheries restoration and management working in collaboration with
    State, Federal and private entities. We are principals in the region's
    efforts to halt the decline of salmon, lamprey and sturgeon populations
    and rebuild them to levels that support ceremonial, subsistence and
    commercial harvests. To achieve these objectives, our actions emphasize
    ``gravel-to-gravel'' management including supplementation of natural
    stocks, healthy watersheds and collaborative efforts.
        The programs in this testimony are carried out pursuant to the
    Indian Self-Determination and Assistance Act. Our programs are
    integrated as much as possible with State and Federal salmon management
    and restoration efforts.
         columbia river fisheries management within rights protection
                                 implementation
        We are succeeding. The salmon, returning in greater numbers, tell
    us so. But along with success, management increases in complexity,
    requiring greater data collection and enforcement. Funding shortfalls
    prohibit the achievement of tribal self-determination goals for
    fisheries management, ESA recovery effort, protecting non-listed
    species, conservation enforcement and treaty fishing access site
    maintenance. We request an increase of $4.4 million over fiscal year
    2015 for a new program base of $8.95 million for Columbia River
    Fisheries Management.
        The BIA's Columbia River Fisheries Management line item is the base
    funding that supports the fishery program efforts of CRITFC and the
    four member tribes. Unlike State fish and game agencies, the tribes do
    not have access to Dingell-Johnson/Pittman-Robertson or Wallop-Breaux
    funding. The increase will be directed to support the core functions of
    the fisheries management programs of the Commission's member tribes,
    namely enforcement and harvest monitoring.
        In 2008, CRITFC and its member tribes struck three landmark
    agreements: (1) the Columbia Basin Fish Accords with Federal action
    agencies overseeing the Federal hydro system in the Columbia Basin,\2\
    (2) a 10-Year Fisheries Management Plan with Federal, tribal and State
    parties under U.S. v Oregon, and (3) a new Chinook Chapter of the
    Pacific Salmon Treaty.\3\ These agreements establish regional and
    international commitments on harvest and fish production efforts,
    commitments to critical investments in habitat restoration, and
    resolving contentious issues by seeking balance of the many demands
    within the Columbia River basin. While through these agreements the
    Tribes have committed to substantial on-the-ground projects with some
    additional resources from the Bonneville Power Administration, the
    overall management responsibilities of the tribal programs have grown
    exponentially without commensurate increases in BIA base funding
    capacity. For example, the tribes' leadership in addressing Pacific
    Lamprey declines is this species' best hope for survival and recovery.
    The tribes' are also addressing unmet mitigation obligations, such as
    fish losses associated with the John Day and The Dalles dams.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The Nez Perce Tribe is not a Columbia Basin Fish Accord
    signatory.
        \3\ ``See Salmon Win A Triple Crown'' at http://www.critfc.org/
    text/wana_109.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The funding provided through the BIA to support tribal fishery
    programs is crucial to the tribes' and CRITFC's ability to successfully
    carry out tribal rights protection, including these agreements, by
    providing sound technical, scientific and policy products to diverse
    legal, public and private forums. Rights Protection Implementation
    funding takes on even greater importance as funding for State co-
    management agencies has become inconsistent or decreased. Below are
    priority need areas for CRITFC and our member tribes.
                           youth program initiatives
        The Columbia River Treaty Tribes place an emphasis on preparing our
    youth for careers in Natural Resources Management. However, our tribes,
    like tribes nationwide, struggle to overcome barriers to Science,
    Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics achievement, high drop-out
    rates, and low percentages of students pursuing natural resources
    majors. Our Place-Based Workforce Development Initiative seeks to
    address these barriers through a blend of technical assistance, intern
    and externship opportunities and a summer Salmon Camp.
                      columbia river treaty modernization
        The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission's member tribes are
    part of a coalition of 15 Columbia Basin tribes whose rights, as well
    as management authorities and responsibilities, are substantially
    affected by the implementation of the Columbia River Treaty. In order
    for Treaty modernization to succeed, the Columbia Basin tribes need to
    continue to coordinate internally and with other regional and national
    entities, as well as continue their analytical evaluation of the Treaty
    including the impacts of climate change, while the State Department
    evaluates the Regional Recommendation and completes their national
    interests review.
                           tribal climate resilience
        The Treaty Right is feeling the effects of Climate Change. Shifts
    are occurring in salmon run timing, and berry and root ripening cycles.
    We support the President's request of $4.7 million to implement Tribal
    Climate Resilience. Specifically, these funds support the BIA Tribal
    Climate Change Program which will integrate climate change adaptation
    strategies into its policies and planning for support for the tribes,
    Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. The BIA need these resources to
    support active engagement of tribes, Alaska Natives and Native
    Hawaiians in the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and the Climate
    Science Centers and to ensure adequate Government-to-Government
    consultation on all issues with climate effects.
           u.s./canada pacific salmon treaty under rights protection
                                 implementation
        The U.S. and Canada entered into the Pacific Salmon Treaty in 1985
    to conserve and rebuild salmon stocks, provide for optimum production,
    and control salmon interceptions. The treaty established the Pacific
    Salmon Commission (PSC) as a forum to collaborate on intermingled
    salmon stocks. The U.S. Section of the PSC annually develops a
    coordinated budget for tribal, State and Federal programs to ensure
    cost and program efficiencies. Congress increased funding in 2000 in
    order to implement the 1999 Agreement, but funding has significantly
    eroded since then. In 2008, the U.S. and Canada adopted a new long term
    Treaty agreement after nearly 3 years of negotiations. Both parties
    agreed to significant new management research and monitoring activities
    to ensure the conservation and rebuilding of the shared salmon
    resource.
        For tribal participants in the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the U.S.
    Section has identified a program need of $4,800,000 for participating
    tribes. These funds provide for direct tribal participation with the
    Commission, panels and technical committees. The funding enables the
    tribes to assist in Treaty implementation and facilitates management
    protecting trust resources. This funding maintains tribal resource
    assessment and research programs structured to fulfill required Treaty
    implementation activities. The fiscal year 2016 recommended level for
    this program is an increase of $520,000 above the fiscal year 2015
    enacted level. Our request correlates to the U.S. Section's
    recommendation.
     public safety and justice, criminal investigations and police services
        Public safety continues to be a high priority for CRITFC and our
    tribes. Our conservation and criminal enforcement officers are the
    cornerstone of public safety in the popular and heavily used Columbia
    Gorge area patrolling 150 miles of the Columbia River, including its
    shorelines in Oregon and Washington. In this area we are the primary
    provider of enforcement services at 31 fishing access sites developed
    pursuant to Public Law 87-14 and Public Law 100-581 for use by treaty
    fishers. CRITFC's officers have obtained BIA Special Law Enforcement
    Commissions to aid our efforts protecting and serving tribal members
    and Federal trust properties along the Columbia River. We are also very
    pleased that the BIA has created the Office of Justice Services (OJS)
    District 8 and housed it in Portland. CRITFC entered into a Public Law
    93-638 contract with BIA in February 2011 for enforcement services
    along the Columbia River. That contract currently provides funding for
    two enforcement positions.
        It's important that CRITFC build its enforcement capacity above the
    level of the two officers currently funded by the BIA Office of Justice
    Services. Our immediate priority is to add two officers. Funding for
    two additional officers would cost $313,560 plus indirect. Full funding
    for this project would be a total budget of $716,053 plus indirect
    which would support four officers, a sergeant and a dispatcher.
              a request for review of salmon mass-marking programs
        CRITFC endeavors to secure a unified hatchery strategy among
    tribal, Federal and State co-managers. To that end, we seek to build
    hatchery programs using the best available science, regional expertise
    and supported by adequate, efficient budgets. A congressional
    requirement, delivered through prior appropriations language, to
    visibly mark all salmon produced in federally funded hatcheries
    circumvents local decisionmaking and should be reconsidered. We have
    requested that Federal mass-marking requirements, and correlated
    funding, be reviewed for compatibility with our overall objective of
    ESA delisting and with prevailing laws and agreements: U.S. v Oregon,
    Pacific Salmon Treaty and the Columbia Basin Fish Accords.\4\ Salmon
    managers should be provided the latitude to make case-by-case decisions
    whether to mark fish and, if so, in the appropriate percentages.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Letter from Bruce Jim, Chairman, Columbia River Inter-Tribal
    Fish Commission to U.S. House of Representatives Chairmen Frank Wolf,
    Mike Simpson and Doc Hastings, July 11, 2011.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In summary, through combined efforts of the four tribes supported
    by a staff of experts, we are proven natural resource managers. Our
    activities benefit the region while also essential to the U.S.
    obligation under treaties, Federal trust responsibility, Federal
    statutes, and court orders. We ask for your continued support of our
    efforts. We are prepared to provide additional information you may
    require on the Department of Interior's BIA budget.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Congressional Fire Services Institute,
     International Association of Fire Chiefs, and National Volunteer Fire
                                    Council
        Dear Senators Cochran, Mikuiski, Murkowski and Udall:

        Our organizations request that you include a minimum of $16 million
    in funding for the Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) grant program in
    fiscal year 2016 appropriations. VFA provides matching funds to
    volunteer fire departments protecting communities with 10,000 or fewer
    residents to purchase equipment and training for use in wildland fire
    suppression.
        Volunteer fire departments provide nearly 80 percent of initial
    attack on wildland fires in the U.S. Unfortunately, these departments
    frequently lack the financial resources to adequately equip and train
    their firefighters to engage in wildland fire suppression. For example,
    the Third Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service report published in
    2011 by the National Fire Protection Association found that 68 percent
    of all fire departments that are responsible for wildland firefighting
    have not formally trained ail their personnel to the recommended
    national standard.
        When local fire departments are unable to suppress wildland fires
    during the initial phase, the fires spread and State and Federal
    firefighters are deployed. This is an extremely expensive process that
    can cost the Federal Government anywhere from hundreds of millions to
    more than one billion dollars in fire suppression costs alone in a
    single year depending on the severity of the fire season.
        The costs of wildland fire suppression have been increasing
    steadily as commercial and residential development pushes further into
    the wildland/urban interface (WUI). Unfortunately, in recent years,
    Federal funding for volunteer fire departments to prepare for wildland
    fire suppression has dwindled. VFA has seen funding reduced from $16
    million in fiscal year 2010 to $15.662 million in fiscal year 2011 and
    approximately $13 million in fiscal year 2012-2015. Additionally, the
    Rural Fire Assistance program, which had historically been funded at
    $7-10 million per year and provided matching grants to fire departments
    that agreed to assist in responding to wildland fires on Federal lands,
    hasn't been funded since fiscal year 2010.
        Federal support is critical to ensure volunteer fire departments
    are able to safely and effectively respond to wildland fires. Our
    organizations recognize the challenges that Congress faces in trying to
    adequately fund a range of important programs in today's difficult
    budget environment. At the same time, we believe that reducing the
    funding for programs like RFA and VFA from a combined $23 million in
    fiscal year 2010 to $13 million in fiscal year 2015, leaves volunteer
    fire departments with fewer resources to prepare to respond to wildland
    fires and will lead to higher Federal spending on fire suppression in
    the long run. We urge you to provide a minimum of $16 million for VFA
    in fiscal year 2016.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of The Conservation Fund
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of the
    Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies, thank you for this opportunity to submit outside witness
    testimony on behalf of The Conservation Fund (TCF). TCF supports full
    funding of the President's budget request of $900 million in fiscal
    year 2016 for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) discretionary
    and mandatory proposals, which includes the Federal land acquisition
    programs of the Bureau of Land Management ($93.397 million), National
    Park Service ($171.037 million), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    ($164.772 million), U.S. Forest Service ($127.673 million), as well as
    three State grant programs: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
    Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund ($100 million);
    National Park Service's State Conservation Grants ($100.2 million); and
    the U.S. Forest Service's Forest Legacy Program ($100 million). TCF
    also supports full funding of the President's request for the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service--North American Wetlands Conservation Fund
    ($34.145 million); the U.S. Forest Service--Community Forest and Open
    Space Conservation Program ($1.683 million); and the Department of
    Interior (DOI)--Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration
    Program ($9.2 million). TCF requests funding for the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA)--Great Lakes Restoration Initiative ($300
    million); EPA--Clean Water State Revolving Funds ($1.449 million) and
    EPA--Drinking Water State Revolving Funds ($1.186 million).
    Additionally, TCF supports the proposals for the Federal Land
    Transaction Facilitation Act reauthorization, the National Park Service
    Centennial Initiative, and the U.S. Forest Service proposal for a
    fiscally responsible funding strategy that considers catastrophic
    wildland fires as disasters (i.e. in line with the Wildland Disaster
    Fund Act).
        TCF is a national, non-profit conservation organization dedicated
    to conserving America's land and water legacy for future generations.
    Established in 1985, TCF works with landowners; Federal, State and
    local agencies; and other partners to conserve our Nation's important
    lands for people, wildlife and communities. To date, TCF has helped our
    partners to conserve over 7.5 million acres. These accomplishments are
    due, in large measure, to the leadership of this subcommittee over many
    years to appropriate funds to acquire lands for future generations,
    working forests, recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat, and many
    other benefits.
        Below are highlights of some benefits of the LWCF and land
    acquisition programs. While these projects show the tremendous
    diversity of benefits of land acquisition for the public, they have one
    thing in common--each of these projects is driven by landowners. Many
    farmers, ranchers and forestland owners have significant financial
    equity in their land. By enabling a landowner to sell a conservation
    easement or fee title, the LWCF program provides landowners with funds
    to stay in business, reinvest in businesses, or meet other financial
    goals.
        As the subcommittee crafts its Interior, Environment and Related
    Agencies Appropriations bill, there are several key points we
    respectfully request you to consider, listed below.
    1. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900 million
        Funding at the recommended $900 million is critical for the
    Nation's premier conservation program, a bipartisan agreement from
    almost 50 years ago. As the lists of ready LWCF projects below show,
    there are many opportunities that will be lost without this funding.
    LWCF represents a promise to the Nation that proceeds from offshore oil
    and gas development will help protect the public trust, and these
    projects will fulfill that mission.
        The LWCF Budget includes Collaborative Landscape Planning (CLP)
    areas that we ask you to support: Island Forests at Risk, Upper Rio
    Grande, High Divide, Rivers of the Chesapeake, National Trails System,
    Florida-Georgia Long Leaf Pine, Pathways to the Pacific, and Northern
    California Coastal. In each CLP, several Federal land agencies are
    partnering with States, local groups, non-profits and private interests
    to support conservation and make a lasting impact.
        Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Land Acquisition at $93.397
    million.--The BLM and its National Conservation Lands provide some of
    our Nation's best recreation and historic areas. From fishing at the
    North Platte River in Wyoming to exploring ancient petroglyphs in the
    canyon at Agua Fria National Monument in Arizona, we request full
    funding of the agency's discretionary and mandatory project lists.
        National Park Service (NPS) Federal Land Acquisition at $171.037
    million.--Hosting more than 292 million visitors every year, the over
    400 National Park units provide an economic boost to their local
    communities and those employed directly and indirectly. Funding for NPS
    LWCF will help protect key access points for recreation, historic
    areas, trails and more, including at Little River Canyon National
    Preserve in Alabama and Olympic National Park in Washington. We
    respectfully request full funding of the agency's discretionary and
    mandatory project lists.
        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Land Acquisition at $164.772
    million.--National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) are our Nation's protectors
    of clean water, clean air, abundant wildlife and world-class
    recreation. Funding for fiscal year 2016 FWS LWCF will help protect
    water quality in the Chesapeake Bay area, critical wildlife habitat at
    Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Utah, Idaho and Wyoming, and
    many other important places. We respectfully request full funding of
    the agency's discretionary and mandatory project lists.
        U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Land Acquisition at $127.673 million.--
    USFS LWCF funds help with forest management by protecting key
    inholdings and reducing fire threats. From the North Carolina
    Threatened Treasures to the Missouri Ozarks, we are working with
    willing landowners at priority project areas and respectfully request
    full funding of the agency's discretionary and mandatory project lists.
        LWCF State Grant Programs: FWS-Section 6 Cooperative Endangered
    Species Fund, NPS-State Conservation Grants, and USFS-Forest Legacy: We
    encourage the subcommittee to fully fund fiscal year 2016 President's
    budget request for:
      --FWS.--Section 6 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund:
            $100 million.
      --NPS.--State Conservation Grants: $100.2 million.
      --USFS.--Forest Legacy Program: $100 million.
    2. DOI and USFS Land Acquisition Programs
        TCF encourages the subcommittee to fund:
      --FWS.--North American Wetlands Conservation Fund: $34.145 million.
      --USFS.--Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program: $5
            million.
    3. Department of Interior--Natural Resource Damage Assessment and
            Restoration Program at $9.2 million
        The Restoration Program leads the national response for recovery of
    natural resources that have been injured or destroyed as a result of
    oil spills or releases of other hazardous substances. Recoveries from
    responsible parties can only be spent to implement restoration plans
    developed by the Trustee Council for each incident. These funds are one
    hundred percent private and represent the amount needed to restore
    environmental resources or compensate for lost public use since the
    damage in question. The fiscal year 2016 funds would allow the Program
    to add carefully targeted staff allocated to Interior bureaus and
    offices through its Restoration Support Unit in order to accelerate
    restoration activities.
    4. Environmental Protection Agency--Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
            (GRLI) at $300 million
        TCF urges funding of GLRI at $300 million. The Initiative provides
    critical support for on-the-ground restoration programs and projects
    targeted at the most significant environmental problems in the Great
    Lakes ecosystem. Over the past 5 years, the Initiative has opened up
    fish access to more than 3,400 miles of rivers, expanding recreational
    opportunities. It has also accelerated the cleanup of toxic hotspots,
    resulting in the delisting of three formerly contaminated sites.
    5. Environmental Protection Agency--State Revolving Funds
        TCF encourages the subcommittee to fund:
      --Clean Water State Revolving Fund: $1.449 million.
      --Drinking Water State Revolving Fund: $1.186 million.
    6. Reauthorization of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act
        We support the fiscal year 2016 President's budget request to
    reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA).
    FLTFA is a western Federal lands program that facilitates strategic
    Federal land sales by the BLM in order to provide funding for high-
    priority land conservation within or adjacent to Federal lands in the
    11 contiguous western States and Alaska. Over 150 groups are working
    together to support Congress' efforts to reauthorize FLTFA. FLTFA
    expired in 2011, and reauthorization will enhance the lands and economy
    by facilitating Federal land sales and conservation transactions, at no
    cost to the taxpayer.
    7. Wildlife Disaster Funding Act (S. 235 and H.R. 167) and Avoiding
            Transfers to Wildland Fire Suppression
        We support the proposal in the President's budget that would avoid
    transferring funds Congress appropriates to other priority programs to
    fund wildland fire suppression. We support language mirroring the
    bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (S. 235 and H.R. 167), which
    is needed to prevent future transfers and ensure that the USFS and DOI
    can achieve their land management objectives by implementing activities
    needed to address the growing buildup of hazardous fuels on Federal
    lands. This language provides the structure to fund a portion of the
    USFS and DOI wildfire suppression costs through a budget cap adjustment
    under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
    amended. The funding structure is similar to that used by other
    agencies who respond to natural disaster emergencies. We additionally
    request that the subcommittee appropriate the modeled levels of
    suppression through the Interior bill and the wildfire budget cap
    adjustment to meet suppression needs in fiscal year 2016.
        The Conservation Fund stands ready to work with you to secure full
    and consistent funding for the LWCF, Forest Legacy, and the other
    critically important programs that help protect the environment,
    economies, forests, and community values across our Nation. Thank you
    for the opportunity to provide this testimony and your consideration of
    our request.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement
        Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the
    subcommittee:

        Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the fiscal year
    2016 Interior Appropriations bill. The National Wildlife Refuge System
    stands alone as the only land and water conservation system with a
    mission that prioritizes wildlife and habitat conservation alongside
    human, wildlife-dependent recreation. Since 1995, the Cooperative
    Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) has worked to showcase the value
    of the Refuge System and to secure a strong congressional commitment
    for conserving these special landscapes. Found in every U.S. State and
    territory, national wildlife refuges conserve a diversity of America's
    environmentally sensitive and economically vital ecosystems, including
    oceans, coasts, wetlands, deserts, tundra, prairie, and forests.
        We thank you for the desperately needed funding increase for fiscal
    year 2015 and respectfully request a funding level of $508.2 million
    for the Operations and Maintenance accounts of the National Wildlife
    Refuge System for fiscal year 2016.
        This testimony is submitted on behalf of CARE's 23 member
    organizations, which represent over 16 million American hunters,
    anglers, bird and wildlife watchers, scientists and concerned citizens
    passionate about wildlife conservation and related recreational
    opportunities.

    American Birding Association
    American Fisheries Society
    American Sportfishing Association
    Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
    Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
    Defenders of Wildlife
    Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
    Izaak Walton League of America
    Marine Conservation Institute
    National Audubon Society
    National Rifle Association
    National Wildlife Federation
    National Wildlife Refuge Association
    Safari Club International
    The Corps Network
    The Nature Conservancy
    The Wilderness Society
    The Wildlife Society
    Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
    Trout Unlimited
    U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
    Wildlife Forever
    Wildlife Management Institute

        The National Wildlife Refuge System, established by President
    Theodore Roosevelt in 1903, protects approximately 150 million acres on
    562 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts
    across the U.S. From the Virgin Islands to Guam and the Pacific marine
    national monuments, the Refuge System spans 12 time zones and protects
    America's natural heritage in habitats ranging from arctic tundra to
    arid desert, boreal forest to sagebrush grassland, and prairie wetlands
    to coral reefs. With a refuge within an hour's drive from most
    metropolitan areas, the Refuge System attracts a growing number of
    visitors each year (46.5 million in fiscal year 2013) with
    opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography,
    kayaking, and outdoor education. In fact, from 2006--2011, during our
    Nation's greatest economic recession since the Great Depression,
    visitation to our national wildlife refuges increased by 30 percent.
        Increased visitors and pressures on these lands from nearby
    development, a changing climate, and other impacts, combined with
    declining budgets have caused a steep decline in staffing levels within
    the Refuge System. The Refuge System is now $72 million below what it
    needs to keep pace with inflation, relative to the fiscal year 2010
    budget of $503.2 million. Workforce has declined in that time by over
    500 employees, who provided services such as administration,
    maintenance, fire management, and science support. That is a loss of
    \1/7\ of the workforce, and the refuges simply cannot be maintained or
    provide the adequate visitor services, environmental education, access
    for hunting, and law enforcement that will ensure these lands are used
    as intended.
        According to a report issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    in late 2013, Banking On Nature, these visitors generated $2.4 billion
    annually to local and regional economies--on average returning $4.87 in
    economic activity for every $1 appropriated--and support 35,000 U.S.
    jobs. In addition, refuges provide major environmental and health
    benefits: filtering storm water before it is carried downstream to
    municipal aquifers, reducing flooding by capturing excess rainwater,
    and minimizing the damage to coastal communities from storm surges.
    According to a 2011 report by Southwick Associates, refuges generate
    more than $32.3 billion in these ecosystem services each year, a return
    of over $65 for every $1 appropriated by Congress.
        Budget cuts are impacting rural communities in Alaska--this year,
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) office in McGrath was closed
    and management of Innoko National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was complexed
    with Nowitna and Koyukuk NWRs in Galena. At its height in 2010, the
    McGrath office had 12 staff; now, only one outreach staffer is being
    maintained in the village. The office had direct connections with the
    rural villages in the area, and the Refuge System is now struggling to
    maintain those connections with one staffer. And perhaps more
    importantly, the economic impact and loss of the $1 million to the
    village it took to run the office could have dire impacts to
    communities that surrounded it.
        In New Mexico, Bosque NWR brings in hundreds of thousands of
    visitors every year to see the abundant bird populations that migrate
    through the refuge--particularly sandhill cranes. This summer, the
    visitor's center will close 2 days a week due to budget shortfalls. And
    over the last two decades, refuge staff has battled the invasive and
    water-hungry salt cedar. Staff no longer has the funding to continue to
    fight this fast-spreading tree at the levels they were, and it starting
    to spread again--at times in areas where the invasive plant had
    previously been completely removed. With the current drought conditions
    in the southwest, it is critical that refuge staff are provided the
    resources necessary to remove this species from the landscape and
    taxpayer dollars already spent on removal is not wasted.
        At minimum, CARE estimates that the Refuge System needs at least
    $900 million in annual operations and maintenance funding to meet
    conservation targets, including wildlife management and habitat
    restoration and opportunities for the public to recreate.
    Unfortunately, inadequate funding threatens the System's ability to
    carry out its mission, mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System
    Improvement Act of 1997. Between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2013,
    Refuge System funding was reduced by $50 million--a 10 percent cut. As
    a result, System performance levels dropped substantially.
        The fiscal year 2013 Refuge Annual Performance Plan (RAPP) reports
    revealed falling performance rates in several important System
    categories, including habitat condition, habitat restoration,
    recreation opportunities, volunteerism, and scientific research. The
    following data shows the systemic impact of budget cuts from fiscal
    year 2010 to fiscal year 2014.

        Measures for which performance declined from fiscal year 2010 to
    fiscal year 2014:
      --Open water acres restored (-89 percent)
      --Wetland acres restored (-69 percent)
      --Acres of non-native, invasive plants controlled (-63 percent)
      --Number of invasive animal populations controlled during the year
            (-59 percent)
      --Acres of forest/shrubland improvement (-56 percent)
      --Acres treated for non-native, invasive plants (-41 percent)
      --Riparian miles restored (-37 percent)
      --Acres of farming (-22 percent)
      --Number of Inventory and Monitoring surveys accomplished (-20
            percent)
      --Total refuge acres receiving needed management (-9 percent)
      --Number of volunteers (-15 percent)
      --Volunteer hours (down 6 percent from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal
            year 2014)
      --Fishing visits (-7 percent)
      --Hunting visits (-5 percent from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year
            2014)
      --Waterfowl hunt visits (-1 percent from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal
            year 2014)
      --Big game hunt visits (-9 percent from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal
            year 2014)
      --Total ``other'' recreational participants (-13 percent)

        However, many measures increase for the Refuge System over this
    same timeframe:
      --Photography participants (+45%)
      --Number of boat trail visits (+21 percent)
      --Acres of prescribed grazing (+11 percent)
      --Number of auto tour visits (+11 percent)
      --Wildlife observation visits (+8 percent)
      --Number of visitors (+2.6 percent)

        As habitat management declines, the System's fragile ecosystems are
    subject to opportunistic invasive species. And the foothold they gain
    in refuge lands can quickly transfer to adjacent private and State
    lands; an issue of great concern in places like southeastern Idaho
    where the CARE group visited in 2012. Between fiscal year 2010 and
    fiscal year 2014, the System treated 41 percent less acreage for
    invasive plants and, sadly, saw a 63 percent drop in acreage where
    invasive plants were successfully controlled. One step forward and
    several steps back is an inefficient way to manage the Refuge System
    and threatens years of cooperative efforts with partners and
    landowners.
        CARE thanks the subcommittee and Congress for the much needed
    increase in funding for fiscal year 2015. It was hoped that the budget
    increase could reverse the systemic declines in performance but because
    the System needs at least $15 million annually to maintain management
    capabilities, there is in reality, the increase of $4 million was in
    actuality a decrease. And unfortunately, emergencies nationwide such as
    natural disasters and looming endangered species listing could force
    the System to deal with these crises instead, further exacerbating the
    issues.
        Understanding the constraints of the budget process, CARE is
    supporting the President's request of $508.2 million for fiscal year
    2016, although it is substantially less than what the System needs.
    Albeit roughly half the optimal funding amount, $508.2 million is a $34
    million increase, and we hope it may help the System maintain its
    ability to manage refuge lands as intended in their purpose. If the
    requested funding level is satisfied, the Refuge System can better
    address the following tasks:
      --Conduct management and restoration activities to provide healthy
            habitats that attract wildlife and, in turn, draw visitors and
            increase economic return to communities;
      --Keep refuges open and staffed so that quality recreational
            opportunities continue to be offered to the public;
      --Maintain facilities and equipment used to serve the public and
            manage habitat;
      --Provide law enforcement officers needed to keep refuge resources
            and the people who come to appreciate them safe.
        Refuge visitation is growing and is expected to continue. In fact,
    from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2014, the Refuge System welcomed
    2.7 percent more visitors. However, refuges are losing valuable staff
    committed to visitors and volunteers. The number of volunteers dropped
    by 6 percent, particularly troubling considering this work force is a
    20 percent boost to existing Refuge System staff. Refuges rely on
    volunteers for welcoming and greeting visitors, staffing refuge nature
    stores, maintenance, interpretation, and much more. Volunteer service,
    however, is only possible if the System is reasonably staffed and thus
    able to extend requisite volunteer training and oversight. Arguably,
    the System's mission cannot be fully achieved without refuge volunteers
    and Friends groups.
        If the Refuge System is forced to sustain further reductions,
    future RAPP reports will likely show continued decline in the System's
    conservation work and public use opportunities. Funding cuts are
    already impacting America's refuges. If annual operations and
    maintenance funding does not rise, CARE anticipates further impacts
    both within and outside of refuge boundaries, including:
      --A decrease in the use of prescribed fire, which is used on refuges
            both to improve habitat for wildlife and to reduce hazardous
            fuels that pose a wildfire risk to nearby communities;
      --A decline in the number and quality of visitor programs, with
            visitor centers operating at reduced hours, and plans to add or
            expand hunting programs at refuges being postponed;
      --Lost revenue for local communities as visitor numbers drop;
            according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) fiscal
            year 2013 budget justification, ``Each 1 percent increase or
            decrease in visitation impacts $16.9 million in total economic
            activity, 268 jobs, $5.4 million in job-related income, and
            $608,000 in tax revenue.''
      --Elimination of ancillary functions like FWS's operation of
            Henderson Field at Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, which
            serves as a critical emergency landing site for trans-pacific
            flights, as well as the public's main window to the vast marine
            national monuments.
        We urge Congress to fund the Refuge System at $508.2 m in fiscal
    year 2016--to bridge the growing gap between what the System needs and
    what it receives, enabling refuges to continue moving America forward.
    On behalf of our more than 16 million members and supporters, CARE
    thanks the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit comments on the
    fiscal year 2016 Interior Appropriations bill, and we look forward to
    meeting with you to discuss our request.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the The Corps Network
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the
    subcommittee:

        My name is Mary Ellen Sprenkel and I am the President and CEO of
    The Corps Network; the national association of Service and Conservation
    Corps. The Corps Network has over 100 member organizations that operate
    in all 50 States and enroll over 23,000 young people between the ages
    of 16 and 25 each year. It is The Corps Network's mission to provide
    critical leadership to the Corps movement and to our Nation's Service
    and Conservation Corps as they harness the power of youth and young
    adults to tackle some of America's greatest challenges and transform
    their own lives.

        The Corps Network respectfully requests that in fiscal year 2016
    the subcommittee fund the following accounts:
      --$2,515,131,000 for ``Operation of the National Parks.''
      --$50,000,000 for the ``Centennial Challenge'' for the National Park
            Service.
      --$107,200,000 for youth programming across the DOI Bureaus.
        --$37,500,000 for the National Park Service
        --$28,200,000 for the U.S. Geological Survey
        --$18,500,000 for the Fish and Wildlife Service
        --$12,600,000 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
        --$6,000,000 for the Bureau of Land Management
        --$3,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation
        --$1,000,000 for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
                Enforcement
      --Increased funding for operational accounts of DOI Bureaus and USFS.

        These programs will allow public land and water management agencies
    to engage young adults and veterans in meeting our Nation's backlogged
    maintenance needs; address record youth unemployment levels; prepare a
    diverse group of youth to be the next generation of natural resource
    employees and stewards.
        Corps are comprehensive youth development programs that engage
    diverse young people in service projects that address important
    community and environmental needs. Through their service, Corpsmembers
    develop job and leadership skills. Corps also provide members with
    access to academic programming, counseling and additional support.
    Corps are a direct descendant of the Depression-era Civilian
    Conservation Corps, which mobilized about three million young men to
    dramatically improve the Nation's public lands in exchange for food,
    shelter, education, and a precious $30-a-month stipend.
                             the impact in numbers
        In 2015 alone, the Corpsmembers of the 100-plus member
    organizations of The Corps Network collectively:
      --Restored and improved 125,000 acres of ecological habitat
      --Maintained and improved 4,700 parks, gardens, and urban greenspaces
      --Built and maintained 8,700 miles of trails
      --Removed over 450,000 acres of invasive and exotic plant species
      --Planted 2.3 million trees
          corps enroll participants reflective of america's diversity
        At present, our member Corps enroll over 23,000 Corpsmembers a
    year, the majority of whom come from diverse and disadvantaged
    backgrounds and are looking for a second chance to succeed in life.
    Many Corpsmembers are ``opportunity youth,'' meaning that they have
    either dropped out of school or are unemployed at the time that they
    enter a Corps program.
        Corpsmembers receive a wide range of personal and professional
    development opportunities and services including, but not limited to:
    guidance from adult leaders who serve as mentors and role models;
    academic programming designed to lead to a high school diploma or GED;
    opportunities to pursue certificates and credentials with demonstrated
    value; and a modest stipend--all to prepare them for postsecondary
    education and labor market success.
        In 2012, 65 percent of all Corpsmembers were unemployed when they
    entered the Corps 31 percent were not in school and did not have a GED,
    61 percent came from families below the poverty line, and 20 percent
    were formerly incarcerated or court-involved. After completing their
    programs, 54 percent of alumni said that they were employed or enrolled
    in further service. 68 percent reported that they were in college or a
    high school diploma/GED program.
                                  quality work
        Each year, Corps complete hundreds of high-quality and often
    technical projects on public lands and waters. Project sponsors
    consistently express a high degree of satisfaction with the quality of
    work and productivity of Corps. Virtually all Federal project partners
    (99.6 percent) say they would work with Corps again.

        Types of Corps projects include, but are not limited to:
      --Protecting wildlife and improving access to public lands and waters
      --Preparing communities for disasters and responding to disasters
            when needed
      --Enhancing recreation on public lands
      --Protecting communities and public lands from the devastating
            effects of wildfire
      --Preserving historic structures
      --Enhancing neighborhoods and community public spaces
                                  cost savings
        By partnering with Conservation Corps, Federal land and water
    management agencies achieve more with their operating budgets. Research
    conducted by the National Park Service's Park Facility Management
    Division indicates that hiring Conservation Corps to complete
    maintenance and trail projects resulted in significant savings
        The analysis considered 15 diverse trail and maintenance projects
    throughout the country in places including Mesa Verde National Park,
    Glacier National Park, Point Reyes National Seashore, and Voyageurs
    National Park. The research found that using Conservation Corps to
    complete maintenance and trail projects provided a cost savings of over
    50 percent.
                     fiscal year 2016 request justification
        The Corps Network requests the committee's support for fiscal year
    2016 programs that will allow public land and water management agencies
    to engage young adults and veterans to meet our Nation's backlogged
    maintenance needs, address record youth unemployment, and prepare a
    diverse group of youth to become the next generation of natural
    resource employees.
        The first two accounts that we request funding for fall under
    National Park Service and the third account is under the Department of
    the Interior. National Park ``Operations'' is a preexisting account
    governing operation of our national parks. The ``Centennial Challenge''
    is an effective program launched during the George W. Bush
    Administration that would leverage private funds with matching Federal
    dollars for park projects throughout the country to restore facilities
    and improve the visitor experience. These funds will allow thousands of
    veterans, youth, and others to work on upgrading the National Park
    System for its 100th anniversary in 2016.
        As the National Park Service prepares for its 100th Anniversary,
    Congress has an opportunity to invest in the popular and economically
    important National Park Service. An investment this year will help
    parks recover from years of underfunding and restore parks for the
    Centennial. Every dollar invested in the National Park Service
    generates $10 in economic activity. The operations investment would
    provide for park rangers to maintain facilities and provide services to
    park visitors. The Centennial Challenge investment would allow for the
    park service to leverage private matching funds through a 1:1 match for
    specific projects.
        The Department's funding for youth programming would also provide
    work and training opportunities for young people and veterans during
    2015 and 2016. The goal of these programs is to build the next
    generation of conservation and community leaders by supporting youth
    engagement and employment on public lands. A key component of the
    Department's efforts will be partnering with youth organizations
    through the 21st Century Conservation Corps. The Department proposes
    that these programs provide work and training opportunities to 100,000
    individuals ages 15 to 35 through 2017. We also support increased
    funding for the operational accounts at the U.S. Forest Service that
    could fund partnerships with Conservation Corps.
        In addition, we appreciate the subcommittee's support of the
    bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (WDFA--H.R. 167; S. 235) and
    respectfully request the language be highlighted in the fiscal year
    2016 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
    This language provides the structure to fund a portion of the USDA
    Forest Service (USFS) and Department of the Interior (DOI) wildfire
    suppression costs through a budget cap adjustment under the Balanced
    Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. This
    would provide the USFS and DOI with a funding structure similar to that
    used by other agencies who respond to natural disaster emergencies. We
    additionally request that the subcommittee appropriate the modeled
    levels of suppression through the Interior bill and the wildfire budget
    cap adjustment to meet fire suppression needs in fiscal year 2016. The
    current wildfire suppression funding model and cycle of transfers and
    repayments has negatively impacted the ability to implement forest
    management activities. The Wildfire Disaster Funding bill would provide
    the USFS and DOI flexibility to reinvest in core land and water
    management activities which have been reduced in recent years due to a
    continued shift of limited resources to fund wildfire suppression.
            engaging the next generation in service to public lands
        Beginning with the creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps
    during the Great Depression, and continuing to the recent launch of the
    21st Century Conservation Service Corps Initiative, organizations like
    Anchorage Park Foundation's Youth Employment in Parks program, Rocky
    Mountain Youth Corps in Taos, and Southeast Conservation in
    Chattanooga, have helped millions of young Americans gain job training,
    further their education, and contribute to America's communities
    through service and the conservation of national and State parks,
    forests, and other treasured places.
        The future of our Nation's public lands depends upon the next
    generation becoming active resource stewards. I hope that you will
    provide the funding to put thousands of youth and returning veterans to
    work restoring some of America's greatest historical, cultural, and
    natural treasures. With the approaching National Park Service
    centennial, billions in backlogged maintenance across all of the land
    management agencies, record youth unemployment, and the cost savings
    nature of public private partnerships, this funding is an absolute win-
    win for our country.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Council of Lake Committees
        Dear Senator Murkowski and Senator Udall:

        I write on behalf of the Council of Lake Committees (CLC),
    comprised of senior-level fishery resource managers from State, tribal,
    and provincial agencies surrounding the Great Lakes. The CLC
    appreciates the subcommittees' ongoing support for programs that
    sustain and restore the Great Lakes. I am writing to request $17.5
    million in fiscal 2016 appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey's
    Great Lakes Science Center (GLSC). The GLSC conducts critical science
    activities essential to Federal, State, tribal, and provincial
    management programs throughout all five Great Lakes and in all eight
    Great Lakes States.
        The Great Lakes are a vast natural resource, larger in area than
    the U.S. States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island,
    Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire combined. They are an
    international resource representing a massive economic engine. Nearly
    $35 billion/year and 75,000 jobs are generated in fishing, tourism and
    related industries. Several independent sources estimate $7.0 billion/
    year is directly attributable to Great Lakes fisheries. The highest
    quality science possible is required to inform wise fisheries,
    ecosystem and water resources management decisions in the Great Lakes.
        Currently, the GLSC receives approximately $8.5 million in
    appropriated funding to support science programs critical to management
    of these incredibly valuable resources. This funding level represents
    approximately 1.2 percent of the annual fisheries related revenue and
    less than 0.03 percent of the revenue attributable to closely related
    industries. Our request for $17.5 million in fiscal 2016 appropriations
    represents an $8.75 million increase above the President's fiscal year
    2016 request, and reflects long-standing, well recognized needs for
    this chronically under-funded science program.
        The CLC has a long history of support for the GLSC program. We
    strongly support the GLSC because the science they produce is essential
    to the day-to-day and long-term management of Great Lakes fisheries and
    ecosystems. Great Lakes management jurisdictions depend on the GLSC
    Deepwater and Invasive species programs to provide key data about long-
    term condition of fish communities, and for the development of tools
    and technologies needed to combat invasive species that threaten
    valuable sport and commercial fisheries. Despite our strong, ongoing
    support, we are frustrated that the funding deficiency for this program
    has only widened, and sequestration made a very tough budget situation
    considerably worse for GLSC programs. The GLSC's research capabilities,
    critical to Great Lakes management agencies, have been devastated by
    years of budget erosion, and worsened by a 6 percent cut from
    sequestration in 2013. None of the budget erosion or impacts of
    sequestration have been restored.
        Now, for the first time since the President was elected, his 2016
    budget highlights two areas where the USGS GLSC programs would
    experience relatively small budget increases. The President proposes:
    (1) a $250,000 increase for the Great Lakes Deepwater Assessments; and
    (2) a $2.0 million increase for Invasive Species (Bureau-wide). The
    language for the proposed add in the Fisheries Program for Great Lakes
    Fisheries Assessments (+$250,000) is found on Page C-52 of the fiscal
    year 2016 USGS Budget Justification. Also important is a proposed
    initiative on New and Emerging Invasive Species (+$2.0 million) in the
    Invasive Species Program found on Page C-26 of the fiscal year 2016
    USGS Budget Justification.
        The CLC believes that, in the current budget climate, it is
    important to carefully prioritize essential programs. The CLC believes
    strongly that the USGS GLSC plays a central role in supporting near and
    long-term initiatives of importance to the Federal Government, its
    State, tribal, and Canadian partners, and in maintaining the
    significant economic benefits derived from Great Lakes fisheries and
    associated industries. We request that you join the CLC and support at
    least $17.5 million in fiscal year 2016 for the USGS GLSC activities
    which represents an $8.75 million increase above the President's
    request.

        [This statement was submitted by Steven R. LaPan, New York State
    Department of Environmental Conservation, Chair.]
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the The Creative Coalition
        Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony
    regarding the fiscal year 2016 funding level for the National Endowment
    for the Arts (NEA). I am writing on behalf of The Creative Coalition,
    the 501(c)3, non-profit, non-partisan public advocacy organization of
    the arts and entertainment community, to urge Congress to provide $155
    million for NEA in the fiscal year 2016 Interior, Environment, and
    Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
        In 1989, actors Ron Silver, Christopher Reeve, Susan Sarandon, Alec
    Baldwin and others established The Creative Coalition to galvanize
    support for the arts and arts education. The Creative Coalition's
    membership includes actors, directors, producers, writers,
    entertainment industry executives, and others who make their living in
    theater, film, arts, letters and television. We take our roles as
    citizens very seriously and appreciate the opportunity to express our
    views on the importance of sufficient funding for the arts.
        For the last 4 years, Congress has funded NEA at $146 million,
    which, in real dollars, is less than the $162 million provided for the
    Agency 20 years ago. Adjusted for inflation, NEA's funding is more than
    $100 million lower each year than it was two decades ago, providing
    less than 50 cents per capita currently versus 70 cents per capita in
    1992. While we recognize the fiscal year 2016 request of $155 million
    for NEA is a slight increase over President Obama's proposed level of
    funding of $148 million, $155 million is a level that has been
    supported in recent fiscal years by both the President and at the
    Committee level. The requested level of funding would better leverage
    growing State, local and private arts funding and help to restore
    critical Federal arts programming--which supports creativity and
    innovation, and provides measured cultural, educational and economic
    benefits.
        Federal funding of the arts is a wise investment and should be
    viewed as a genuine public-private partnership due to the significant
    private philanthropic support that Federal funds are leveraged against.
    Without Federal support, we would struggle to share the richness of our
    culture, our history and our legacy, which is a national treasure and
    should be buoyed with Federal resources so that all may enjoy it. The
    $155 million request for NEA is a small investment when compared to the
    enormous impact it will have on the programs it supports and in the
    communities where it makes the arts come to life.
        I speak from the heart and from my own experience. I grew up in a
    small, rural town in South Carolina. The arts were the lifeblood of the
    community both economically, culturally and spiritually. I grew up in a
    town where the prom was in the high school gym; folks bought their
    clothes in a general store; and the newspaper came out once a week. I
    also grew up in a town that invested in and revered the arts; world
    history came alive in high school plays and in community theatre
    productions; learning discipline, team work and strategic planning were
    the offshoot lessons of the school band; and mathematical skills were
    honed in design classes.
        Speak to anyone of note in the areas of politics, business, media,
    community leadership and the entertainment industry, and you will find
    individuals who were drawn into the arts as young people. They were
    acting in community theater productions and school plays, playing in
    bands, spending their afternoons and weekends at local dance companies.
    The non-profit arts ecosystem nurtured them into the thought and idea
    leaders we know today.
             i. the positive impact of arts on the american economy
        Entertainment is a national commodity with international reach and
    revenue. Our Nation's entertainment industry and non-profit arts
    pipeline are American success stories in productivity and innovation.
    To maintain the Nation's leadership, we must sustain strong support for
    the arts as an industry, and as an educational investment.
        According to statistics compiled by the Motion Picture Association
    of America, in 2013, the motion picture and television industry
    supported 1.9 million jobs and $113 billion in total wages. In 2013, we
    had $15.8 billion in film and television exports, with a trade surplus
    of $13.4 billion, equal to 6 percent of the total U.S. private-sector
    trade surplus in services. This trade surplus for the industry is
    greater than the surpluses in the advertising, mining,
    telecommunications, management consulting, legal, computer, health
    related and insurance services sectors.
        The economic impact of the entertainment industry extends far
    beyond those who appear in front of the camera. A single television
    series or a movie is a vast and profitable enterprise. A series can
    employ hundreds of people in high quality, high paying jobs. In
    addition, filming provides huge support to local businesses (i.e.
    caterers, dry cleaners, hotels, florists, hardware, lumberyards,
    software, and digital equipment suppliers) as well as jobs in other
    companies doing business with consumers, such as DVD and Blu-ray
    retailers, theme parks and tourist attractions. And, this economic
    activity takes place all across the country, not just in Hollywood or
    New York. Those who make their livings from the entertainment industry
    can just as likely be found shooting in New Mexico, North Carolina, or
    Michigan.
        Statistics show that non-profit arts and culture organizations
    generate $135 billion in annual economic activity, support more than
    four million full-time jobs and return nearly $10 billion in Federal
    taxes.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Americans for the Arts, AEP IV study.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, arts and
    cultural production contributed $699 billion, or 4.3 percent, to the
    Nation's economy in 2012. This percentage represents a larger share of
    the economy than transportation, tourism and agriculture, and is larger
    than 45 States' individual contributions to the GDP. While the economy
    grew at a rate of 2.3 percent per year from 2007-2012, the category
    identified as Independent Artists, Writers and Performers' contribution
    to the economy was almost double at 4.4 percent.
        With this rate of return, it should be clear that increasing
    Federal funding for non-profit arts organizations and events like those
    the National Endowment for the Arts supports, is a sound, positive
    investment. Community theaters, children's theaters, symphonies, arts
    centers, dance troupes, etc. are the R&D of America's vibrant arts
    economy. In 2014, the Sundance Film Festival, which started with the
    support of an NEA grant, generated over $86 million for the State of
    Utah over an 11 day period. The NEA historically supports significant
    artistic outlets such as the Vietnam Veterans Memorial design
    competition, Spoleto Festival USA and PBS' ``Great Performances.''
    These are just a few examples which demonstrate how the arts empower
    our veterans and support our military, and establish the U.S. as an
    incubator for globally acclaimed performing artists. In the case of
    ``Great Performances'', a television program originally initiated with
    Federal funding, it is now sustained by private funding and continues
    to expose the American television audience to the finest in performing
    arts to which they may otherwise lack access.
        The National Endowment for the Arts also provides desperately
    needed funding to smaller community arts efforts in cities and towns
    across America. NEA grants are intrinsic to communities building strong
    enterprise zones. Communities that are fortunate enough to receive a
    grant award from the NEA often see increased business activity as
    companies are able to offer employees and clients creative climates and
    more vibrant opportunities, which attracts and--most importantly--
    retains talent. Arts is indisputably revitalizing both rural and urban
    areas.
                  ii. fostering americans' access to the arts
        Every American, young and old, deserves to have access to the arts.
    It is the Federal investment in the National Endowment for the Arts
    that brings the arts into so many of our communities. According to its
    most recent annual report, the NEA awarded 2,276 grants in nearly
    16,000 communities across the country. More than 38 million Americans,
    including seven million children and youth, attended a live arts event
    supported by the NEA. These events included approximately 70,000
    concerts, readings, and performances and 1,600 exhibitions. As a
    recipient of a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts,
    organizations are able to leverage these dollars from a wide variety of
    private sources. For every grant dollar awarded, the recipient
    leverages at least $9 dollars from other sources greatly multiplying
    the impact of the Federal Government's investment.
        In addition to these live arts events, NEA grants support school-
    based arts programs that illustrate how arts education and arts in
    schools benefits students and prepares them for future success. Data
    shows that students with 4 years of arts education score roughly 100
    points higher on their SATs. Despite the academic benefits of exposure
    to the arts, we are seeing a rising trend of eliminating arts programs
    when local school districts are forced to make cuts.
        Bottom line: Without the support of NEA grants for arts education,
    fewer students would have the opportunity to participate in the arts
    and develop the creative skills that often lead to future success.
        As a strong supporter of military families, The Creative Coalition
    is proud to be a partner with Blue Star Families to bring awareness to
    challenges facing our active-duty military families. Through our
    partnership with this outstanding organization, we have learned that
    military families often struggle to establish roots and make
    connections in their community as they move from base to base. As a
    result of a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, our
    Nation's active-duty military personnel and their families, including
    National Guard and Reserve, are able to access more than 2,000 museums
    across America for free. Not only are these families able to access
    some of America's great cultural institutions, this program often
    allows them to better connect with their new communities by learning
    about local history, local artists and local traditions.
        Federal funding for the NEA is critical to sustain many of the
    programs providing access to the arts for so many Americans. When
    public dollars for the arts are cut, we often see reductions in private
    funding as well. During the most recent economic downturn, we saw
    significant cuts in funding from philanthropic, corporate and private
    sources of funding for the arts. Sadly, when we reduce funding for the
    arts, the programs hardest hit are often ones for lower-income
    populations, rural communities and at-risk populations. Sufficient
    funding for the National Endowment for the Arts is the best way to
    ensure that all Americans will continue to have access to the arts in
    their communities.
                                   conclusion
        The evidence is strong that the arts play an important role in our
    economy, our schools and our overall quality of life. The contributions
    of painters, musicians, poets and actors have greatly enriched our
    American culture and American artists have been a driving force in the
    world's largest economy. If we are to maintain our vital arts economy
    and ensure continued American competitiveness in a global market that
    increasingly values creativity, today, we must adequately invest in the
    arts and in the development of future American artists. As a result,
    The Creative Coalition urges the subcommittee to increase the funding
    level for the National Endowment of the Arts to $155 million in fiscal
    year 2016.
        Thank you for your consideration.

        [This statement was submitted by Robin Bronk, CEO.]
                                     ______

                        Prepared Statement of Dance/USA
        Ms. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am
    grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of Dance/
    USA, its Board of Directors and its 500 members. We strongly urge the
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies in the
    Committee on Appropriations to designate a total of $155 million to the
    National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2016. This
    testimony and the funding examples described below are intended to
    highlight the importance of Federal investment in the arts, so critical
    to sustaining a vibrant cultural community throughout the country.
        The NEA makes it possible for everyone to enjoy and benefit from
    the performing arts. Before the establishment of the NEA in 1965, the
    arts were limited mostly to a few big cities. The NEA has helped to
    strengthen regional dance, opera, theater and other artistic
    disciplines that Americans now enjoy. NEA funding provides access to
    the arts in regions with histories of inaccessibility due to economic
    or geographic limitations. The Endowment embodies the ideal that no one
    should be deprived of the opportunity to have art in their lives. The
    Arts Endowment has helped the arts become accessible to more Americans,
    which in turn has increased public participation in the arts.
        The NEA is a great investment in the economic growth of every
    community. Despite diminished resources, including a budget that has
    decreased by over $20 million since 2010, the NEA awarded more than
    2,100 grants in 2014, totaling more than $100 million in appropriated
    funds. These grants nurture the growth and artistic excellence of
    thousands of arts organizations and artists in every corner of the
    country. NEA grants also preserve and enhance our Nation's diverse
    cultural heritage. The modest public investment in the Nation's
    cultural life results in both new and classic works of art, reaching
    the residents of all 50 States and in every congressional district.
        The return of the Federal Government's small investment in the arts
    is striking. In 2013, the American creative sector was measured by the
    Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BEA and the NEA
    developed an ``Arts and Cultural Production Satellite Account'' which
    calculated the arts and culture sector's contributions to the gross
    domestic product (GDP) at 4.3 percent (or $699 billion) of current-
    dollar GDP in 2012. Additionally, the nonprofit performing arts
    industry generates $135.2 billion annually in economic activity,
    supports more than 4.13 million full-time equivalent jobs in the arts,
    and returns $9.59 billion in Federal taxes.
        On average each NEA grant leverages at least $9 from other State,
    local, and private sources. Few other Federal investments realize such
    economic benefits, not to mention the intangible benefits that only the
    arts make possible. Even in the face of cutbacks in the recent years,
    the NEA continues to be a beacon for arts organizations across the
    country.
        The return on investments is not only found in dollars. In 2012,
    2.2 million people volunteered 210 million hours with arts and cultural
    organizations, totaling an estimated value of $5.2 billion--a
    demonstration that citizens value the arts in their communities.
                               nea grants at work
        Past NEA funding has directly supported projects in which arts
    organizations, artists, schools and teachers collaborated to provide
    opportunities for adults and children to create, perform, and respond
    to artistic works. NEA funding has also made the art form more widely
    available in all States, including isolated rural areas and inner
    cities; indeed, NEA funded projects cross all racial, geographic, and
    socioeconomic lines.
        NEA grants are awarded to dance organizations through its core
    programs: Art Works; Challenge America Fast Track Grants; and Federal/
    State Partnerships. In fiscal year 2015, the NEA awarded 88 grants to
    the dance field through the first round of Art Works, totaling
    $2,525,000.
    Ballet Memphis
    $10,000
    Memphis, Tennessee
        To support the presentation of a new work titled, ``I Am.'' The
    work will include four original pieces titled ``I Am Woman,'' ``I Am
    Man,'' ``I Am Child,'' and ``I Am.'' ``I AM will explore themes of
    self-definition, equality, and human value that have roots in the Civil
    Rights Movement and are still relevant today. ``I AM Woman'' will be
    choreographed by Gabrielle Lamb; ``I Am Man'' will be choreographed by
    Reggie Wilson; ``I Am Child'' will be choreographed by Julia Adam; and
    ``I Am'' will be choreographed by Ballet Memphis dancer Steven McMahon.
    Dance St. Louis
    $30,000
    St. Louis, Missouri
        To support dance presentation and related activities. Companies to
    be presented include Tango Buenos Aires, Aspen Santa Fe Ballet,
    Compagnie Kafig, Nashville Ballet, as well as local companies. The
    project will include New Dance Horizons IV, a program where national
    choreographers create new works on St. Louis dance companies and the
    Spring Dance Festival, a presentation of Midwest dance companies. The
    project is also includes the Dance Education Residency Program, which
    will offer local dance students and companies master classed taught by
    professional dance company members as well as the expansion of the
    Dance Career Award program, which prepares high school dance students
    for college and careers in dance.
    New Orleans Ballet Association
    $40,000
    New Orleans, Louisiana
        To support the presentation of dance companies and related
    educational and outreach programs. Presentations include Black Grace
    (New Zealand) and Union Tanguera (France). U.S. Companies include Limon
    Dance Company and Ballet West. Through dance activities that reflect
    the diversity of the community and the diversity of the art form, NOBA
    strives to infuse the arts of dance into the cultural fabric of New
    Orleans and the surrounding communities. Dance is presented on the
    concert stage and in community settings in large, intermediate, and
    small venues, with activities in theaters, art centers, university
    halls, recreation centers, and schools.
    AXIS Dance Company
    $20,000
    Oakland, California
        To support Dance Access and Dance/Access Kids! educational and
    outreach programs in the Bay Area and on a national tour. These
    activities will offer a variety of events for youth and adults with and
    without disabilities who are based locally and nationally. Project
    activities may include dance classes, school assemblies, a dance camp
    for youth, teacher training, a dance apprentice program, workshops for
    emerging choreographers and professional dancers, community workshops,
    lecture demonstrations, and presentations.
    White Bird
    $40,000
    Portland, OR
        To support the presentation of dance companies in the White Bird
    Uncaged series. New Israeli Voices in Dance: Hillel Kogan and Danielle
    Agami, Urban Bush Women, and other companies will be presented at
    Portland State University's Lincoln Performance Hall or at the Newark
    Theatre/Portland Center for the Performing Arts. Each visiting company
    will hold community activities that will include master classes for
    local students and dancers, mini-performances or workshops at a
    community center or school, and post-show discussions.
                  the non-profit professional dance community
        America's dance companies perform a wide range of styles and
    genres. These include both classical and contemporary ballet, classical
    and contemporary modern, as well as jazz, tap, cross-disciplinary
    fusions and traditional to modern work rooted in other cultures. Over
    two-thirds of America's professional dance companies are less than 45
    years old; as an established art form with national identity and
    presence, dance has burst onto the scene almost entirely within living
    memory. And yet, America can boast some of the greatest dance companies
    of the world and can take credit for birthing two indigenous dance
    styles--tap and modern dance.
        One key to this spectacular achievement has been the creation of a
    national marketplace for dance. When the National Endowment for the
    Arts instituted its Dance Touring Program in the 1970s, great dance
    became accessible to every community in America. What used to be a
    handful of professional companies and a scattering of ``regional''
    dance has become a national treasure spread across cities and through
    communities, schools and theaters in all 50 States. Based on data from
    almost 300 nonprofit dance companies from across the United States,
    Dance/USA estimates that dance companies:
      --Employed over 14,800 people in a mix of full-time and part-time
            positions;
      --Paid approximately $345.7 million, or 53 percent of expenses, in
            wages and benefits;
      --Earned $200 million, or 29 percent of their income, from
            performances;
      --Received $326.6 million, or 48 percent of their income in
            contributions (including public support, corporate
            contributions, foundation support, and individual donations);
      --Generated more than $661.5 million in economic activity across the
            United States.
        Dance/USA, the national service organization for the professional
    dance field, believes that dance is essential to a healthy society,
    demonstrating the infinite possibilities for human expression and
    potential, and facilitating communication within and across cultures.
    Dance/USA sustains and advances professional dance by addressing the
    needs, concerns, and interests of artists, administrators, and
    organizations. Dance/USA's membership currently consists of nearly 500
    aerial, ballet, modern, culturally specific, jazz, and tap companies,
    dance service and presenting organizations, individuals, and related
    organizations. Dance/USA's member companies range in size from
    operating budgets of under $100,000 to over $50 million.
                                   conclusion
        Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending
    Federal tax dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered
    from a 40 percent budget cut in the mid-nineties and found its budget
    further decreased by almost $22 million since 2010, leaving its
    programs seriously underfunded. We urge you to continue toward
    restoration and increase the NEA funding allocation to $155 million for
    fiscal year 2016.
        On behalf of Dance/USA, thank you for considering this request.

        [This statement was submitted by Amy Fitterer, Executive Director.]
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Defenders of Wildlife
        Mister Chairman, ranking member and members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record.
    Founded in 1947, Defenders has more than one million members and
    supporters and is dedicated to the conservation of wild animals and
    plants in their natural communities.
        North America is fortunate to have some of the most abundant and
    diverse wildlife on Earth, more than 200,000 known species in the U.S.
    alone. This unique and irreplaceable heritage is treasured by all
    Americans both for its aesthetic value as well as for the very tangible
    benefits it brings as a resource. For example, a third of our food is
    pollinated by birds, bats, and insects; wildlife associated recreation
    generated $145 billion in economic benefits in 2011; \1\ bats provide
    at least $3.7 billion to the agricultural industry in pest control
    services each year; \2\ and the value of ecosystem services from
    habitat in the contiguous 48 States is estimated at $1.6 trillion
    annually.\3\ Budget cuts since fiscal year 2010 to Federal programs
    that conserve wildlife and habitat have severely undermined sound
    management. Continued cuts will likely lead to irreversible harm to
    vulnerable species and habitat. Our Nation's wildlife is a treasure and
    well worth the investment to properly care for it.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife
    Associated Recreation, USFWS, 12/12.
        \2\ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/
    41.summary?sid=853248fd-6760-4341-93d0-2aeeab9ea450.
        \3\ The Economics Associated with Outdoor Recreation, Natural
    Resources Conservation and Historic Preservation in the United States,
    Southwick Associates, 9/29/11.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Defenders also strongly opposed the inclusion of the sage-grouse
    rider in the final fiscal year 2015 appropriations bill. We ask that
    the subcommittee keep the fiscal year 2016 bill free of this rider and
    any others that would undermine science-based decisionmaking under the
    Endangered Species Act.
                           fish and wildlife service
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is our Nation's premier
    wildlife conservation agency. FWS needs adequate funding, not cuts, if
    it is to recover threatened and endangered species and protect
    migratory birds and fish, species of global conservation concern and
    other trust species, and stop or prevent wildlife crimes. After
    adjusting for inflation, appropriations for Ecological Services have
    steadily declined after 2010, despite the addition of almost 280 listed
    species since then.
        Cooperative Recovery.--Defenders supports the President's requested
    increases of $2.5 million in Conservation and Restoration under
    Ecological Services, $2 million in National Wildlife Refuge System
    Operations and Maintenance, and $300,000 under Migratory Bird
    Management. This initiative is supporting more efficient and strategic
    efforts across landscapes to recover threatened and endangered species
    on National Wildlife Refuges and surrounding lands.
        Renewable Energy.--Defenders supports the President's requested
    increases of $1.2 million in Planning and Consultation under Ecological
    Services to support approvals of renewable energy projects while
    ensuring they comply with relevant environmental laws, and $1.4 million
    under Service Science to assess potential impacts of energy
    transmission corridors on sensitive lands and wildlife in the West and
    to identify mitigation strategies.
        Endangered Species.--The President's request again proposes a major
    restructuring of the Ecological Services Activity, which includes the
    Endangered Species program. Defenders continues to be concerned about
    whether the new structure will allow for adequate transparency and
    accountability, particularly in the large ``General Program
    Activities'' program elements. Before any such restructuring is
    permitted, the agency must show that it has adequate controls in place
    to ensure the strategic use of this funding and a transparent process
    for developing priorities and reporting how funds are allocated. Absent
    this information, Defenders supports maintaining the current budget
    structure and supports the requested increases for the endangered
    species portion of Ecological Services, $23.2 million, which includes:
      --A $4 million increase to support the unprecedented effort to
            conserve the greater sage-grouse and its sagebrush habitat,
            part of a new sagebrush steppe initiative for fiscal year 2016.
      --A $2.5 million increase for listing that will support progress in
            listing decisions for approximately 145 candidate species, many
            of which have awaited Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection
            for years.
      --An $11 million increase to support the recovery of the more than
            1,500 listed U.S. species so that ESA protection is no longer
            necessary.
      --A $5.5 million increase for consultation so that development
            projects can move forward in compliance with section 7 of the
            ESA.
      --Defenders opposes a $1 million reduction for the Wolf Livestock
            Loss Demonstration Program that assists livestock owners co-
            existing with wolves, and we urge its restoration.

        National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS).--Our National Wildlife
    Refuge System is the largest land and water system in the world
    dedicated to wildlife conservation. Refuges provide enormous benefits
    to the American people, generating $2.4 billion each year for local
    economies. Defenders supports the $34 million increase in the request
    which includes funding for inventory and monitoring and for Challenge
    Cost Share projects to build resiliency in the face of climate change.
        We also support legislative language proposed by the administration
    that would provide authority to recover compensation from responsible
    parties who injure or destroy Refuge System or Hatchery System
    resources similar to that of the National Park Service and the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and allows compensation to be
    applied directly to repair the injury without further appropriation by
    Congress.
        Science Support.--The requested $14.7 million increase will help to
    answer pressing questions about climate adaptation and other landscape
    level ecological changes as well as about energy development impacts
    and mitigation for sensitive species, White-Nose Syndrome that is
    devastating bat populations, and other agency management challenges.
        Migratory Bird Management.--U.S. bird populations have experienced
    precipitous declines in recent years. Defenders supports the $7.1
    million requested increase which includes funding for building
    resilience of bird species and their habitats through the Joint Venture
    partnerships.
        Environmental Contaminants.--Under Ecological Services, a requested
    $1.2 million increase in Planning and Consultation will help to support
    the process for national consultations related to pesticide
    registrations and a requested $2 million increase in Conservation and
    Restoration will help increase capacity to respond to impacts of
    contaminant releases.
        Office of Law Enforcement.--An $8.7 million increase requested by
    the President will support needed wildlife science forensics experts,
    intelligence agents, and special agents to combat the unprecedented
    level of illegal trade in wildlife.
        Other key grant programs.--Defenders supports the requested funding
    amounts for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, the
    Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, and the Cooperative Endangered Species
    Fund (CESF) and for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. In addition, we
    are opposed to the request to fund non-land acquisition planning and
    conservation grants from the Land and Water Conservation Fund under the
    CESF.
                  forest service and bureau of land management
        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service
    (FS) are essential to the conservation of wildlife and their habitat in
    the United States, yet their allocated funding is inadequate to address
    significant challenges to sustain these resources. A top priority for
    Defenders is ensuring that development on these lands proceeds in a
    sustainable way that maintains the ecological integrity of our public
    lands and waters, conserves wildlife habitat and populations, and
    contributes to agency efforts to successfully recover our most
    imperiled wildlife. We urge strong oversight to ensure that any energy
    development is done in an environmentally sensitive fashion and in low
    conflict areas. Given their large land ownerships it is imperative that
    both participate fully in landscape level conservation and management
    efforts. We are encouraged by BLM's innovative efforts in the Western
    Solar Program and consider it an example of how land management
    agencies can improve landscape level decisionmaking for energy
    development.
        FS Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR)/Wildlife and Fisheries
    Habitat Management.--The administration has again proposed merging a
    number of accounts, including Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat
    Management, into an integrated budget. Instead, Defenders supports
    maintaining funding for Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management at no
    less than the fiscal year 2015 level of $140.5 million and continuing
    IRR as a pilot until the agency demonstrates its ability to adequately
    protect habitat for fish and wildlife under the consolidated program.
    Defenders continues to be concerned that wildlife program activities
    may be marginalized under IRR and that hard timber targets may detract
    from integrated restoration.
        FS Land Management Planning/Inventory and Monitoring.--The request
    again proposes merging these two programs into a single line item. As
    with IRR, Defenders is concerned about consolidating these functions
    unless and until the agency can demonstrate its ability to carry out
    its responsibilities under each program independently. We urge
    continued discrete funding as separate programs at no less than the
    fiscal year 2015 level.
        FS Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program.--We support
    the requested increase of $20 million for this proven cost-effective
    program established specifically to stabilize employment, offer a
    reliable wood supply, restore forest and watershed health, improve
    wildlife habitat, and reduce both the costs of fire suppression in
    overgrown forests and the risk of uncharacteristic wildfires.
        FS Forest and Rangeland Research (FS R&D).--We are opposed to the
    $4 million cut in the request for FS R&D, which includes a cut of $2
    million for Wildlife and Fish R&D. We urge funding at no less than the
    fiscal year 2015 level of $296 million which included $27.1 million for
    Wildlife and Fish R&D. Adequate funding for this program is crucial in
    providing relevant tools and information to support sustainable
    management of National Forest System lands as well as non-Federal
    forest lands. Generally, we are concerned that the Forest Service may
    lack adequate applied scientific capacity both in R&D and the National
    Forest System to implement critical planning and management actions,
    including the 2012 Planning Rule.
        BLM Wildlife and Fisheries Management.--Defenders supports the
    requested $37 million increase for the new sagebrush steppe initiative
    as long as it is paired with strong science-based conservation measures
    to protect and restore the sage-grouse and 350 sagebrush-dependent
    species of conservation concern. We continue to be concerned that
    Federal plans being developed under the National Greater Sage-Grouse
    Planning Strategy will be inadequate to conserve the species as we
    reported in our analysis of the draft plans in In the Red: How Proposed
    Conservation Plans Fail to Protect Greater Sage-Grouse. We urge the
    subcommittee to work with the agency to ensure that the plans are
    improved so that the final plans will be adequate to conserve and
    restore this iconic species.
        BLM Threatened and Endangered Species Management.--According to
    agency reports, the BLM has funding to implement only about 10 percent
    of the work it is required to do in recovery plans for ESA listed
    species on BLM lands, but the administration's request includes just a
    $109,000 increase fiscal year 2015. Defenders supports an increase of
    $1 million over the request which simply restores the budget to the
    fiscal year 2010 level and will better help move listed species to
    recovery.
        BLM Renewable Energy.--Full funding of the $29.4 million request
    will help BLM to move forward with renewable energy development on
    public lands while avoiding areas with natural resource conflicts,
    including conflicts with sensitive wildlife species.
        BLM Resource Management Planning, Assessment and Monitoring.--The
    $21.2 million increase in the President's request will support the
    sagebrush steppe initiative, data collection and monitoring and the
    development of a new geospatial initiative to better monitor ecological
    conditions and trends on the landscape.
                             u.s. geological survey
        The U.S. Geological Survey provides the basic science necessary for
    conservation of fish, wildlife and habitat. We urge support for the
    following increases:

        National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center/Climate Science
    Centers.--A $10.6 million increase in the request will support
    scientific needs in planning for climate change adaptation and building
    resiliency of ecosystems.
        Ecosystems.--A $19.3 million increase in the request will help to
    support development of crucial scientific information for sound
    management of our Nation's biological resources including research into
    declines of native pollinators and measures needed to avoid harming
    sensitive wildlife, especially bats and birds, from renewable energy
    development.
                    land and water conservation fund (lwcf)
        Defenders supports the proposal in the request for full and
    permanent funding of LWCF that will help to save some of the 6,000
    acres of open space, including wildlife habitat, that are lost each day
    in the U.S.\4\ Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ http://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/coop_across_boudaries.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife Society
        In recent years the annual operations and maintenance budget for
    the National Wildlife Refuge System has significantly failed to keep
    track with its needs. At the J. N. ``Ding'' Darling National Wildlife
    Refuge on Sanibel Island, Florida, the result has been a decline in
    staff levels, unfilled job openings, delayed maintenance, postponed
    research, and deferred projects. The refuge simply cannot fulfill its
    commitment to our visitors and to the American public in general
    without a remedy to this situation. On behalf of the ``Ding'' Darling
    Wildlife Society, I earnestly request your support for the
    recommendations of the National Wildlife Refuge Association, which asks
    that the Federal budget for the National Wildlife Refuge System be
    fully funded at $900 million, with appropriation of $508.2 million for
    fiscal 2016.
        The ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife Society is a non-profit friends
    organization that supports environmental education, research, land
    acquisition, special projects and services at the refuge. The refuge is
    the second most popular attraction for visitors to Southwest Florida
    (after our beaches) with over eight hundred thousand annual visits.
    Many visitors identify the refuge as their primary reason for visiting
    this part of Florida. As a result, the refuge has a dramatic positive
    impact on the local economy returning some $34 to the local economy for
    every Federal dollar appropriated to the refuge, an impact directly
    threatened by inadequate Federal refuge funding.
        We also request your support for the remaining legislative
    priorities of the National Wildlife Refuge Association. We particularly
    emphasize the need to appropriate funding in fiscal year 2016 from the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund which will permit the acquisition of
    key land areas to enhance the ecological integrity of the National
    Wildlife Refuge System. Additionally, we view the funding of proactive
    public-private partnerships as a vital and cost-effective way to secure
    those species at risk from listing under the Endangered Species Act.
        Thank you for your consideration.

        [This statement was submitted by Doris Hardy, President.]
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife Society--Friends of
                                   the Refuge
        Madame Chair and members of the subcommittee:

        With 563 Refuges in our country encompassing more than half a
    billion acres of land and water our National Wildlife Refuges need
    increased financial support. This is imperative if we are to continue
    to protect and conserve our wildlife while at the same time providing
    opportunities for all Americans to enjoy the benefits of conservation
    and wildlife protection. It is now more important than ever that we all
    come together and become stewards of habitat protection and protectors
    of our wildlife.
        I am starting my 11th year as a volunteer at the J.N. ``Ding''
    Darling National Wildlife Refuge on Sanibel Island, Florida. As such I
    have witnessed the recreational and educational activities for visitors
    and the conservation and wildlife protection that is provided for the
    variety of refuge inhabitants.
        Recently the ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife Society--Friends of the
    Refuge produced an informational rack card entitled: ``Banking on
    Nature''. Here are a few of the facts that were included:
      --Our ecotourism includes a variety of activities such as wildlife
            observation and birding, biking, boating, fishing, paddling,
            hiking, education, and others, many of which are free to the
            public.
      --Florida ranks second behind California in the number of people
            participating in wildlife viewing recreation.
      --816,000 annual visitors come to our Refuge.
      --$30. Is the amount generated in the local economy for every Federal
            dollar invested in our Refuge.

        There can be no doubt that wildlife refuges have a tremendous
    impact on the economy as well as on the well being of both wildlife and
    our citizens. Therefore I respectfully request for fiscal year 16
    $508.2 million for the National Wildlife System, ask that $73.8 million
    for the Land and Water Conservation Fund be provided and that all 2015
    Conservation Funding Priorities as set forth by the National Wildlife
    Refuge Association be supported.
        We need your help to continue to provide the opportunity to educate
    and inspire visitors and to offer a safe home for refuge inhabitants
    whether it is for a season, a week or a lifetime.
        Thank you.

        [This statement was submitted by Doris D. Hardy, Ed.D, President.]
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of David M. ``Lefty'' Durando
        As a rancher and a member of the Northern Everglades Alliance, I
    thank you for your past support of the Everglades Headwaters National
    Wildlife Refuge (EHNWR). The Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife
    Refuge and Conservation Area was established in 2012 as a result of
    unprecedented cooperation among Federal agencies, State agencies,
    cattle ranchers, sportsmen, and conservation groups. We respectfully
    request that you fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund and to
    specifically sustain funding for the refuge at the level of $10 million
    for fiscal year 2016. The monies from the LWCF fund are needed to
    purchase 100,000 acres of conservation easements over working ranch
    lands and to purchase 50,000 acres of fee simple lands within the
    headwaters of the Everglades.
        The Northern Everglades Alliance has 25 ranchers, farmers and
    landowners that own one million acres in the area. The NEA will
    continue to work with the administration and Congress to secure the
    necessary funding to maintain Florida's ranches and farms, water supply
    and wildlife. The request for $10 million for fiscal year 2016 is
    needed for the Everglades Headwaters in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) land acquisition program because land values are rising
    fast and development pressure has returned to Florida. Individual
    landowners are working closely with the FWS to complete easements on
    ranches and farmers in the Everglades Headwaters.
        There are additional Federal and State funding sources that will be
    used for the Everglades Headwaters project. The State of Florida has
    provided funding for easements and land acquisition programs. The
    Florida Forever program, operated by the Florida Department of
    Environmental Protection, provides conservation easement monies for
    lands and the Rural and Family Lands program, operated by the Florida
    Department of Agriculture, provides easement funds for working
    agricultural lands. Both programs are partnering with FWS to protect
    high priority lands within the EHNWR. The State and Federal partnership
    is critical to the success. The Water and Land Legacy amendment (ballot
    initiative) was approved last November; this amendment will provide for
    dedicated revenue for land conservation annually for the next 20 years.
        The EHNWR leverages existing efforts by the Natural Resource
    Conservation Service and the Department of Defense. Over the past 4
    years, NRCS has provided over $300 million through the Wetlands Reserve
    Easement Program for Florida projects. The Department of Defense,
    through the Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative buffer
    program, has spent $2 million to create buffers and easements
    surrounding the Avon Park Air Force Range. NRCS and DOD have signaled
    their interest in prioritizing additional funding for the Everglades
    Headwaters and are important partners.
        By protecting agricultural lands in the Kissimmee River basin and
    their ability to store and filter water, we are protecting the future
    of the State. Cattle ranching is one of Florida's most important
    agricultural industries and with drought conditions in the west,
    Florida ranchers are making a significant contribution to American beef
    production at a crucial time.
        Agriculture is second only to tourism as an economic driver in
    Florida. Through this plan, agricultural communities are able to
    preserve the way of life that makes these landscapes so special, while
    achieving conservation goals, watershed protection, military readiness
    and increasing opportunities for recreation, such as hunting and
    fishing, proven economic drivers to local communities. Existing Florida
    refuges return huge rates of economic output in relation to what is
    appropriated to run them; A.R.M Loxahatchee NWR returns $6.81 annually
    for every $1 appropriated; Hobe Sound NWR returns $9.88; Merritt Island
    NWR returns $17.61; Santee NWR returns $14.54; and St. Marks returns
    $10.62.
        The Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation
    Area will help maintain open land north of Lake Okeechobee, which is
    the most efficient and cost effective method of enhancing water quality
    and increasing water storage to help satisfy Florida's water needs. It
    will also help preserve agriculture in this region, safeguarding a
    vital industry that employs thousands and helps secure our Nation's
    food supply. Sportsmen, birdwatchers, and wildlife tourism participants
    generate enormous economic return for every one-dollar invested. An
    investment in the Everglades NWR and Conservation Area makes good
    conservation sense, good national security sense for both military
    preparedness and food production and good economic sense.
        We appreciate your leadership and ongoing support for the
    Everglades Headwaters. We look forward to working with you and your
    staff in the coming year. Thank you for your consideration of this
    request.

        [This statement was submitted by David M. ``Lefty'' Durando,
    Durando Ranches, Member, Northern Everglades Alliance.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant School
                                     (DCGS)
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
    Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community School (DCGS) on the Navajo Reservation
    in Bloomfield, New Mexico. Our school, which has been in continuous
    service since 1968, operates a K-8 educational program and a dormitory
    program for students in grades 1-12, serving around 250 students in
    both programs. DCGS is a tribally controlled grant school is located
    approximately 170 miles northwest of Albuquerque. DCGS is primarily
    funded through appropriations received from the BIE, and pass-through
    funding from the Department of Education.
        Our all-Navajo Board operates the DCGS through a Grant issued by
    the BIE under the Tribally Controlled Schools Act. The DCGS goal is to
    make a difference in the educational progress of our students and we
    believe that all of our students are capable of achieving academic
    success. However, we struggle with underfunding of practically every
    one of our educational and related programs that impacts our ability to
    fully meet our school goals and our ability to successfully operate our
    programs under the Indian Self-Determination policy.

        Our recommendations can be summarized as follows:

      --Protect school funding from the proposed Federal bureaucratic
            expansion.
      --Increase ISEP funding to $431 million in fiscal year 2016.
      --Fund Student Transportation at $73 million, and BIA road
            maintenance at $40 million.
      --Fully fund Tribal Grant Support Costs in line with the
            administration's proposal.
      --Provide $109 million for facilities operation and $76 for
            facilities maintenance.
      --Embark on a comprehensive 60-year plan for school replacement and
            upkeep.
        1. protecting school funding and programs from federal expansion
        You have heard over the last year from us and other schools about
    our concerns with the BIE's ``Blueprint for Reform'' and its ``One-
    Grant Initiative.'' We do not doubt the administration's commitment--
    even the President himself has commented on the issue. This new level
    of visibility and attention, along with the strong commitment of this
    subcommittee signal we have entered a new era for Indian education.
    However, coming from the local reservation community, we have a
    different perspective on what will be the best strategies to use to
    reach the goals of improvement. We fear that our perspectives are not
    being heard.
        Without delving into the detail of the Blueprint for Reform and the
    Secretarial Order that accompanied it in June of last year, we want to
    express our concern that the efforts will serve to centralize authority
    and decisionmaking in BIE headquarters, instead of at the local level
    as Congress intended and required by enacting the Tribally Controlled
    Schools Act. Proposed reforms in the Blueprint and Order that would
    direct the limited amounts of new funding to the Federal bureaucracy
    rather than to the schools are missteps. Successful reform must be
    carried out from the ground up, not the top down--something BIE has
    ignored given the poor outreach when drafting the Blueprint and
    practically no opportunity for consultation on its proposals.
    Additionally, the expansion of funding ``incentives'' is less of an
    attempt to encourage best practices, and more of a stick with which to
    prod schools that resist bureaucrats seeking to dictate how their
    schools function.
        The Navajo Nation was the recipient of one of the ``Sovereignty in
    Indian Education'' grants from the BIE last year, funding from which
    was used to produce a ``feasibility study'' by the Nation's education
    department on whether it could consolidate all education funding due to
    the Nation into a single grant under the BIE's ``One-Grant
    Initiative.'' Through this process it has become clear that the BIE is
    pushing the Nation to sign on to the initiative before the Nation and
    its communities have had a chance to adequately evaluate the issue. The
    feasibility study suffered from the same defects as the Blueprint did:
    it was put together without local or school input, and was pushed
    forward without consultation with those it affects. Fortunately, the
    schools and Navajo Nation leaders have begun to more carefully examine
    the One-Grant process, and have engaged our schools in the process.
    Despite this, the BIE is still pressuring adoption before the Navajo
    Nation's internal process is completed.
        The one-grant prospect may work for a tribe with a few schools, but
    the Navajo Nation has 64 schools spread over an area bigger than many
    States. Partly because of this, our communities make local decisions
    for our schools. Yet the BIE wants to add another layer of bureaucracy
    between it and schools like ours, and have used its grant funding as a
    way to pressure tribes to agree. Not only is this contrary to the idea
    of self-determination, it is contrary to the tenets of local control
    under the Tribally Controlled Schools Act (TCSA).
        BIE officials have said that none of the proposed reforms in the
    Blueprint are mandatory, and that it is up to the tribe to choose to
    participate. The choice to participate might be meaningful if we were
    in a situation of full-funding and with abundant alternative funding
    sources. However, the programs in the Blueprint are tied to funding
    resources--no BIE funded school has the luxury of bypassing funding
    opportunities. Accordingly, we request that the subcommittee reprogram
    funds intended for the reforms (like some of those contained in the
    ``Enhancement'' line item of the budget) to ISEP and Facilities
    Operations. Any funding for the BIE's reforms or experiments must come
    from outside the Indian education budget--our funds are scarce as is,
    and must not be diverted away from students.
          2. increase funding for indian school equalization programs
        The most critical stream of funding for community grant schools
    like ours is increased funding in the Indian School Equalization
    Program (ISEP). The ISEP funds are those that schools use for the day
    to day operation, whether that is paying teachers and staff, purchasing
    curriculum and supplies, or running student programs. Today, our ISEP
    funds are often put under pressure by unfunded needs elsewhere in our
    schools, which could be paying utilities or repairing one of our school
    buses. We also need increases in this funding to attract teachers to
    our school, since we are remote and some teachers find a small school
    environment challenging. We do not want to be in the situation where we
    are left only with those teachers that cannot find a job elsewhere.
    This hardship also makes the job of administrators, counselors, and
    support staff more challenging, meaning it is increasingly difficult to
    hire the all-star teachers our students deserve. Our wages and benefits
    must be sufficient to make up for the competitive disadvantage.
        This year, we are gratified to see the administration has requested
    $391.8 million for ISEP funding, an increase of $5 million to the
    program. However, the need in our schools is much greater. The National
    Congress of American Indians has recommended that Congress appropriate
    $431 million for ISEP funding, which we think should be this
    subcommittee's baseline for funding this budget year. ISEP is our
    schools' lifeblood, and we are still struggling to make up for losses
    in past years.
                 3. increase funding for student transportation
        One of our school's largest challenges is getting our children to
    school and back home. Maintenance costs for our vehicles are higher
    than normal for several reasons, including the fact that they travel
    more miles per day than the average school bus, those miles are often
    very rough, and the cost of maintaining our buses includes long
    transport time to garages or parts stores. This is not to mention the
    cost of fuel to cover those extra miles! Our funds are stretched so
    much that we struggle to get our students to extracurricular activities
    like sports or field trips that students at non-Indian schools enjoy as
    an everyday convenience.
        The administration has requested $53.14 million for student
    transportation, but that is simply not enough given the challenges of
    our roads and equipment. We request at least $73 million for student
    transportation in the BIE system. Such funding will enable us to
    maintain our six school buses, and will protect other funds that would
    otherwise be used for this purpose.
        We request that this subcommittee fund BIA road maintenance at a
    sustainable level. The condition of our roads is directly affecting our
    students' ability to learn. The administration has only requested an
    increase of $232,000 to the already meager $26.5 million budget for
    road maintenance. We echo NCAI's recommendation that the subommittee
    appropriate at least $40 million for road maintenance in fiscal year
    2016.
       4. we support the president's proposal to fully fund tribal grant
                                 support costs.
        Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC) (formerly known as Administrative
    Cost Grants) are the BIE analogue to Contract Support Costs, and are
    necessary for schools like DCGS to operate our schools. Not only do the
    TGSC funds pay for the administration of the school, but also fund all
    indirect costs like payroll, accounting, insurance, background checks
    and other legal, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. TGSC also
    enables schools to comply with the increasingly burdensome reporting
    requirements imposed by BIE or to comply with grant funding.
        This year, the administration has proposed to fully fund TGSC, and
    to include in the budget funding for schools transitioning from BIE-
    operated status to local control and grant funding. Up to last year,
    schools had only received, at most, two-thirds of the TGSC needed to
    cover overhead costs. DCGS welcomes this long overdue change, and
    applauds this subcommittee's and the administration's decision to treat
    schools' support costs the same as contractors with the BIA and the
    Indian Health Service. We support the administration's proposal that
    TGSC and startup costs be funded at $75.34 million.
         5. our schools need full funding for facilities operation and
                                  maintenance.
        The condition of BIE-funded schools is a national disgrace, and has
    been the subject of national news attention for years. Some schools in
    the country are forced to teach their students in converted bus barns
    or go without hot water. We do the best we can with our facilities at
    Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle, but constantly struggle with the fact that we do
    not have enough funding for maintenance of our buildings, utilities,
    and everyday repairs.
        The operation of our facilities is an important one, not only for
    the comfort of our students, but one that affects their health and
    safety. It is hard to learn and progress if you're too cold, or if
    you're too hot due to radiator problems. Additionally, our cafeteria
    can only serve sack lunches because of water line leaks that make our
    kitchen inoperable. In the last year it was reviewed, the BIA listed
    our school condition as ``poor'' with a deferred maintenance backlog of
    over $7.7 million dollars. Our backlog has only grown in the
    intervening 4 years, and our students are the ones who suffer as a
    result.
        We appreciate that the administration has finally moved to complete
    the replacement of schools on a list dated from 2004, but we need to
    stress that these needs are ongoing. Further, it is critical for our
    schools to have the funds to maintain and thus lengthen the useful life
    of our facilities. We support the BIE's request for school
    construction, but request that funding for facilities operation and
    maintenance be increased to $109 million for operations and $76 million
    for maintenance. This will help us meet our ongoing needs, and will set
    us on the path to catching up with deferred maintenance from past
    years.
        We also note that the completion of the 2004 school replacement
    list means that a new round of replacements will begin. We want to
    stress that this subcommittee and BIE must work together, with schools
    and tribes, to put together a comprehensive, long-term plan for school
    construction and maintenance. We call on the subcommittee to embark on
    a 60-year schools replacement plan with adequate funding to maintain
    buildings throughout their life. Recent testimony from the Governmental
    Accountability Office reported that even new construction is starting
    to fail because of inappropriate maintenance or poor construction
    oversight. Our schools want to protect the Federal investment in our
    students' education, and we ask the subcommittee to empower local
    communities to do so by removing bureaucratic hurdles inherent in the
    BIE facilities system. As school boards, we are the best decision
    makers.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony.

        [This statement was submitted by Ervin Chavez, School Board
    President and Faye BlueEyes, Assistant Executive Director.]
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Ecological Society of America
        Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:

        On behalf the Ecological Society of America, the world's largest
    society of professional ecologists, we urge you to support $1.6 billion
    for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in fiscal year 2016, a 9
    percent increase over fiscal year 2015.
        The Service's provides important work in habitat conservation and
    endangered species protection through its 551 National Wildlife
    Refuges, 70 National Fish Hatcheries, 65 fishery resource offices and
    86 ecological services field stations. A study from the FWS Division of
    Economics found that recreational visits to the agency's wildlife
    refuges generated $2.4 billion in sales to regional economies.
        The Service also plays a vital role in interagency efforts monitor
    and control the spread of invasive plant and animal species. The agency
    reports that invasive species cost the United States over $120 billion
    in damages every year. The Burmese python, Asian carp, Asian tiger
    mosquito, emerald ash borer, cheat grass, quagga mussel and the brown
    marmorated stink bug are among the most notorious of the 6,500 invasive
    species established in the United States.
        In addition to hindering efforts to protect threatened and
    endangered wildlife, these invasive species pose a costly threat to
    agriculture, recreational activities and human health. It is important
    that the Service's Wildlife and Habitat Management program has
    sufficient funding to provide national wildlife refuges the early
    detection and rapid response necessary to pinpoint nonnative species
    before have an opportunity to disrupt habitats and neighboring
    communities.
        The agency's Fish and Aquatic Conservation program is among key
    agency programs that work to prevent new aquatic invasions, which are
    uniquely difficult to detect, track and eradicate. Within this program,
    FWS is proposing an increase of $669,000 over fiscal year 2015 for
    Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention, which the Society supports.
        The Society is also supportive of the Service's efforts to connect
    Americans to the great outdoors as well as its youth and education
    programs that provide education and job training for careers and
    opportunities that promote greater understanding of the environment.
        We hope that Congress can continue to sufficiently invest in the
    agency's efforts to preserve and protect our Nation's diverse
    ecosystems while furthering our understanding and appreciation of the
    natural world.

        [This statement was submitted by Dr. David W. Inouye, President.]
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Edison Electric Institute
        The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) respectfully submits this
    written testimony for the record to the Senate Appropriations
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. We
    appreciate this opportunity to share our views on two major fiscal year
    2016 activities that are underway at the Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA): the Waters of the U.S. proposed rule published April 24,
    2014, and the proposed guidelines to regulate greenhouse gas emissions
    under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. We also would like to
    briefly review the recently finalized Section 316(b) cooling water
    intake structures rule and coal ash regulation, both of which pose
    implementation issues for States and our industry and warrant continued
    attention by the subcommittee.
                          waters of the united states
        Last April, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps)
    released a proposed rule to revise the definition of ``Waters of the
    United States'' (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The proposed
    WOTUS rule would broadly expand Federal control over both land and
    water resources, triggering substantial new regulatory requirements for
    electric utility facilities and projects. Critical utility operations--
    including generation, transmission, and distribution--as well as the
    siting and construction of renewable energy resources would be
    adversely impacted if the rule were to be finalized as proposed.
        The proposed WOTUS rule fails to achieve EPA's stated goals of
    providing greater certainty, predictability, and clarity, and it would
    violate recent Supreme Court decisions limiting Federal jurisdiction.
    Despite claims to the contrary, the rule--if adopted substantially as
    proposed--would significantly expand CWA jurisdiction and, therefore,
    require more CWA permits, resulting in greater costs, more delays, and
    greater uncertainty around all facets of power generation and supply.
        In November, EEI submitted comments urging that the proposed rule
    be withdrawn. Additionally, we recommended that EPA and the Corps
    should engage in a dialogue with the regulated community and the States
    and localities that are responsible for managing water quality
    nationwide to develop more precise changes to the existing regulations.
        Overall, more than 1 million comments were submitted to EPA and the
    Corps on the WOTUS proposal. More than 30 States weighed in, as did
    numerous congressional and local officials, opposing the rule because
    it would intrusively extend Federal jurisdiction to many land and water
    features never previously regulated under the CWA. Still, EPA and the
    Corps are moving aggressively to finalize a rule by this summer.
    Therefore, as a vital step toward a more reasonable outcome, EEI urges
    the subcommittee to adopt a legislative amendment in its fiscal year
    2016 legislation that would ban EPA from implementing a final WOTUS
    rule and instead, direct EPA and the Corps to issue a revised proposed
    rule for further input by States and the regulated community.
    proposed guidelines to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under section
                          111(d) of the clean air act
        Last June, EPA issued its proposed 111(d) guidelines, which contain
    State-specific emission reduction goals for carbon. For each State, an
    interim and final emission reduction goal is proposed. The final goal
    must be reached by 2030. The Agency determined the goals by using four
    sets of measures--or ``building blocks''--to help all States achieve
    their goals.
        EPA is expected to finalize the 111(d) guidelines this summer, and
    States then will be required to submit compliance plans for Agency
    approval that demonstrate how they will achieve these goals. EPA is
    expected to complete approvals of State implementation plans by mid-
    2018.
        The proposed 111(d) guidelines would require dramatic changes in
    how electricity is produced, transmitted and consumed. As such, EEI
    worked closely with our members to thoroughly review EPA's guidelines
    and to assess the impacts of the proposal on the electric power sector.
    On December 1, we delivered more than 300 pages of comments to EPA; 3
    million comments were submitted in total. EEI's comments provide EPA
    with suggestions for improvements based on many of the concerns that
    our companies have with the proposed guidelines.
        Of greatest concern is the fact that EPA has not taken into account
    the amount of infrastructure development, time and planning that the
    transition to a cleaner generating fleet will require. In fact, by
    setting stringent interim goals, EPA effectively has turned the
    proposed rule's 2030 goal into a 2020 goal. Eighty percent of the
    States would have to achieve 50 percent or more of their final 2030
    goals by 2020. Eleven of those States would be required to achieve 75
    percent or more of their 2030 goals by 2020.
        Achieving the goals envisioned in EPA's proposed 111(d) guidelines
    will require major changes to the electric system. New natural gas
    pipelines and electric transmission lines will be needed. Given the
    stringency of the interim goals, there is simply not enough time
    between now and 2020 for utilities and States to develop, plan, design,
    and complete the infrastructure needed to meet them as proposed,
    particularly since State implementation plans will not be finalized and
    approved until 2017-2018.
        A number of stakeholders--including State public utility
    commissions, State environmental agencies and reliability
    organizations--also have raised serious concerns with the 2020 interim
    goals. In fact, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation has
    cautioned, ``The proposed timeline does not provide enough time to
    develop sufficient resources to ensure continued reliable operation of
    the electric grid by 2020.''
        The 2020 interim goals must be substantially revised, if not
    eliminated entirely. This will give States flexibility to determine the
    most cost-effective actions and measures they need to take to achieve
    the 2030 goals. It also will allow States to establish a reasonable
    schedule for implementing such measures in a way that protects electric
    sources.
        Also of concern, the guidelines do not recognize the value of
    nuclear and hydro power generation as zero-emissions resources. Nuclear
    and hydropower are critical baseload generating sources that do not
    emit carbon, and EPA should incentivize the continued development of
    nuclear and hydropower sources.
        The Nation cannot achieve its carbon-reduction goals without the
    building of new nuclear plants and the continued operation of the
    existing nuclear fleet. The States and operators that are making the
    investments necessary to bring these zero-emissions resources online
    should be allowed to count their clean output, once operational, toward
    compliance. The final rules must also find a better way to incent
    keeping existing nuclear units online. Doing so will send a positive
    signal to States to build new nuclear plants and maintain existing
    plants.
        Similarly, the proposed 111(d) guidelines do not recognize the
    value of new and imported hydropower, particularly hydropower imported
    from Canada, in helping to provide affordable zero-emissions power in
    certain regions of the country. EPA should allow States to include
    generation from new hydro plants, increased generation at existing
    hydro plants, and hydro facilities that are relicensed in complying
    with the goals.
        EPA also failed to consider the electric system as a whole when
    setting standards and compliance goals. In fact, the four building
    blocks that EPA has proposed for achieving compliance create serious
    concerns and raise questions about whether the State emission rate
    goals are achievable. For example, increasing the use of variable wind
    and solar power reduces the efficiency of generation units that back up
    these systems when weather conditions change.
        EPA's four sets of measures do not take into account the
    interconnected nature of the integrated power system. Electric
    utilities and States engage in complex planning to maintain the
    reliability of this interconnected power system. Actions and measures
    to achieve gains under one building block may result in unintended
    consequences under the other building blocks when implemented
    simultaneously.
        EPA should modify the 2030 State-specific emission rate goals in
    the final guidelines to recognize that the building blocks affect each
    other in the context of the interconnected power system and to ensure
    that accurate data are used to determine a particular State's goal.
        EPA's proposed 111(d) guidelines must be improved before they are
    finalized. The Agency must provide States the compliance flexibility to
    choose the most cost-effective reductions in order to ensure the
    overall reliability of the electric system and to minimize costs for
    electricity customers.
              section 316(b) cooling water intake structures rule
        Last May, EPA finalized its cooling water intake structures rule
    under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. This rule was in
    development for years, and EEI worked throughout the rulemaking process
    to educate policymakers of the potential impacts of this regulation on
    electric generation facilities and our customers, and on the need for a
    flexible and cost-effective final rule.
        Importantly, EPA's final 316(b) rule does not impose a categorical
    one-size-fits-all cooling tower mandate. The Agency acknowledged the
    importance of weighing costs with environmental protection and also
    included a significant degree of compliance flexibility in the final
    rule.
        Still, the final rule will present significant operational and
    compliance challenges, and EEI is focused now on helping our members
    with implementation, including individual permits. Just before the
    final rule was issued, important new requirements related to endangered
    and threatened species listed under the Endangered Species Act were
    included. These requirements are likely to significantly complicate
    implementation of the rule, giving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service a
    new and influential role in Clean Water Act permitting. Consequently,
    implementation of the rule remains an area that may warrant the
    subcommittee's attention, especially when considered together with
    current or pending air, water, and waste rules EPA may promulgate.
                              coal ash regulation
        In December, EPA finalized another long-awaited rule on coal ash
    regulation. The Agency's final rule made the proper determination that
    coal ash should be regulated as a non-hazardous waste in a way that
    will protect human health and the environment. EEI has long advocated
    for a final rule that establishes a non-hazardous regulatory framework
    with a workable timetable for implementation.
        Despite the non-hazardous waste determination, we still have
    concerns with the self-implementing nature of the final rule, the legal
    authority of EPA to regulate inactive coal ash impoundments, and the
    way in which EPA has left the door open to one day regulate coal ash as
    a hazardous waste, creating additional uncertainty for electric
    utilities.
        While we are working closely with States, member companies and
    other stakeholders during the rule's implementation phase, EEI also
    continues to advocate for legislation that will establish State-
    enforced Federal requirements for the disposal of coal ash. Legislation
    offers a more effective way to address the safe management of coal ash
    sites that are no longer receiving coal ash, and would help to preserve
    jobs in industries that recycle coal ash, while safeguarding the
    environment and protecting the reliability and affordability of
    electricity for all consumers.
                                   conclusion
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to discuss these
    environmental activities which are, without a doubt, the most
    significant EPA actions ever to impact our industry. EEI truly values
    the partnership that we share with your subcommittee, and we look
    forward to continuing our dialogue with you on these and other issues
    that have the potential to impact electric generation, siting,
    permitting and construction efforts.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Testimony of Entomological Society of America
        The Entomological Society of America (ESA) respectfully submits
    this statement for the official record in support of funding for
    entomology-related activities at the U.S. Department of Agriculture
    Forest Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ESA
    requests a fiscal year 2016 appropriation of $6.489 billion for the
    Forest Service and requests that the Forest and Rangeland Research
    budget is maintained at a level at least equal to the fiscal year 2015
    enacted amount of $296 million to preserve valuable invasive species
    research and development. The Society also supports continued
    investment in Forest Health Management programs across the Forest
    Service in fiscal year 2016. In addition, ESA recommends an fiscal year
    2016 funding level of $8.6 billion for EPA, including support for
    Pesticides Licensing Program Area activities within its Science &
    Technology and Environmental Program & Management budgets, and
    continued support for State & Tribal Assistance Grants for Pesticide
    Program Implementation. Finally, ESA strongly supports EPA's commitment
    to work with other Federal agencies to develop a strategy to improve
    pollinator health, including involvement by EPA to examine the
    potential impact of pesticides on pollinator health.
        Advances in forestry and environmental sciences, including the
    field of entomology, help to protect our ecosystems and communities
    from threats impacting our Nation's economy, public health, and
    agricultural productivity and safety. Through improved understanding of
    invasive insect pests and the development of biological approaches to
    pest management, entomology plays a critical role in reducing and
    preventing the spread of infestation and diseases harmful to national
    forests and grasslands. The study of entomology also contributes to the
    development of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques, which use
    science-based, environmentally friendly, comprehensive methods to take
    preventative action against pests, often resulting in lower costs and a
    more targeted use of pesticides. In addition, entomology improves our
    knowledge of pollinator biology and the factors affecting pollinator
    health and populations, helping to ensure safe, reliable crop
    production that meets the needs of a growing world population.
        The U.S. Forest Service sustains the health, diversity, and
    productivity of 193 million acres of public lands in national forests
    and grasslands across 44 States and territories. Serving as the largest
    supporter of forestry research in the world, the agency employs
    approximately 35,000 scientists, administrators, and land managers. In
    addition to activities at the Federal level, the Forest Service
    provides technical expertise and financial assistance to State and
    private forestry agency partners.
        The Forest Service's Forest and Rangeland Research budget supports
    the development and delivery of scientific data and innovative
    technological tools to improve the health, use, and management of the
    Nation's forests and rangelands. Within Forest and Rangeland Research,
    the Invasive Species Strategic Program Area provides scientifically
    based approaches to reduce and prevent the introduction, spread, and
    impact of non-native invasive species, including destructive insects,
    plants, and diseases that can have serious economic and environmental
    consequences for our Nation. For example, Forest Service scientists are
    working to prevent the devastation of ash trees across North America by
    the emerald ash borer, an invasive beetle that was accidentally
    introduced from Asia. Emerald ash borer was first detected in 2002 and,
    since then, has killed countless millions of ash trees. This biological
    invasion threatens to eliminate all ash trees from North America, and
    is the most costly invasion from a forest insect to date. To attempt to
    address the problem, researchers have developed a series of artificial
    traps for these pests. These traps will help the Forest Service detect
    the early presence of emerald ash borer and be able to implement a
    rapid response to lessen damage.\1\ Emerald ash borer is just one of
    the exponentially growing list of invasive insects and diseases that
    cause harm to our Nation's forests and to our Nation's economy. Forest
    health is also affected by invasive weeds, and those weeds are often
    best controlled by beneficial insects used as biological control
    agents, resulting in permanent and often spectacular control. ESA
    strongly opposes the proposed cuts to Forest and Rangeland Research
    included in the President's fiscal year 2016 budget request, especially
    the 8.0 percent reduction directed at invasive species research and
    development.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Forest Service fiscal year 2016 Budget Justification: http://
    www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/media/2015/06/2015-fy2016-
    budgetjustification-update-three.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Also under the purview of the Forest Service is the Forest Health
    Management program, which conducts mapping and surveys on public and
    private lands to monitor and assess risks from potentially harmful
    insects, diseases, and invasive plants. The program also provides
    assistance to State and local partners to help prevent and control
    outbreaks that endanger forest health. According to a 2011 study,
    invasive forest insects cost local governments alone an average of over
    $2 billion per year; direct costs to homeowners from property loss,
    tree removal, and treatment averages $1.5 billion per year.\2\ The
    program's ``Slow the Spread'' activities, for example, have led to a 60
    percent reduction in the rate of the spread of an invasive species
    known as gypsy moth, resulting in an estimated benefit-to-cost ratio of
    3:1. Without the program, it is estimated that 50 million additional
    acres would have been infested by the moth.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Aukema, J.E.; Leung, B.; Kovacs, K.; [et al.]. 2011. Economic
    impacts of non-native forest insects in the continental United States.
    PLoS ONE 6(9): e24587.
        \3\ Forest Service fiscal year 2016 Budget Overview: http://
    www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/media/2015/06/2015-fy2016-
    budgetjustification-update-three.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To support these important functions, ESA requests that the
    subcommittee oppose proposed cuts to the Forest Health Management
    Program in fiscal year 2016.
        EPA carries out its mission of protecting human health and the
    environment by developing and enforcing regulations, awarding grants
    for research and other projects, conducting studies on environmental
    issues, facilitating partnerships, and providing information through
    public outreach. Through these efforts, EPA strives to ensure that our
    Nation enjoys clean water, clean air, a safe food supply, and
    communities free from pollution and harmful chemicals.
        EPA's Pesticides Licensing Program Area, supported by EPA's Science
    & Technology and Environmental Program & Management budgets, serves to
    evaluate and regulate new pesticides to ensure safe and proper usage by
    consumers. Through the mandate of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
    and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA utilizes scientific expertise and
    data, including knowledge gained from entomological sciences, to set
    maximum tolerated residue levels and to register pesticide products as
    effective and safe. By controlling insects that act as vectors of
    diseases of humans and domesticated animals, and invasive insect
    species that endanger our environment, pesticides registered by EPA
    help protect public health and the Nation's food supply. EPA's
    activities in this area also include the development of educational
    information and outreach to encourage the use of IPM and other reduced-
    risk methods of controlling pests. For example, EPA continues to
    support work to protect children from pesticide exposure used in and
    around schools, helping to promote cost-effective strategies that
    reduce student exposure to pesticides and pests. Due to previous work
    in this area, 18 Indiana schools have reduced pest control costs by 90
    percent by employing new IPM techniques.\4\ IPM strategies used in
    schools reduce student exposure to pesticides as well as allergens from
    pests themselves. Therefore, ESA supports continuing the modest funding
    that EPA has invested in school IPM.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ March 12, 2014 EPA press release: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/
    admpress.nsf/596e17d7cac720848525781f0043629e/
    ebef2aed5d69e01585257c99006af60d!OpenDocument.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Among EPA's State & Tribal Assistance Grants, categorical grants in
    the area of Pesticides Program Implementation help to facilitate the
    translation of national pesticide regulatory information into real-
    world approaches that work for local communities. For example, these
    grants fund efforts to reduce health and environmental risks associated
    with pesticide use by promoting, facilitating, and evaluating IPM
    techniques and other potentially safer alternatives to conventional
    pest control methods. ESA requests that the subcommittee support the
    proposed modest increase for Pesticides Program Implementation grants.
        ESA is in favor of increased funding for scientifically based
    studies of pollinator populations and health. Pollinators play a vital
    role in our Nation's agriculture industry; for example, bees pollinate
    more than 90 crops in the United States and are essential for the
    production of an estimated 70 percent of all the food we eat or export.
    To ensure a healthy bee population, more research is needed to fully
    understand the complexities of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) and to
    examine the diverse factors that endanger bee health. Pesticides
    represent just one potential risk to bees, but both the risks and
    benefits must be balanced, and those risks and benefits will vary among
    different crops and different crop-producing regions of the United
    States. EPA is well-positioned to help identify methods for protecting
    bee health; the agency has previously awarded agricultural grants to
    three universities to aid in the development of IPM practices that
    lower pesticide risks to bees while protecting valuable crops from
    pests. For this reason, ESA supports EPA's participation in multi-
    agency efforts to investigate pollinator health and develop
    implementation plans to prevent pollinator population decline.
        ESA, headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland, is the largest
    organization in the world serving the professional and scientific needs
    of entomologists and individuals in related disciplines. Founded in
    1889, ESA has nearly 7,000 members affiliated with educational
    institutions, health agencies, private industry, and government.
    Members are researchers, teachers, extension service personnel,
    administrators, marketing representatives, research technicians,
    consultants, students, pest management professionals, and hobbyists.
        Thank you for the opportunity to offer the Entomological Society of
    America's support for Forest Service and EPA programs. For more
    information about the Entomological Society of America, please see
    http://www.entsoc.org/.

        [This statement was submitted by Phil Mulder, Ph.D., President.]
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Florida Sportsman's Conservation Association,
     Sportsman's Trust Group, and Everglades Headwater's National Wildlife
                                     Refuge
        My name is Bishop Wright Jr.; I am the Secretary of the Florida
    Sportsman's Conservation Association and Chairman of the Sportsman's
    Trust Group. These groups respectfully request that Congress to fund
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million per year. We
    specifically request that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
    be provided with 10 million to fund conservation easements and fee-
    simple acquisitions within the Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife
    Refuge. The monies from the LWCF fund are needed to purchase 100,000
    acres of conservation easements over working ranch lands and to
    purchase 50,000 acres of fee simple lands within the headwaters of the
    Everglades.
        The Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation
    Area is very important to all Floridians and wildlife in the State. It
    will also conserve one of the last remaining grassland and longleaf
    pine savanna landscapes in eastern North America. It will provide
    cattle ranchers a way to preserve their lands and their way of life for
    future generations. And importantly, it will provide access to hunters,
    fishermen, hikers, and bird watchers and a beautiful outdoors for
    anyone wanting to use and enjoy this refuge for whatever appropriate
    type of recreation they choose. It will also provide a landscape to
    hold and clean water before it travels south down to Lake Okeechobee.
        Today the South Florida Water Management Board spends millions and
    millions of dollars building storm water treatment areas to clean water
    before it is dispersed to the Everglades. Why not use this Everglades
    Headwaters project to do the same in a natural way and still help the
    ranchers, hunters, and recreationalists and provide opportunity for
    generations to enjoy what we have to share now?
        The sportsmen of Florida have not always been supportive of this
    project because of the way the Federal Government (USFWS, NPS) has
    treated sportsmen in the past. USFWS has had very limited hunting on
    refuges in Florida. When this project was shown at 4 scoping meetings
    throughout the State, sportsmen showed up to voice their opinions. With
    the room filled at all 4 meetings by about 95 percent of sportsmen, at
    the time not one wanted to give one more acre of land to the Federal
    Government. That was 5 years ago.
        The Sportsmen Trust Group has worked hard with USFWS to have our
    issues addressed and we feel like our voice is being heard.. We
    understand that no individual USFWS employee can fulfill these
    promises, but they are working hard to do consider hunting and fishing
    opportunities when management plans are up for review. The Sportsmen's
    Trust Group and the Northern Everglades Alliance (ranchers) are now
    partners in the campaign and fight to make this Everglades Headwaters
    project a success.
        The Sportsmen's Trust Group and others are still working to resolve
    issues with the National Park Service, specifically in the Big Cypress
    Preserve. An additional 147,000 acres were added to the Preserve in
    1988 known as the ``Addition Lands''. The Addition Lands legislation
    called for these lands to be opened to the public for ``traditional
    cultural activities'' within 3 years of the 1988 acquisition.
    Unfortunately, 23 years later, the National Park Service produced a
    ``Final Alternative'' which would turn 80 percent of the Addition Lands
    into Wilderness and/or Back Country Primitive, both of which would not
    allow future off-road vehicle trails, something sportsmen felt they
    were promised.
        During the creation of the Preserve in 1974, it was clearly stated
    by Senator Lawton Chiles and others that no part of the Preserve was
    intended then or now to be Wilderness or Back Country Primitive areas.
    The Park Service allowed the Addition Lands to sit idle for 20+ years
    allowing the area to somewhat grow over. When the facts are exposed
    regarding the activities over the past 60+ years in the Addition Lands
    it will become clear that none of the Addition Lands qualify for
    Wilderness consideration. We have people prepared to verify ongoing
    activities in the Addition Lands over the past 60+ years including
    farming, ranching, timber removal, oil exploration, air strips, tram
    roads, private homes, private hunting cabins, existing off-road vehicle
    trails etc. etc. etc. to say nothing of the area being divided by I-75,
    a four lane interstate divided highway.
        In closing I would like to say, you can see why, at the start of
    the Everglades Headwaters Project the sportsmen of Florida had a lot of
    trouble buying into this. We did not trust the Federal Government and
    met the initiative to create a new national wildlife refuge with
    skepticism. However, with hard work and good communication between The
    Sportsmen Trust Group, USFWS, FWC, NEA and the National Wildlife Refuge
    Association, our hesitance and anger turned to commitment and trust. We
    are all committed to this project; now all we need is your commitment
    to fund the LWCF and this project can come true and help Florida be
    saved for generations to come.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
        I would like to thank this subcommittee for the opportunity to
    submit testimony on fiscal year 2016 Appropriations for Indian programs
    funded through the Interior Department, Indian Health Service and
    Environmental Protection Agency. I am Karen R. Diver, Chairwoman of the
    Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. The Band occupies a small
    reservation in northeastern Minnesota. We have approximately 4,200
    members, and provide health, education, social services, public safety
    and other governmental services to more than 6,700 Indian people who
    live on or near our Reservation. We strive to find solutions that will
    break the cycle of poverty that has long-plagued our community. We have
    looked for and implemented innovative measures, including partnerships
    with the public and private sectors, to improve the lives of our
    members. But while we are beginning to make some inroads on the
    problems, considerable work remains to address the extensive unmet
    need. Adequate Federal funding continues to be essential to our ability
    to educate our children, care for our elderly and infirm, prevent
    crime, and protect and manage natural resources.
        Bureau of Indian Education.--We rely on BIE funding to operate the
    Fond du Lac Ojibwe School. This school serves approximately 340
    students in pre-K through grade 12. Most of our students come from very
    low income households; more than 90 percent of our students qualify for
    free or reduced rate lunches. We are making progress in improving the
    educational attainment of our students. But our progress is slow and
    very much handicapped by limited resources. There continues to be an
    urgent need for the Federal Government to help improve educational
    opportunities for America Indian students. In Minnesota alone, we
    continue to see a significant disparity between American Indians and
    the population statewide on education --one that directly correlates
    with poverty levels. Data compiled for Minnesota in 2013 illustrates
    this:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     High School      High School
                                                    Living below        Grads            Grads         High School
                                                    Poverty  \1\    Proficient in    Proficient in   Grads Enrolling
                                                     (percent)       Reading  \2\      Math  \2\     in College  \2\
                                                                      (percent)        (percent)        (percent)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Statewide...................................            11.50               67               55               69
    MN Indian...................................            39.70               56               40               49
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: \1\ Minnesota Compass, http://www.mncompass.org/disparities/.
         \2\ Minnesota SLEDS, Statewide Longitudinal Education Data Systems, http://sleds.mn.gov.

        Despite the well-documented and longstanding need, funding for
    Indian schools has been stagnant for many years. We support the
    President's proposed budget which would increase overall education
    funding by $93.9 million over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level,
    including increases in funding for: Johnson O'Malley, which allows us
    to assist Indian children in public schools, as well as Early Childhood
    Development funds (FACE), which is critical to providing preschoolers
    with skills to be school-ready. As to other elements of the budget for
    education funding, we urge the following:
      --ISEP.--Increase ISEP to $565.5 million as requested in the
            President's budget. ISEP is the primary source of school
            funding, covering salaries for teachers, teacher aides, and
            administrative personnel. ISEP is critical to our ability to
            recruit and retain qualified teachers and to cover shortfalls
            in other budget areas, such as transportation, facilities and
            maintenance.
      --Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC).--The President's proposed budget
            seeks $75 million for TGSC. While we very much support this
            increase (+$12.9 million) from fiscal year 2015 levels, we urge
            Congress to appropriate more, $76.2 million for TGSC, as these
            funds are critical to our ability to cover the costs of
            accounting, insurance, background checks, legal and record-
            keeping requirements. Inadequate funding for TGSC forces us to
            use ISEP to meet these needs.
      --School Facility Operations and School Facility Maintenance.--
            Increase School Facility Operations to $66,098,000 (as
            requested in the President's budget), and School Facility
            Maintenance to $79,137,000 (above that requested in the
            President's budget). Such funds keep our building in safe
            condition, pay for preventative and unscheduled maintenance,
            and cover insurance and increasing utility costs.
      --Student Transportation.--Increase Student Transportation to
            $56,212,000. While the President's budget includes a modest
            increase in Student Transportation funding, more is needed if
            we are to cover the costs to maintain, repair, and replace
            buses. Otherwise we are compelled to pay those costs from
            education program funds which are already over-obligated.
      --School Construction and Repair.--We fully support the President's
            request for $133 million for School Construction and Repair.
            Such an increase is long overdue and essential if any progress
            is to be made on the deterioration of these facilities. Not
            addressing these critical infrastructure needs will only
            jeopardize student and staff safety.
      --Tribal Education Departments (TEDs).--We support the President's
            request for funding for the development and operation of Tribal
            Departments of Education in order to strengthen the management
            and oversight of the education programs serving Indian
            children. But we urge Congress, in appropriating these funds,
            not to limit their use to only those tribes having more than
            one school on the tribe's reservation (as proposed in the
            budget). Many tribes, like Fond du Lac, operate a single school
            on-reservation but would greatly benefit from TEDs.

        BIA: Public Safety and Justice.--We support the President's
    proposal to increase BIA funding for law enforcement. Although we are a
    small community in rural Minnesota, we are combating major crimes.
    Methamphetamine, alcohol, illegal prescription drug use, and gang-
    related activity create huge demands on our law enforcement. In
    addition, we are now facing a significant increase in heroin use. For
    example, in a recent drug bust, our officers seized heroin that had a
    street value of over $60,000. Many of our elders and others are the
    victims of assaults and robberies that are drug-related. Our officers
    must respond to a large number of drug overdoses and deaths, as well as
    juvenile offenses involving drugs, alcohol, thefts, assaults and
    burglaries. They also respond to a wide range of other matters,
    including domestic disputes, disturbances, disorderly conduct, property
    damage, theft, medical emergencies, fire, neglected children, runaways,
    suicide threats, as well as numerous traffic-related matters. In 2014
    alone, our Law Enforcement Department responded to more than 6,000
    incidents and requests for assistance. This is a substantial increase
    from past years, where incidents and requests for assistance from our
    Department were: 5,342 in 2013; 5,100 in 2012; and 4,900 in 2011.
        We rely on a combination of tribal and available Federal funds and
    cooperative agreements with local law enforcement agencies to meet law
    enforcement needs. To ensure effective law enforcement coverage 24/7,
    we need to have sufficient law enforcement staff, as well as sufficient
    equipment for that staff. We are very fortunate that as a result of a
    COPS grant, we are now able to employ 20 sworn officers--the number we
    need to effectively patrol the Reservation. But our officers still need
    equipment to do this work. We do not yet have a sufficient number of
    patrol cars. We also need to replace our outdated analog radios with
    new digital radio equipment--both in-squad radios and portable radios
    that officers carry. The equipment is very expensive but necessary to
    meet FCC requirements. And we regularly need to acquire and replace
    other basic law enforcement equipment, like binoculars, video cameras
    and other surveillance tools. Federal funding is essential to meet
    those needs.
        BIA Construction.--We urge Congress to increase funding for BIA
    Construction. Fond du Lac needs a new facility for our law enforcement
    department. The Department is still housed in a 6-room building, which
    it shares with the Band's housing program. We have no room for
    investigative interviews. The evidence room and reception area are
    inadequate for law enforcement purposes. A new building with a garage,
    large evidence room, records storage room, and a training room for
    officers, is essential.
        BIA: Trust-Natural Resources Management.--We support the
    President's budget proposal, to fund BIA Natural Resources Management
    at $232.79 million in fiscal year 2016, including funding for Tribal
    Climate Resilience. I was privileged to serve on the President's State,
    Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and
    Resilience, and, based on the extensive work done by that Task Force,
    understand the serious threat that climate change poses, especially in
    Indian country, where the basic subsistence needs of Indian people
    often depend on natural resources. This is certainly true at Fond du
    Lac. Our treaties with the United States reserved our right to access
    natural resources within and outside our Reservation. Many of our
    members hunt, fish and gather wild rice and other natural resources to
    put food on the table. The stewardship of those natural resources--
    through scientific study and resource management, and enforcement of
    Band conservation laws that regulate tribal members who hunt, fish and
    gather those resources--are an important source of employment for many
    of our members. And those natural resources serve as the foundation for
    our culture.
        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.--The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    is a valued partner of the Fond du Lac Band in wildlife and fisheries
    research and restoration programs. We request that the overall budget
    of the Fish and Wildlife Service be increased, with a particular
    increase to the Native American Liaison program. We support the
    President's requested increase to the Tribal Wildlife Grant Program,
    but urge that this program be funded at 5 times its current level,
    since current funding levels allow few grants to be awarded.
        Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).--The drastic funding cuts to
    EPA in past years threaten long-term damage to the Nation. We support,
    at a minimum, the $8.6 billion in funding recommended in the
    President's budget, as well the President's recommended increase in
    State and Tribal Assistance Grants, but urge that more be appropriated
    for these important programs.
      --Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.--The Band fully supports this
            initiative, and asks that it be funded at $500 million, two
            times what is requested in the President's budget. This
            initiative has broad-reaching benefits to resources of
            importance for all stakeholders (State, tribal and private) in
            the Great Lakes region.
      --Water Quality.--The Fond du Lac Band has a federally approved water
            quality standards program which has seen annual funding
            declines while the Band's responsibilities have increased.
            Given the current threats to water resources in our region from
            the expansion of iron and copper mining, we urge that tribal
            section 106 funding be doubled.
      --Air.--In conjunction with our water quality monitoring
            responsibilities, the Band has a long-standing air monitoring
            program that has also faced a steady decline in Federal
            funding. We request that air quality program funding for tribes
            be increased.
      --Wetlands.--One half of our reservation is made up of wetlands.
            Proper management and restoration of this valuable resource is
            impossible without adequate Federal funding.
        Indian Health Service.--We fully support the President's proposed
    increase in funding for IHS and appreciate the commitment that the
    administration and Congress have made to address the funding needs for
    healthcare in Indian country. The President's proposed increase is
    essential to address the high rates of medical inflation and the
    substantial unmet need for healthcare among Indian people. Indians at
    Fond du Lac, like Indians throughout the Nation, continue to face
    disproportionately higher rates of diabetes and its associated
    complications, than the rest of the population. Heart disease, cancer,
    obesity, chemical dependency and mental health problems are also
    prevalent among our people. All Indian tribes should receive 100
    percent of the Level of Need Formula, which is absolutely critical for
    tribes to address the serious and persistent health issues that
    confront our communities. The Band serves over 7,000 Indian people at
    our clinics, but the current funding level meets only 42 percent of our
    healthcare funding needs.
        As the epidemic of prescription drug abuse grows across the
    country, the IHS needs resources to expand its treatment and community
    education capacity. We are especially disappointed with the Pharma-
    driven position SAMHSA has followed for the past several years
    regarding Methadone Assisted Therapy (MAT). Many poorly administered
    MAT programs are pouring unprecedented amounts of cheap, liquid
    Methadone into Indian communities with very destructive results. In
    2012, nearly 40 percent of the babies delivered by Fond du Lac Nurse-
    midwives were born to Methadone dependent mothers. Although those
    numbers improved in 2013, nearly 35 percent of all pregnant women seen
    by Fond du Lac primary care providers use illicit drugs, mainly
    opiates. Research shows that methadone users are cognitively impaired,
    and more recent research has shown that children born to methadone
    users are more likely to have low birth weight, neural tube defects,
    spina bifida, congenital heart defects and gastroschisis . Meanwhile,
    thousands of American Indians are falling victim to the chemical
    slavery now sponsored by SAMHSA. Additional funding for the
    Methamphetamine, Suicide Prevention Initiative should be made available
    to tribes and the IHS so that this ``new sickness'' can be addressed.
    Best practices in pharmacy inventory and prescription monitoring need
    to be modeled and replicated throughout Indian Country. The need is
    compounded by the fact that more government agencies expect local units
    of government, including tribes, to address these problems and the
    increasing number of individuals who become homeless as a result of
    them, through the operation of supportive housing. But Fond du Lac's
    ability to establish new program initiatives, like supportive housing,
    depends on assistance from the Federal Government. We urge Congress to
    support programs that would fund supportive housing for tribes in every
    area of the country. Miigwech. Thank you.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Friends of Bon Secour National Wildlife
                                     Refuge
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee:

        Thank you for this opportunity to submit comments on the proposed
    fiscal year 2016 Interior Appropriations bill. The Friends of Bon
    Secour National Wildlife Refuge (FBSNWR) support the funding of the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency that administers the
    National Wildlife Refuge System. We concur with the priorities
    documented by the National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA) that are
    listed as follows:

        1.  Request $508.2 million for the National Wildlife Refuge
    System's operations and maintenance account for fiscal year 2016.
        2.  Reauthorize and fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF) at $900 million per year and provide $173.9 million in fiscal
    year 2016 LWCF funding for conservation easements and refuge in-
    holdings.
        3.  Appropriate $60 million for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund
    in fiscal year 2016, which offsets losses in local government tax
    revenue because lands owned by the Refuge System are exempt from
    taxation.
        4.  Pass a clean appropriation bill that is free from policy riders
    such as removing the Service's authority to establish new refuges
    administratively even though 90 percent of all refuges were created
    this way.

        The Bon Secour NWR provides vital habitat for neotropical migratory
    birds and nesting habitat for endangered sea turtles. In addition, the
    refuge is a component of a thriving nature-based tourism along coastal
    Alabama. The coastal economy is dependent upon sound stewardship of
    natural resources of the Gulf of Mexico, so we believe the development
    and sustainment of a strong Bon Secour NWR and National Wildlife Refuge
    System is critical to creating a resilient economy in southern Alabama
    and the Gulf Coast.
        We will briefly elaborate how the NWRA priorities support our
    efforts to maintain viable refuges that play key roles in sustaining
    coastal wildlife resources and our economy.

    1. Request $508.2 million for the National Wildlife Refuge System's
            operations and maintenance account for fiscal year 2016.
        Inadequate operational funding for our coastal refuges could result
    in lost opportunities to leverage funds generated by criminal and civil
    penalties associated with the 2010 oil spill to improve refuge
    infrastructure. Our refuges already depend on volunteers just to keep
    the doors open to our visitors, and the maintenance backlog for
    equipment and facilities continues to grow.
        Bon Secour NWR needs a functional visitor and education center. The
    Act that established the refuge in 1980 directed that the refuge
    ``serve as a living laboratory for scientists and students''. Bon
    Secour is a natural wonder that contains all aspects of the marine
    environment, so the refuge could demonstrate the importance of the
    marine environment to coastal culture and economy as well as the very
    survival of the planet.
    2. Reauthorize and fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund
            (LWCF) at $900 million per year and provide $173.9 million in
            fiscal year 2016 LWCF funding for conservation easements and
            refuge in-holdings.
        Again, Gulf Coast wildlife refuges may lose opportunities to
    leverage oil spill funds into acquisition of in-holdings and sensitive
    habitats if LWCF funds are not available. Coastal properties are
    expensive, so it will be difficult to rely solely on spill funds to
    acquire land. However, combining LWCF funds with other sources would
    likely enhance our chances to acquire key properties.
    3. Appropriate $60 million for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund in
            fiscal year 2016, which offsets losses in local government tax
            revenue because lands owned by the Refuge System are exempt
            from taxation.
        Lands within the Refuge System are removed from local tax rolls
    because the U.S. Government, like any other local or State government,
    is exempt from taxation. The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act allows a
    National Wildlife Refuge to offset these tax losses by annually paying
    the local unit of government an amount that could equal or exceed that
    which would have been collected from taxes if the lands were in private
    ownership. These revenues are derived from activities including timber
    sales and grazing leases that occur on refuges when these uses are
    compatible with refuge purposes.
        According to the NWRA, declining revenues and appropriations have
    resulted in the refuge system unable to pay even 50 percent of its tax-
    offset obligations. Our local governments need the funds to operate
    fundamental infrastructure that include roads and schools, and our
    refuges need to be viewed by our neighbors as contributors to their
    communities.
        We strongly concur with the NWRA that a policy adjustment is
    ultimately needed to link the Refuge Fund to Payment in Lieu of Taxes
    consistent with other land management agencies.
    4. Pass a clean appropriation bill that is free from policy riders such
            as removing the Service's authority to establish new refuges
            administratively.
        The Bon Secour NWR is one of three refuges within the Gulf Coast
    National Wildlife Refuge Complex that also includes the Mississippi
    Sandhill Crane NWR (Jackson County, Mississippi) and the Grand Bay NWR
    (Jackson County, Mississippi and Mobile County, Alabama). The Grand Bay
    NWR was established in 1992 under the authority of the Emergency
    Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, so this refuge would likely not exist
    if legislation interfered with the agency's ability to utilize legal
    existing authorities. Moreover, we believe the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service has developed a good record of careful consultation with local
    and State governments when exercising these authorities.
        I will conclude with a reminder that our National Wildlife Refuges
    are a vital component for the stewardship of coastal natural resources
    and represent decades of public investment. They directly support the
    environment and economy through the science-based management of the
    lands and waters for the benefit of wildlife, and they connect citizens
    to these resources through opportunities to enjoy the fish and
    wildlife.
        We need to support these refuges so that they can be engaged
    partners in the coastal natural resource stewardship and resilience.
    Our culture and economy depend on these natural resources, and the Gulf
    Coast is a major component of the national economy.
        Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to call
    upon the Friends of Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge if we can be of
    any assistance.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Friends of Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge
        Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee:

        On behalf of the Friends of Hagerman NWR, thank you for your
    support for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), particularly
    for the funding increase for fiscal year 2015. We appreciate the
    opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year 2016 Interior
    Appropriations bill.
        Our Friends organization supports Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge
    in Sherman, Texas. The Refuge, located on the southern tip of Lake
    Texoma, provides wildlife dependent recreation to residents of both
    southern Oklahoma and north Texas, including those from the Dallas/Fort
    Worth Metroplex. Visitors are constantly amazed and awed by the
    opportunity to see and learn about wildlife at the Refuge in its
    natural habitat, so close-by to urban and suburban development. In
    conjunction with Refuge staff the Friends provide educational
    experiences for both children and adults and the opportunity to connect
    with the great outdoors. Such experiences are essential to
    understanding and appreciation for our world and our place in it. The
    Refuge System cannot fulfill its obligation to the American public, our
    wildlife, and visitors without increases in maintenance and operation
    funds.
        We believe that with sound conservation policy, adequate funding,
    and the power of more than 40,000 dedicated volunteers, the Refuge
    System can fulfill its mission to provide wildlife dependent recreation
    for Americans and protect the habitat for more than 700 species of
    birds, 220 species of mammals, 250 reptile and amphibian species and
    more than 1,000 species of fish. We look forward to working with
    Congress in 2015 to accomplish this goal.

        [This statement was submitted by Sue Malnory, President.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife
                                     Refuge
        Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I am Bill
    Durkin, President of the Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife
    Refuge in Biddeford, Maine.
        First off, Happy Earth Day, we have come a long way since 1970, the
    first Earth Day. I have been a member of the Friends of Rachel Carson
    National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) for the past 26 years. The group was
    founded in 1987; we are a small group of about 200 members. This time
    of the year all of the letters go out to Congress asking for support of
    the refuge. I have given numerous written statements over the years and
    we really appreciate your support in the past. This year, our refuge is
    not requesting any appropriations directly for Rachel Carson National
    Wildlife Refuge; this is a request for general funding of the National
    Wildlife Refuge System of $508.2 million. This year we ask to
    appropriate $60 million in the National Wildlife Refuge Fund. I also
    urge the subcommittee to fund the Land, Water and Conservation Fund at
    full funding at $900 million with a $178.8 million of that request for
    the National Wildlife Refuge Systems purchase of easements and in
    holdings. I thank you all for your consideration.
        The Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge is named in honor of one
    of the Nation's foremost and forward-thinking biologists. After
    arriving in Maine in 1946 as an aquatic biologist for the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, Rachel Carson became entranced with Maine's coastal
    habitat, leading her to write the international best-seller ``The Sea
    Around Us''. This landmark study, in combination with her other
    writings, ``The Edge of the Sea'' and ``Silent Spring'', led Rachel
    Carson to become an advocate on behalf of this Nation's vast coastal
    habitat and the wildlife that depends on it. With the recent 50th
    anniversary of the publication of ``Silent Spring'', her legacy lives
    on today at the refuge that bears her name and is dedicated to the
    permanent protection of the salt marshes and estuaries of the southern
    Maine coast. The refuge was established in 1966 to preserve migratory
    bird habitat and waterfowl migration along southern Maine's coastal
    estuaries. It consists of 11 refuge divisions in 12 municipalities
    protecting approximately 5,600 acres within a 14,800 acre acquisition
    zone.
        Consisting of meandering tidal creeks, coastal upland, sandy dunes,
    salt ponds, marsh, and productive wetlands, the Rachel Carson NWR
    provides critical nesting and feeding habitat for the threatened piping
    plover and a variety of migratory waterfowl, and serves as a nursery
    for many shellfish and finfish. The salt marsh habitat found at Rachel
    Carson NWR is relatively rare in Maine, which is better known for its
    dramatic, rocky coastline. Upland portions of the landscape in and
    around the refuge host a unique, unusually dense concentration of
    vernal pools that provide habitat for several rare plant and animal
    species. Located along the Atlantic flyway, the refuge serves as an
    important stopover point for migratory birds, highlighted by shorebird
    migration in the spring and summer, waterfowl concentrations in the
    winter and early spring, and raptor migrations in the early fall. In
    fact, southern Maine contains a greater diversity of terrestrial
    vertebrates, threatened and endangered species, and woody plants than
    any other part of the State.
        Previous years' appropriations have allowed the United States Fish
    and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to conserve several properties within the
    refuge at Biddeford Pool, Parson's Beach, the newly created York River
    Division and most recently at Timber Point. All of these purchases
    provide an important buffer between the intense development pressure
    along the southern Maine coast and its fragile coastal estuaries. With
    towns in the area growing rapidly--at rates ranging between 11 percent
    and 32 percent over the next 10 years--development pressures continue
    to spiral upwards and additional coastal properties are under threat.
    It is said that Rachel Carson NWR has the most neighbors/abutters than
    any other refuge in the system, thus demand for available land is high
    and the market value expensive.
        In fiscal year 2010, Rachel Carson NWR was appropriated $3 million
    from the LWCF toward the acquisition of a majestic 157 acres of coastal
    land: Timber Point. Located in the Little River Division of the refuge
    on the Biddeford/Kennebunkport town line, Timber Point is comprised of
    a large peninsula and a small island that is effectively connected to
    the peninsula at low tide. All told, the property includes over 2.25
    miles of undeveloped coastline, an enormous amount for southern Maine.
    The Timber Point parcel enhances the refuge's ability to protect water
    quality in the estuary and important wildlife habitat by linking it to
    already conserved refuge lands in the Little River Division of the
    refuge. This is a Success story. Your subcommittee supported this
    project in 2009 and we acquired the land in December, 2011. The total
    purchase price was $5.2 million. We privately fundraised $2.2 million
    with the help of collaborative working partners. A classic story of
    using Federal funds and local private donations toward the purchase of
    an iconic parcel of land. Since then, we have built a National
    Recreational Trail (NRT) for public use and recently completed an
    Environmental Assessment for future use of the property. Protecting
    Timber Point was a priority for the refuge for decades, and we thank
    you. The process does work and I support all Refuges requests for
    fiscal year 2016. You can make it happen.
        1. We are requesting an overall funding level of $508.2 million in
    fiscal year 2016 for the Operations and Maintenance Budget of the
    National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service. All of the refuges are in dire need of staffing and upkeep.
    The National Wildlife Refuge System is responsible for 568 million
    acres of lands and waters, but currently receives less than a $1 per
    acre for management costs. The refuges cannot fulfill its obligation to
    the American public, our wildlife and 47 million annual visitors
    without adequate funding. In the Northeast, Region 5, needs an
    additional $1.5 million for fiscal year 2016 to keep even in their
    operating budget. Refuges provide unparalleled opportunities to hunt,
    fish, watch wildlife and educate children about the environment. An
    investment in the Nation's Refuge System is an excellent investment in
    the American economy, generating $2.4 billion and creating about 35,000
    jobs in local economies. Without increased funding for refuges,
    wildlife conservation and public recreation opportunities will be
    jeopardized. We fully supported the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's request of
    $508.2 million for Operation and Management for the National Wildlife
    Refuge System.
        2. Appropriate $60 million in the National Wildlife Refuge Fund in
    fiscal year 2016 which offsets losses in local government tax revenue
    because lands owned by the Refuge System are exempt from taxation.
        3. We are requesting $173.8 million in LWCF funding for Refuge land
    acquisitions/conservation easements and we call for full funding of
    LWCF at $900 million. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is our
    Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and protect lands at
    national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks,
    trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across the country
    provide the public with substantial social and economic benefits
    including promoting healthier lifestyles through active recreation,
    protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire
    management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to
    climate change. The quality of place is greatly enhanced. As you know,
    LWCF uses no tax payer dollars. Instead, LWCF funds are primarily
    derived from oil and gas receipts paid to the Federal Government by oil
    companies that extract publicly owned resources from the Outer
    Continental Shelf. Congress created LWCF as a bi-partisan promise to
    return precious resources back to the American public by using these
    funds specifically for conservation and recreational purposes.
    Unfortunately over the 50 year history of LWCF, over $18 billion has
    been diverted from the original conservation fund purpose. For all
    these reasons, LWCF needs to be funded at the $900 million level in
    fiscal year 2016. Created by Congress in 1964 and authorized at $900
    million per year (more than $3 billion in today's dollars), the LWCF is
    our most important land and easement acquisition tool. In the
    President's budget, he has included full funding for LWCF programs at
    the $900 million level, and I support the administration's commitment
    to fully funding the program. I urge a minimal commitment of $173.8
    million to the National Wildlife Refuge System. This wise investment in
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund is one that will permanently pay
    dividends to the American people and to our great natural and
    historical heritage. The Land and Water Conservation Fund should be
    fully funded at $900 million annually--the congressionally authorized
    level. LWCF is good for the economy, it is good for America's
    communities and their recreational access; it is critical for our
    public lands and wildlife habitat.
        The Land, Water and Conservation Fund has provided incredible
    benefit to the State of Maine. We have six National Wildlife Refuges
    and our only National Park, Acadia, attracts a huge amount of tourist
    each year and offers great recreational activities to the local
    citizens of the State. LWCF and the Forest Legacy program have
    conserved tens of thousands of acres in our interior forestlands and
    ensures that forestry and recreational access for all will be a huge
    part of our economy for generations to come. As a Mainer, I also wanted
    to highlight the importance of LWCF funding to other parts of the State
    beyond Rachel Carson NWR. We have a Crown Jewel of the national park
    system at Acadia National Park, which will celebrate its centennial in
    2016 and has continuing LWCF acquisition needs. Millions visit Acadia
    every year. And we have incredibly valuable private forests whose
    permanent protection through Forest Legacy Program funding means that
    our tourist and timber industries--our two largest--can thrive
    together. I just visited the rural town of Phillips, Maine where I
    enjoyed cross country skiing on a trail on a just-completed Forest
    Legacy project, and I spent my money locally on lodging, food and
    equipment. So, LWCF funding for conservation in Maine is critical to
    the rural economy and National Wildlife Refuges. And it is matched by
    other funding, and enjoys broad support from forest landowners,
    snowmobilers hikers and birdwatchers alike. I cannot emphasize enough
    how important LWCF funding is to Maine and the remaining 49 United
    States.
        I again extend our appreciation to the subcommittee for its ongoing
    commitment to our National Wildlife Refuge System and respectfully
    request the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations
    Subcommittee allocate $508.2 million for the Refuge System's fiscal
    year 2016 Operations & Maintenance Budget, $60 million in the National
    Wildlife Refuge Fund and $178.8 million in Refuge LWCF monies. We need
    Congress to standby their commitment that was made in 1964: stabilize
    the LWCF at $900 million.
        Thank you again, Ms. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of protecting wildlife and it's habitat. Enjoy
    your next walk out on a National Wildlife Refuge.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee
                            National Wildlife Refuge
        Our Friends organization would like to submit testimony in support
    of the budget requests made by the National Wildlife Refuge Association
    (NWRA) on behalf of the National Wildlife Refuge System and Refuges
    such as ours. In particular, we would like to emphasize the importance
    of their requests for:
      --$508.2 million for the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) accounts of
            the NWRS
      --$900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), with
            $173.8 million allocated for the Fish and Wildlife Service
            (FWS)
      --$60 million for the Refuge Fund
      --$75 million for the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
      --$60 million for FWS for Preparedness and Hazardous Fuels Reduction
      --$50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund
      --$5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund

        In addition to echoing these requests made by NWRA, I would like to
    make to make one additional request for our Refuge:
      --$5 million for removal and treatment of invasive exotics

        At 143,874 acres, our Refuge is the largest remaining remnant of
    the once vast northern Everglades. While restoration of the hydrology
    of the greater Everglades system has gotten a lot of attention and
    deservedly so, the problem of invasive exotics such as Melaleuca,
    Brazilian Pepper and the most insidious of all, Lygodium (Old World
    Climbing Fern), has been under-reported.
        As a member of our Friends board of directors for the past 9 years
    and president for the last 2 years, I have watched an ever-diminishing
    number of Refuge staff members struggle to maintain visitor access and
    keep our small public use program going, while trying to protect and
    restore the resource, but I see it becoming a losing battle. We are
    actually lucky when the fires out West and in other parts of the
    country call our fire crew away, so they can be paid out of someone
    else's budget. When Refuge staff have to make tradeoffs as they do now
    between treating more areas for invasives, or re-treating areas that
    are now under maintenance control, we see from aerial maps that we are
    losing ground. Restoring water to the Everglades will save our water
    supply, but when Lygodium envelops and smothers tree island after tree
    island, the iconic wildlife of the Everglades may be no better off.
        As someone who cares about the Everglades and our Refuge and their
    importance to the people and wildlife of south Florida, I hope you will
    appreciate the need and take these requests seriously. Our organization
    represents approximately 300 concerned citizens who are just a small
    portion of the 300,000 visitors our Refuge receives annually. Whether
    they appreciate our Refuge for its wildlife or its recreational
    opportunities or its importance to our water supply, I think every one
    of them would tell you that this is a special place that deserves our
    attention.
        Thank you for your consideration of these budget requests.

        [This statement was submitted by Elinor R. Williams, President.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Little Pend Oreille National
                                Wildlife Refuge
        Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee:

        The Friends of the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge
    (FLPONWR) and its members would like to thank you for this opportunity
    to testify before the subcommittee concerning the funding of National
    Wildlife Refuge system for fiscal year 2016. We ask you to support the
    Presidents funding proposal of $508.2 million for the refuge system. We
    feel that any less funding could have negative impacts on the refuges
    ability to protect and enhance the environment and wildlife within the
    refuge system. Less funding would also impact local economies, jobs,
    recreation and environmental education. The Little Pend Oreille NWR
    (LPONWR) is a unique refuge that needs your support.
        A budget item that is critical to the Little Pend Oreille and to
    indeed critical to all the forests in the west is funding for Hazardous
    Fuels Reduction. So we would ask for your support to appropriate $60
    million dedicated to the support the refuge system's fire program
    through the Department of Interior's Hazardous Fuels Reduction program.
    Not only does this program help to elevate catastrophic fires it is
    also a vital tool in wildlife management. I will have more details of
    how this program directly effects the Little Pend Oreille NWR later.
        We are also asking for you support to provide 173.8 million from
    the land and Water Conservation fund for the purchasing of in-holdings
    that are of vital ecological importance and also the purchase of in-
    holding leads to better wildlife connectivity and allows for more
    cohesive management of the ecosystem.
                    the little pend oreille wildlife refuge
        The LPONWR is located in the northeast part of Washington State
    near the small city of Colville. The LPONWR is just over 40,000 acres
    and is the only mountainous mixed conifer refuge in the lower 48.
        It also has several small lakes, ponds, streams, marshes and the
    Little Pend Oreille river that support a wide variety of wildlife from
    songbirds, every woodpecker native to the Rockies, and waterfowl to
    bears, bobcats, cougars, elk, moose and white-tailed deer.
    Interestingly the protection of the white-tailed deer and song birds
    were the main reasons for the establishment of the refuge. The refuge
    is considered critical winter habitat for the deer. Small amphibians,
    small reptiles, butterflies, dragonflies are also important parts of
    the refuges ecosystem.
        The refuge also comprises large stands of ponderosa pine which have
    very little protection outside of the refuge. The protection of the
    pine habitat is of critical importance to the future of the white
    tailed deer, elk and the other species, such as the threatened Columbia
    ground squire that are connected to this habitat.
                            visitation and economics
        The LPONWR has about 60,000 visitors per year who enjoy activities
    such as bird watching, hiking, camping, mountain biking, hunting,
    horseback riding and hunting. Not only do people enjoy these activities
    but they are also a positive contribution to the local economies.
    According to the 2004 ``Banking on Nature'' economic study the refuge
    visitors had a ``final economic demand,'' to the local economy, of
    almost $3.7 million and helped to generated 42 jobs (a significant
    number in this rural community). If you compare this to the refuge
    budget there was ``$3.82 of recreational benefits for every $1 of
    refuge expenditures.'' All in all a very good investment.
        If we compare this to the 2011 Banking on nature study the final
    demand totaled $3.9 million with associated employment of 30 jobs. The
    big number here is the loss of 12 jobs. With a loss a staff projects
    such as mechanical and hand thinning cannot be set up and managed thus
    leading to a loss in private sector jobs in an area that is already
    economically depressed.
                       habitat protection and enhancemet
        Over the past 20 years the refuge has been hard at work restoring a
    healthy forest and habitat at the refuge after about 30 years of
    management by the State. While always a federally owned wildlife refuge
    there was a management agreement between the State and the National
    Fish and Wildlife Service starting in the 1960's and ended in the early
    1990's after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found it to not
    be in the best interest of the refuges in question (the LPONWR).
        Many illegal roads have been closed, lakes rehabilitated, and the
    health of the forest has also been greatly improved providing a much
    better habitat for the native wildlife. But the is still much work left
    to be done.
        One of the most important roles the refuge staff has been forest
    rehabilitation through prescribed burns and thinning operations (which
    provide jobs to local loggers and bring wood to local mills) which have
    helped to open up overcrowded forests, reduce the chance of
    catastrophic fires. These operations also help neighboring property
    owners from the chance of fire spreading to there property. These burns
    and thinning operations also help to keep meadows open and productive
    providing a food source for deer, elk, moose and other wildlife.
        It is important to know that the Little Pend Oreille NWR, along
    with a large percentage of western forests, are in a fire ecology.
    Meaning that these forest rely on fires to keep them health and
    productive. We know that because of past management policies and our
    lack of understanding of the importance of fire to these ecosystems our
    forest have become overcrowded which is contributing to large
    catastrophic fires and the reduction of habitat for animals such as elk
    and deer whom rely on open forests and meadows. To keep up the pace of
    keeping our forest health I respectfully ask for your support in
    appropriating $60 million in dedicated funding to the refuge system.
        What does this mean for the Little Pend Oreille NWR. The refuge has
    about 10,000 acres that are open pine and mixed forests that are
    reliant on fire. The goal was and is to keep these acres on a 10 year
    fire rotation. The years from 2000-2010 the refuge was able to complete
    about 1000 acres of prescribed burns per year to keep on target. The
    last 4 years, because of reduction of staff, the refuge is down to
    around 100 acres per year. The reduction in staff also leads to less
    commercial thinning project, as part of fuels reduction, as the refuge
    is lacking the staff to lay out and manage the thinning. This leads to
    a loss of private sector logging jobs as well as less logs going to the
    local mills.
        If the refuge does not have the resources for Fire and Fuels
    Reduction to keep up pace we risk the loss of habitat and we increase
    the chance of a large catastrophic fire. Interestingly the refuge as a
    good example of the importance of fuels Reduction. A few years ago a
    fire (Slide Creek) was started by a lighting strike off the refuge in
    private timber land. This land had not gone through and fuels reduction
    or thinning. The fire ``crowned'' a took off toward the refuge in an
    area that the refuge had recently had a thinning project to reduce
    fuels. When the fire hit the refuge land instead of staying a
    ``crowning'' fire going through the trees it sat down and became a
    ground fire which is much easier to control and is what mother nature
    would have done in the past. By this fire sitting down the refuge
    showed that it is a good neighbor and the Fuels Reduction possibly
    saved many acres of not only refuge but also private, State and other
    Federal lands.
        The staff has also worked to rehabilitate the lakes, ponds,
    marshes, streams and the river. One examples is the removal of tench
    and Eurasian milfoil from Lake McDowell which is still may always be an
    ongoing battle. This year another invasive was introduced to the lake
    (Sun Fish). This fall the refuge and the State worked together to
    hopefully rid the lake of these invasive species. But as the past shows
    it will be a continuing battle.
                            revenue sharing program
        Being in a rural area with a high poverty rate the Revenue Sharing
    Program is of vital importance to our communities. It help to pay for
    schools, libraries, fire protection, roads, law enforcement and the
    list goes on. However the currant system and it formula for calculating
    these payments is out of date and insufficient. Along these lines we
    are asking for your support in moving the Refuge Revenue Sharing
    Program to the PILT program as it is a more adequate system. In the
    mean time we ask for you to appropriate $60 million to the Refuge Fund
    to insure that local communities receive proper compensation. It is
    also just part of being a good neighbor and part of the community.
                             friends and the refuge
        Our organization (FLPONWR) was established in 2001 and has work
    tirelessly with the refuge to make many improvements at the refuge and
    help to reach out to the public about the importance of the refuge. Our
    public outreach also points out to people all of the recreational
    opportunities that the refuge offers.
        One of our concerns is if budget cuts lead to cut in staff this
    could harm our collaborative efforts. Being a small organization (80-90
    members) and in an area with a small population there is no dedicated
    staff member to coordinate volunteers. The staff has done an
    outstanding job working with us and we feel that any staff cut could
    make collaboration with staff more difficult as individual staff
    members would have more work and less time to help the volunteers. You
    must know that the volunteers in the refuge system as a whole play a
    vital role in helping out and improving the refuge system. But
    volunteers can only do so much.
                          final appropriatins requests
        I respectively request your support for the full funding of the
    National Wildlife Refuge Systems at $508.2 million for fiscal year
    2016, provide 173.8 million to the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
    appropriate $60 million to the Refuge Fund to ensure compliance with
    the Refuge Revenue Sharing Program to help compensate local communities
    who this funding is critical for, fully fund the Partners for Fish and
    Wildlife Program at $75 million, increase the Coastal Grant Program to
    $14 million in fiscal year 16, appropriate $70 million for State
    Wildlife Grants, appropriate $11 million for the Multinational Species
    Conservation Fund, $5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
    Conservation Fund, allocate $50 million for the North American Wetlands
    Conservation Fund and lastly the appropriate $60 million in funding to
    the refuge systems fire program through the Department of Interior's
    Hazardous Fuels Reduction Program.
        In closing I cannot stress enough how important it is to fully fund
    the refuge system. Further cuts will hurt the environment and wildlife.
    Local economies will also be hurt by less employment and tax revenues.
    By fully funding the refuge system we help to ensure that we protect
    these special places for future generations.
        On behalf of the Friends of the Little Pend Oreille, thanks for
    listening.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys
                           National Wildlife Refuges
        On behalf of over 200 Friends members, we strongly urge the
    increased funding for the National Refuge System. Since 2006, the
    National system has grown from 500 to 560+ refuges. The funding support
    has not kept pace with the increase. During this time, the Lower
    Suwannee and Cedar Keys NWR has dropped from 14 to 9 staff members. By
    June of this year, we will be down to 7 members unless funding is
    available to replace two positions being vacated. As if that is not
    enough to worry about, our manager also has a title of Deputy Complex
    Manager of the North Florida Complex with responsibilities extending
    from Tampa Bay to St. Vincent in the Big Bend area of Florida. He
    spends most of his time dealing with manatee issues in Crystal River.
    It appears that, this ``complex'' title is just another way of not
    fully supporting the refuge system.
        We would also urge you to reauthorize the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF) to the $900 million per year originally
    proposed funding. In our area, there have been excellent opportunities
    for both land acquisition, as well as, conservation easements.
        We would also urge you to provide special funding to be used to
    help compensate local governments for their lose of property tax
    revenue.
        While the primary mission of the refuge system is focused on
    wildlife conservation, it is also important to recognize that the
    system is an economic engine. The report, Banking on Nature, points out
    that in 2011 for every dollar invested in the refuge system, there had
    been a $4.87 return to the local communities. Over 70 percent of this
    revenue came from non-local visitors who were attracted to non-
    consumptive activities like wildlife viewing, photography and hiking in
    the refuges. The fact that the Friends of the Lower Suwannee and Cedar
    Keys NWR are having 3-4 thousand folks visit on our Web page each
    month, verifies the fact that we are reaching a large non-local crowd
    (please check us out at friendsofrefuges.org). Funding of the refuge
    system should be considered an investment with a great rate of return.
        The Lower Suwannee NWR comprises over 52,000 acres that is split by
    the historic Suwannee River for the last 20-25 miles where the river
    empties into the Gulf of Mexico. The Cedar Keys NWR is composed of some
    727 acres on 13 islands in the Gulf of Mexico. Because of their non
    contiguous nature, both refuges face challenging management issues.

        The Lower Suwannee NWR is special and unique in the following ways:

      --The pristine natural condition of the refuge helps protect the
            environmental health of the Suwannee River and the surrounding
            area.
      --The Suwannee River is home to a wide variety of plant and animal
            life. The river is the most important spawning ground for the
            protected Gulf sturgeon. The river is also an important habitat
            for the endangered manatee.
      --The refuge contains a unique combination of upland hardwood,
            wetland/swamp, and saltwater marsh habitats. Uniquely, one can
            find both temperate and tropical types of vegetation in the
            refuge.
      --The refuge provides habitat for a wide variety of birds including
            15 endangered or threatened species like the Bald Eagle. The
            refuge is an important nesting site for the short-tailed hawks
            of which there are only an estimated 200 mating pairs in the
            wild. The swallowtail kite once widespread, now is restricted
            to just the Southeastern portion of the United States with the
            refuge being a very important nesting site.
      --Combined with surrounding State Parks, the refuge will become an
            even more important conservation area as Florida's population
            increases.
      --With constructed bat houses, the refuge has successfully
            established a viable bat population that serves as a model for
            future bat projects.
      --Many important cultural heritage sites are also to be found in the
            refuge.

        The Cedar Keys NWR is special and unique in the following ways:

      --The 727 acre refuge composed of 13 islands is a major rookery for
            pelicans and a wide variety of shore birds.
      --As studied by the University of Florida's Florida Marine Center, of
            particular interest is the symbiotic relationship of
            cottonmouth moccasins and nesting birds on Seahorse Key. The
            moccasins provide protection from predators like raccoons and
            rats for the nesting birds. In return, the birds provide a
            steady diet of fish for the moccasins. This is the only place
            on Earth that such a relationship between snakes and birds
            exists.
      --Lower Suwannee Archaeological Survey of the University of Florida
            has uncovered prehistorical sites dating back over 4,000 years.
      --Historically, the refuge contains important historical structures
            including the Seahorse Key Lighthouse designed in the 1850s by
            Lieutenant George Meade, later to become General Meade of
            Gettysburg fame. It is also of interest that the lighthouse
            sits on a natural dune that is some 50+ feet above sea level.
            This makes it one of the highest points in the Big Bend area of
            Florida.
      --This refuge also provides a vital barrier island system.

        Presently, the most critical problem we face involves staffing.
    With adequate staffing, and with operational funding, the refuge staff,
    with the help of the Friends of the Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys NWR,
    would be able to:

      --Provide better monitoring of the health of the refuges' habitat,
      --Consistently police the proper utilization of the resources of the
            refuges to protect the habitat and its wildlife,
      --Conduct more programs for school children to learn about
            conservation,
      --Expand the conservation efforts across other public agencies, as
            well as private stakeholders, to deal with common problems like
            invasive species eradication and the protection of endangered
            species,
      --Upgrade and maintain public facilities like roads, docks,
            boardwalks, observation stations and signage,
      --Expand public access and use of the refuges, and
      --Monitor, manage, and protect the floral and fauna in the refuges.

        Thank you for considering these requests.

        [This statement was submitted by Dr. Jay Bushnell, Advocacy Chair.]
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Savannah Coastal Wildlife
                                    Refuges
        Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee:

        On behalf of Friends of the Savannah Coastal Wildlife Refuges and
    its membership of concerned citizens of coastal Georgia and South
    Carolina, thank you for your support for the National Wildlife Refuge
    System (NWRS), particularly for the funding increase for fiscal year
    2015. We appreciate the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal
    year 2016 Interior Appropriations bill and join with the National
    Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA) in respectfully requesting:
      --$508.2 million for the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) accounts of
            the NWRS, including $5 million for the Pacific Marine
            Monuments;
      --$900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), with
            $173.8 million allocated for the FWS, including $10 million for
            Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area (Florida); $3
            million for Silvio O. Conte NFWR (Connecticut, New Hampshire,
            Vermont, Massachusetts); $3 million for Cache River NWR
            (Arizona); $3 million for Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area
            (Kansas); $2 million for Bear River Watershed Conservation Area
            (Wyoming, Idaho, Utah); $3.4 million for Blackwater NWR
            (Maryland); and $1 million for the Clarks River NWR (Kentucky);
      --$60 million for the Refuge Fund;
      --$75 million for the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program;
      --$14 million for the FWS Coastal Program;
      --$60 million for FWS for Preparedness and Hazardous Fuels Reduction
            (under the Department of the Interior (DOI));
      --$70 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program;
      --$50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund;
      --$5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund;
      --$11 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund.

        We understand our Nation's challenging fiscal constraints but
    cutting funding to programs that are economic drivers and job creators
    in local communities only exacerbates an already difficult situation.
    For example, the NWRS averages almost $5 in economic return for every
    $1 appropriated and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program returns
    nearly $16 for every $1 spent on projects. Unfortunately, just when
    these public lands and programs could return economic output to
    communities and help them through the recession, funding fell
    dramatically. The refuge system is approximately $72 million below what
    would be needed to keep pace with inflation relative to the fiscal year
    2010 level ($545.8 million inflation-adjusted).
        To begin bridging that gap, we join with NWRS in urging that
    Congress fund these critical programs that leverage Federal dollars and
    serve as economic drivers.
          national wildlife refuge system--operations and maintenance
        The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) is a diverse
    coalition of 23 sporting, conservation, and scientific organizations
    representing more than 16 million Americans that supports increased
    funding for the refuge system. CARE estimates the NWRS needs at least
    $900 million annually to manage its 150 million acres of land and over
    400 million acres of national marine monuments, yet it is currently
    funded at roughly half that amount--at less than $1 per acre. The
    refuge system cannot fulfill its obligation to the American public, our
    wildlife, wildlife habitat, and 47 million annual visitors without
    increases in maintenance and operation funds.
        Funding for the refuge system has declined substantially from a
    funding level of $503 million in fiscal year 2010 to its current $474.2
    million--$72 million below what it needs to keep pace with inflation.
    This has forced the Service to cut back on programs and create
    efficiencies whenever possible. Because of these hard decisions, the
    Service has cut their maintenance backlog in half from $2.7 billion to
    $1.3 billion. But budget cuts also led to the loss of 430 positions
    since fiscal year 2011 and thus an increase in the operations backlog,
    now at $735 million. Because most refuge lands and waters are highly
    managed, this deterioration in staffing has had a dramatic impact
    resulting in significant declines in habitat preservation and
    management, hunting, fishing, volunteerism and scientific research. We
    have seen first-hand what staff reductions have done to the ability of
    the staff of the Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex to carry out their
    mission on the seven Refuges in our area, at a time when they are
    receiving increasing requests for educational programs and increased
    visitation.
        For instance, visitor services staff has declined by 15 percent,
    forcing a reduction in public programs and hours of operation. Hunting
    visits are down by 5 percent since fiscal year 2011 and fishing visits
    are down 7 percent. Overall, there are fewer opportunities for the
    public to recreate, yet the desire for such programs is still high and
    visitation to all refuges since fiscal year 2011 has actually increased
    by 2.6 percent.
        Reductions in visitor services can be extremely troubling to
    constituencies who want to visit. Take the Midway Atoll NWR in the
    Hawaiian Islands. In November of 2013, due to sequestration cuts, the
    Service suspended the visitor services program at Midway. Although in
    the 5 years prior to this suspension, the refuge saw only about 300
    annual visitors, those visitors were passionate about their reasons for
    visiting. Whatever their reasons, they wanted to have one of the most
    unique refuge experiences in the entire System. Congress has asked for
    a Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation on why the
    Service suspended its program; yet it's clear that when you cut the
    budget and loose several positions including a permanent Wildlife
    Biologist, Park Ranger, and Law Enforcement Officer, there will be
    ramifications.
        Equally troubling is the 15 percent drop in the number of
    volunteers since fiscal year 2011. At a time when record numbers of
    Americans are retiring and have the capability to give back, the
    Service's ability to oversee their efforts has been curtailed.
    Volunteers provide up to 20 percent of work done on our national
    wildlife refuges, yet they are being turned away when the System needs
    them the most.
        During these years of challenging budgets, the refuge system's
    potential to drive local economies and create jobs is of paramount
    importance. Banking On Nature, a report issued by the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS) in 2013, shows that even during the worst
    recession since the Great Depression, the refuge system saw sales and
    economic output increase 20 percent to $2.4 billion, visitation
    increase 30 percent to 46.5 million, average return on investment
    increase 22 percent to $4.87 for every $1 appropriated, and supported
    jobs increase 23 percent to 35,000.
                                strategic growth
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is an essential tool
    for protecting the integrity of the refuge system and is the primary
    funding source for land and conservation easement acquisition by
    Federal land agencies.
        Increasingly, LWCF is being used to conserve working lands through
    the acquisition of easements that secure conservation protection while
    leaving the land in private ownership and on the tax rolls.
    Conservation easements are powerful tools that foster public-private
    partnerships with ranchers, farmers and foresters to conserve wildlife,
    habitat and a uniquely American way of life. Innovative landscape-scale
    initiatives using easements as a primary conservation tool have broad
    community and State support in New England's Connecticut River
    Watershed, the Flint Hills of Kansas, the Everglades Headwaters,
    Montana's Crown of the Continent, and the Dakota Grasslands. These
    iconic landscapes remain privately managed, generating tax income for
    local communities, securing our Nation's food, and balancing resource
    use and resource protection for wildlife.
        By acquiring critical habitat areas and linking conserved lands,
    the refuge system enhances the overall integrity of the system and
    strengthens our network of habitat to give wildlife space and time to
    respond to changes, whether from climate or changing land use patterns.
        The Friends call on Congress to fund LWCF at $900 million per year,
    with $173.8 million provided in fiscal year 2016 to the FWS for
    conservation easements and refuge in-holdings, including the following
    projects and those advocated by other refuge Friends groups:
      --Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area (Florida)--$10
            million;
      --Cache River NWR (Arizona)--$3 million;
      --Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
            Connecticut)--$3 million;
      --Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area (Kansas)--$3 million;
      --Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (Wyoming, Idaho, Utah)--$2
            million;
      --Blackwater NWR (Maryland)--$3.4 million;
      --Clarks River NWR (Kentucky)--$1 million.
                 commitment to refuge communities--refuge fund
        The refuge system uses net income derived from permits and timber
    harvests to make payments to local communities to offset property tax
    revenue lost when the federally acquired lands are removed from local
    tax rolls, and relies on congressional appropriations to the Refuge
    Fund to compensate for the shortfall between revenues and tax
    replacement obligations. Unfortunately, declining revenues and lack of
    appropriations have resulted in the Service paying less than 50 percent
    of its tax-offset obligations since 2001. The negative impact on local
    communities is felt even more starkly in difficult economic times and
    severely strains relations between the Federal units and their local
    community, threatening the goodwill and partnerships that are keystones
    of successful conservation. The Friends request $60 million for the
    Refuge Fund and thanks Chairman Calvert for his leadership in fiscal
    year 2015 to pursue a much-needed increase. We also call for a review
    of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935 as amended, and consideration
    of conversion to a Payment-in-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program to be
    consistent with other Federal land management agencies and to provide
    Refuge communities with more equitable payments.
                                  partnerships
        With 75 percent of all fish and wildlife species dependent upon
    private lands for their survival, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
    program (Partners Program) is one of the most powerful tools for
    protecting wildlife where it lives. By building effective partnerships
    between public agencies and private landowners to conserve America's
    expansive working landscapes, the Partners Program has implemented
    nearly 29,000 restoration projects in the past 25 years, restoring over
    one million acres of wetlands, three million acres of uplands, and
    11,000 miles of streams. The program has been instrumental in the
    success of such iconic landscape conservation projects as the Rocky
    Mountain Front and Blackfoot Challenge in Montana and the Flint Hills
    in Kansas, and is playing a key role in conserving greater sage-grouse
    habitat in the intermountain west.
        The Partners program consistently leverages Federal dollars for
    conservation, generating nearly $16 in economic return for every $1
    appropriated for projects. The Friends join with the landowner-led
    Partners for Conservation in requesting $75 million for fiscal year
    2016. Such a funding level would result in an additional $400 million
    worth of conservation across the Nation.
        The Partners Program provides a bridge between private and public
    conservation efforts that has been instrumental in the success of large
    landscape partnerships from Montana to Florida, and is playing a key
    role in conserving greater sage-grouse habitat in the intermountain
    west. To this end, we request an additional $78 million for the
    Interior agencies to implement sagebrush steppe habitat conservation
    and monitoring efforts that will leverage $300 million in Department of
    Agriculture investments across the west.
                 sharing lessons and protecting global species
        Wildlife species know no international boundaries, therefore
    conservation must happen globally to ensure populations survive. Many
    international wildlife agencies look to the refuge system as the world
    leader in wildlife and fish conservation. The Service's Wildlife
    Without Borders Program and Multinational Species Conservation Funds
    together support global partnerships to protect marine turtles, tigers
    and rhinos, great apes and elephants and other iconic species. These
    programs are particularly important as wildlife face a poaching crisis
    that is leading species such as rhinos to the brink of extinction. The
    Friends join the student-led Tigers 4 Tigers Coalition in requesting
    $11 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund in fiscal
    year 2016.
                                 in conclusion
        We believe that with sound conservation policy, adequate funding,
    and the power of more than 40,000 dedicated volunteers, the refuge
    system can fulfill its mission to provide wildlife dependent recreation
    for Americans and protect the habitat for more than 700 species of
    birds, 220 species of mammals, 250 reptile and amphibian species and
    more than 1,000 species of fish. Friends of the Savannah Coastal
    Wildlife Refuges Complex urges you to build on your past support for
    the refuge system by allocating the funds detailed above for fiscal
    year 2016.
        Thank you for your consideration.

        [This statement was submitted by Richard O. Shields, Jr., MD,
    President.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife
                                 Refuges, Inc.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

        On behalf of the 225 members of the Friends of the Tampa Bay
    National Wildlife Refuges (FTBNWR), (Egmont Key National Wildlife
    Refuge (NWR), Passage Key NWR, and Pinellas NWR), I would like to thank
    you for your commitment to the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS)
    and the funding increase that you passed for fiscal year 2015. We
    realize that in this time of tight budgets, it may be difficult to
    justify increasing the NWRS funding, but once the refuges start to
    decline it will cost many times more than these small increases to
    return them to a condition that will fulfill their mandates. We
    respectfully request that you consider the following in your
    appropriations for fiscal year 2016:
      --Fund $508.2 million for the National Wildlife Refuge System
            including $5 million for the Pacific Marine Monuments.
      --Fund $900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF),
            including a minimal commitment of $173.8 million for the NWRS,
            including $10 million for Everglades Headwaters NWR and
            Conservation Area in Florida, $3 million for Silvio O. Conte
            NWR, $3 million for Cache River NWR, $3 million for Flint Hills
            Legacy Conservation Area, $2 million for Bear River Watershed
            Conservation Area, $3.4 million for Blackwater NWR, and $1
            million for Clarks River NWR.
      --Fund $50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act
            (NAWCA).
      --Fund $70 million for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants.
      --Fund $5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
            Fund (NMBCF).
      --Fund $14 million for FWS Coastal Grants.
      --Fund $60 million for the Department of Interior's Fire Management
            Program.
      --Fund $11 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund
      --Fund $75 million for the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife
            Program.
      --Fund $60 million for the Refuge Fund.

        The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) estimates
    that the NWRS needs a budget of at least $900 million annually in
    operation and maintenance funding in order to properly administer its
    150 million acres and over 400 million acres of national marine
    monuments. The refuge system cannot fulfill its obligation to the
    Refuge Improvement Act, American public, our wildlife, and
    approximately 47 million annual visitors without increases in
    maintenance and operation funds. The current budget is far short of the
    amount actually required to effectively operate and maintain the
    refuges. The refuge system is currently funded at $474 million. Taking
    inflationary needs into account, they are about $72 million below where
    they were in fiscal year 2010. Fiscal year 2010's appropriation of
    $503.3 million was cut significantly in the following years and by
    fiscal year 2013 was down to $452.6 million. These cuts were
    devastating to refuge operations and staffing. We respectfully request
    that you increase the NWRS budget to $508.2 million so that the refuges
    do not backslide even further in protecting these valuable lands and
    ecosystems. The investment yields an impressive return, generating
    approximately 35,000 jobs and $2.4 billion in economic output each
    year. Every dollar appropriated to the refuge system returns an average
    of $5 to local economies as well as providing $33 billion dollars'
    worth of clean water and other environmental benefits such as clean air
    and water and a cool climate.
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund was created in 1965 and
    authorized at $900 million. We ask that you reauthorize the LWCF at
    $900 million for fiscal year 2016 with a minimal commitment of $173.8
    million to the National Wildlife Refuge System. These funds are used
    for land acquisition as well as less expensive easements or leases to
    protect wildlife and their habitats. With the effects of a changing
    climate, it is more important now than ever to establish key wildlife
    corridors between protected areas so wildlife can migrate to more
    suitable habitat as their historic ones change. These landscape level
    conservation efforts through conservation easements and land purchases
    are the best way to protect the diversity of flora and fauna. The price
    of real estate is still recovering at this time and the $900 million
    can go much further in protecting habitats than it can in a higher
    market. When we start to lose species due to lack of food, water,
    shelter, or space, we are changing the balance of nature. We urge you
    to fund the LWCF at $900 million for fiscal year 2016 with $173.8
    million to acquire conservation easements on working lands and to
    purchase in-holdings and vital habitat for the NWRS. The LWCF is not
    funded by taxpayer money.
        We ask that you appropriate $50 million in fiscal year 2016 for the
    North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA). NAWCA supports
    habitat restoration, water quality improvements, and carbon
    sequestration. These projects developed by individuals and at the
    community level benefit our declining migratory bird species as well as
    ducks and waterfowl.
        Essential conservation programs to protect habitat and wildlife
    will cut expenses in the future by protecting and improving what we
    have today.
      --We request that you fund the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
            Program at $70 million to fulfill the shared Federal-State
            responsibility for keeping our Nation's wildlife from becoming
            endangered.
      --The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund grants conserve
            habitats for Neotropical birds as they migrate. It covers areas
            outside of refuges and often outside the U.S. that many of our
            birds utilize during critical periods of their life. We request
            you fund the NMBCF at $5 million for fiscal year 2016.
      --The Coastal Grants Program provides technical and financial
            assistance for voluntary efforts to protect and restore coastal
            habitats for wildlife. We ask that you fund this program at $14
            million for fiscal year 2016.
      --Prescribed burns keep our refuges from becoming overgrown or having
            catastrophic fires due to high fuel loads due to fire
            suppression. It is an important tool for managing wildlife
            habitat. We urge you to provide $60 million in dedicated
            funding to the refuge system's fire program through the
            Department of the Interior's Hazardous Fuel Reduction program.
      --Lastly we ask that you fund the Multinational Species Conservation
            Fund at $11 million.

        Funding for the Refuge Fund (Refuge Revenue Sharing Program)
    ensures that local communities receive proper compensation for having
    Federal lands that are not on the tax rolls. Federal lands are exempt
    from real estate taxes. These taxes are the major revenue source for
    most local governments across the country, funding services such as
    schools, libraries, sanitation, law enforcement and fire protection. In
    1935 Congress acknowledged the relationship between local communities
    and the refuge system and enabled the refuges to give back to their
    local communities. The Refuge Revenue Sharing Program offsets lost
    local tax revenue by providing payments to local governments from net
    income derived from permits and wildlife refuge activities. The U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pays localities using a formula
    created by Congress. However, declining revenues and appropriation
    short-falls have resulted in the Service paying less than 50 percent of
    its tax-offset obligations since 2001. It's important that the National
    Wildlife Refuge System is a good neighbor and makes good on its
    obligations. Please fund the Refuge Fund at $60 million in fiscal year
    2016.
        The Tampa Bay Refuges are located at the mouth of Tampa Bay on the
    west central Gulf coast of Florida. The budget increases prior to 2011
    meant increased management, protection, and restoration of the refuges
    and the ability to better meet the Comprehensive Conservation Plan
    (CCP) goals. The wildlife on the refuges did well with the extra help.
    Due to those past increases in budget and personnel the TBRs were able
    to plan for big picture issues such as erosion and increased public
    use. Unfortunately, due to the budget decreases, much of that planning
    will not be implemented. The budget decreases and the sequestration
    have hurt our refuges.
      --The Tampa Bay Refuges have not had a full time manager for the past
            1.5 years.
      --We are coming into the summer nesting season on the Egmont Key NWR.
            Without a manager and with the heavy visitation in the warmer
            months, this is a big problem. The refuge law enforcement (LE)
            officers are not able to patrol Egmont Key as often during the
            key summer nesting season due to restrictions. This leaves the
            nesting birds open to more intrusions by refuge visitors and
            nesting failures. Pinellas and Passage Key NWR's are not open
            to the public but the refuges do not have the budget necessary
            to patrol these islands to prevent the public from causing
            unintentional harm as the birds nest.
      --If a staff member leaves, he/she may not be replaced so the refuge
            can stay afloat financially for the rest of this fiscal year
            because of the budget shortfalls.
      --The refuge was able to begin to eradicate exotic plants and
            predators on the refuges, but with the budget, there is little
            or no money to monitor and keep up with the work that has
            already been done. The result will be degraded habitat for
            refuges and their wildlife, including nesting failures. Birds
            have returned to nest on 2 more of the Pinellas Refuge islands
            because of these efforts. Without continued maintenance the
            birds may fail.
      --Fire management budgets have been cut and prescribed fires have not
            been conducted Egmont Key as needed. This opens the island, its
            historic buildings, and visitor center up to a much higher
            catastrophic wildfire risk.
      --The Ft. Dade Guardhouse on Egmont Key NWR has been restored and is
            now the visitor center. The refuge had grant money and
            installed the first phase of the displays, but with the budgets
            the way they are the refuge staff does not have time to keep
            this important environmental education center open to the
            public.
      --Egmont Key NWR has a huge erosion problem and can possibly be lost.
            Because it is in an urban setting, the approximately 32,000
            pairs of birds who nest there yearly don't have another
            location to go to. Passage Key NWR is starting to come back
            above water. Last year the colonial nesting birds including
            endangered Least Terns began to nest on the island. There is
            not enough funding to have law enforcement attending to that
            refuge to protect the birds from human intrusion and the
            nesting failed. Increased funding would go a long way in
            providing these birds the protection they need during the
            nesting season.

        These are just a few of the things impacting the Tampa Bay Refuges.
    Bottom line, funding cuts hurt the wildlife that the NWRS is mandated
    to protect. The refuge system has a very small budget compared to the
    whole Federal budget. It is not a big impact to the Federal budget to
    give the refuges a little more funding whereas the impact of reduced
    funding is devastating.
        Please consider funding $508.2 million for the fiscal year 2016
    Operations and Management budget.
        Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges (FTBNWR) was
    incorporated as a 501c3 in 2008 to better assist the Tampa Bay Refuges
    with volunteers and fundraising. In 2014 FTBNWR was able to provide
    over 2300 volunteer hours to assist the refuge staff with exotic
    invasive control, refuge cleanups, and education. Volunteers donated
    time as bird stewards and visitor center docents on Egmont Key NWR as
    well as running youth education programs for grades K-5. Our refuges do
    not have enough staff to provide these education programs so Friends
    volunteers have filled that gap. FTBNWR has been able to raise money to
    fund further removal of invasive plants on the Pinellas Refuges that
    degrade the habitat for the wildlife and contributed funding for the
    local storage of the FWS boat. Our volunteers are passionate about the
    refuge system and donate their time, money, and expertise to protect
    them.
        We again extend our appreciation to the subcommittee for its
    ongoing commitment to our NWRS.

        [This statement was submitted by Barbara Howard, President.]
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Friends of the White River National Wildlife
                                  Refuge Inc.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee:

        On behalf of the Friends of White River National Wildlife Refuge
    Inc., (St. Charles, Arkansas) its members, our 15,000 plus Facebook
    fans and refuge users let me say thanks for the opportunity to provide
    input into the appropriations process.
        Adequately funding our Nation's wildlife refuges isn't just about
    protecting natural areas and wildlife habitat. It is about protecting
    the economy, the communities and people whose livelihood depends on
    them. As a native of southeast Arkansas I grew up hunting and fishing
    on White River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). I have witnessed first
    hand the direct benefits to our rural communities from the large influx
    of hunters, fisherman and other outdoor tourist the refuge brings in
    each season.
        Our refuge has the proud distinction of protecting one of the
    largest remaining contiguous tracts of bottomland forest in the
    Mississippi River Valley. Each year 450,000 resident and nonresident
    hunters, fisherman, wildlife watchers, nature photographers and
    tourists visit and pump more than $11.2 million in expenditures into
    our economically distressed Delta communities.
        A 2013 report from Southwick Associates shows us that economic
    activity from outdoor recreation generates $788.0 billion in revenue
    and generates $197.4 billion in Federal, State and local tax revenue.
    That's a larger part of our U.S. economy than pharmaceutical, or motor
    vehicles.\1\ Solid evidence that supporting our Nation's parks, refuges
    and increasing outdoor recreation opportunities is not just good for
    the environment, and a health boon to people, but is also a critical
    piece of the American economy. Twelve million Americans have jobs
    thanks to outdoor recreational opportunities like hunting and fishing
    within our National wildlife refuges.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Burke, Monte. Forbes Magazine: Why We Need More Not Less
    Conservation Funding in the Federal Budget.
        \2\ The Economic Contributions of Outdoor Recreation: Technical
    Report on Methods and Findings/For: Outdoor Industry Association/By:
    Southwick Associates August 30, 2012 (Rev. January 3, 2013).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While the outdoor recreational industry has demonstrated its
    ability to pay its own way . . . budgets supporting conservation
    continue to shrink. Conservation funding has shrunk from 2.75 percent
    in 1977 to less than 1 percent of the Federal budget today.

        The benefits of funding our refuge system are well documented and
    we should support them accordingly. Therefore we fully support the
    budget recommendations put forth by the National Wildlife Refuge
    Association:
      --$508.2 million for operations and maintenance in fiscal year 2016.
      --Appropriate $173.8 million in fiscal year 2016 from the Land and
            Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to acquire conservation
            easements and to purchase in-holdings and vital habitat for the
            National Wildlife Refuge System and reauthorize LWCF at $900
            million annually.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
    subcommittee. And thank you for your leadership and support for
    conservation. As you deliberate appropriate funding levels for our
    refuge system, please consider the important implications these choices
    entail to not only the wildlife and the environment, but also the joy
    of use by its citizens as well as the economic benefits the refuges
    bring to mostly rural communities.

        [This statement was submitted by Jim L. Taylor.]
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Geological Society of America
                                    summary
        The Geological Society of America (GSA) urges Congress to support
    the fiscal year 2016 request for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). As
    one of our Nation's key science agencies, the USGS plays a vital role
    in understanding and documenting mineral and energy resources that
    underpin economic growth; researching and monitoring potential natural
    hazards that threaten U.S. and international security; and determining
    and assessing water quality and availability. Approximately two-thirds
    of the USGS budget is allocated for research and development. In
    addition to underpinning the science activities and decisions of the
    Department of the Interior, this research is used by communities across
    the Nation to make informed decisions in land use planning, emergency
    response, natural resource management, engineering, and education.
    Despite the critical role played by the USGS, funding for the Survey
    has stagnated in real dollars for more than a decade. The requested
    level would permit the USGS to add to its functions in these important
    areas. Given the importance of the many activities of the Survey that
    protect lives and property, stimulate innovations that fuel the
    economy, provide national security, and enhance the quality of life,
    GSA believes that growth in Federal funding for the Survey is necessary
    for the future of our Nation.
        The Geological Society of America, founded in 1888, is a scientific
    society with over 26,000 members from academia, government, and
    industry in all 50 States and more than 100 countries. Through its
    meetings, publications, and programs, GSA enhances the professional
    growth of its members and promotes the geosciences in the service of
    humankind.
    u.s. geological survey contributions to national security, health, and
                                    welfare
        The USGS is one of the Nation's premier science agencies.
    Approximately two-thirds of the USGS budget is allocated for research
    and development. In addition to underpinning the science activities and
    decisions of the Department of the Interior, this research is used by
    communities across the Nation to make informed decisions in land use
    planning, emergency response, natural resource management, engineering,
    and education. USGS research addresses many of society's greatest
    challenges for national security, health, and welfare. Several are
    highlighted below.
      --Natural hazards--including earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic
            eruptions, wildfires, and landslides--are a major cause of
            fatalities and economic losses. Recent natural disasters,
            including destructive landslides in Washington, Colorado, and
            Kentucky; earthquakes in California; and lava flows in Hawaii,
            provide unmistakable evidence that the United States remains
            vulnerable to staggering losses. Landslides alone, which occur
            in every State, cause more than $1 billion in damage each year.
            An improved scientific understanding of geologic hazards will
            reduce future losses through better forecasts of their
            occurrence, which allows for effective planning and mitigation
            in these areas. GSA urges Congress to support efforts for USGS
            to modernize and upgrade its natural hazards monitoring and
            warning systems to protect communities from the devastating
            personal and economic effects of natural disasters, including
            additional 3-D elevation mapping and earthquake early warning
            systems.
      --A 2013 report by the National Research Council, Emerging Workforce
            Trends in the Energy and Mining Industries: A Call to Action,
            found, ``Energy and mineral resources are essential for the
            Nation's fundamental functions, its economy, and its
            security.'' In addition, many emerging energy technologies--
            such as wind turbines and solar cells--depend upon rare earth
            elements and critical minerals that currently lack diversified
            sources of supply. China accounts for 95 percent of world
            production of rare earth elements (USGS, 2010). Nevertheless,
            Federal programs in minerals science, research, information,
            data collection and analysis have been severely weakened.
            Funding for the USGS Mineral Resources Program, the only
            primary source for minerals science and information, has been
            cut by 30 percent in constant dollar terms over the last
            decade, reducing its ability to provide critical information on
            mineral potential, production, and consumption that is used for
            decisionmaking across the Federal Government and by a range of
            businesses and industries. We support the increase proposed for
            these important programs that will allow for more economic and
            environmental management and utilization of minerals. In
            addition, GSA supports increases in research to better
            understand domestic sources of energy, including conventional
            and unconventional oil and gas and renewables.
      --The ongoing drought in the western United States is a testament to
            our dependence on water. The availability and quality of
            surface water and groundwater are vital to the well being of
            both society and ecosystems. Greater scientific understanding
            of these resources through monitoring and research by the USGS
            is necessary to ensure adequate and safe water resources for
            the health and welfare of society.
      --USGS research on climate impacts is used by the Department of the
            Interior and local policymakers and resource managers to make
            sound decisions based on the best possible science. The Climate
            Science Centers, for example, provide scientific information
            necessary to anticipate, monitor, and adapt to climate change's
            effects at regional and local levels, allowing communities to
            make smart, cost-effective decisions.
      --The Landsat satellites have amassed the largest archive of remotely
            sensed land data in the world, a tremendously important
            resource for natural resource exploration, land use planning,
            and assessing water resources, the impacts of natural
            disasters, and global agriculture production. GSA supports
            interagency efforts for future support of Landsat.

        The Core System Sciences, Facilities, and Science Support programs
    support many activities in these important areas. These programs and
    services, such as geologic mapping and data preservation, provide
    critical information, data, and infrastructure that make possible the
    research that will stimulate innovations that fuel the economy, provide
    security, and enhance the quality of life.
        Research in Earth science is fundamental to training and educating
    the next generation of Earth science professionals. The United States
    faces a looming shortage of qualified workers in these areas that are
    critical for national security. We are very concerned that cuts in
    earth science funding will cause students and young professionals to
    leave the field, potentially leading to a lost generation of
    professionals in areas that are already facing worker shortages.
    Investments in these areas could lead to job growth, as demand for
    these professionals now and in the future is assessed to be high.
        The report Emerging Workforce Trends in the Energy and Mining
    Industries: A Call to Action, found, ``In mining (nonfuel and coal) a
    personnel crisis for professionals and workers is pending and it
    already exists for faculty.'' Another recent study, Status of the
    Geoscience Workforce 2011, by the American Geosciences Institute found:
    ``The supply of newly trained geoscientists falls short of geoscience
    workforce demand and replacement needs. . . . aggregate job projections
    are expected to increase by 35 percent between 2008 and 2018. . . . The
    majority of geoscientists in the workforce are within 15 years of
    retirement age. By 2030, the unmet demand for geoscientists in the
    petroleum industry will be approximately 13,000 workers for the
    conservative demand industry estimate.''
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony about the U.S.
    Geological Survey. For additional information or to learn more about
    the Geological Society of America--including GSA Position Statements on
    water resources, mineral and energy resources, natural hazards, and
    public investment in Earth science research.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
                              Commission (GLIFWC)
    1. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Operation Of
            Indian Programs
        a.  Trust-Natural Resources Management, Rights Protection
    Implementation (RPI)--At least the administration's proposed
    $40,138,000 and a proportionate share for Great Lakes Area Resource
    Management (the overall need for which is at least $10,688,000).
        b.  Trust-Natural Resources Management, Tribal Management/
    Development Program (TM/DP): At least the administration's proposed
    $14,263,000 and the TM/DP requests of GLIFWC's member tribes.
        c.  Trust-Natural Resources Management, Tribal Climate Resilience:
    At least the administration's proposed $30,355,000.
        d.  Trust-Natural Resources Management, Invasive Species: At least
    the administration's proposed $6,769,000.
        e.  Tribal Government, Contract Support: At least the
    administration's proposed $272,000,000.

        Funding Authorizations.--Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 13; Indian
    Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, (Public Law 93-638),
    25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 450f and 450h; and the treaties between the United
    States and GLIFWC's member Ojibwe Tribes.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Specifically, the Treaty of 1836, 7 Stat. 491, Treaty of 1837,
    7 Stat. 536, Treaty of 1842, 7 Stat. 591, and Treaty of 1854, 10 Stat.
    1109. The rights guaranteed by these treaties have been affirmed by
    various court decisions, including a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2. Environmental Protection Agency
        a.  Environmental Programs and Management, Geographic Programs,
    Great Lakes Restoration: At least the administration's proposed
    $250,000,000 out of which there is an overall tribal need of at least
    $25,000,000. GLIFWC's Need: $1,200,000.
        b.  State and Tribal Assistance Grants, Categorical Grants, Tribal
    General Assistance Program: At least the administration's proposed
    $96,375,000.

        Funding Authorizations.--Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1268(c);
    and treaties cited above.
              glifwc's fiscal year 2016 funding request highlights
        1.  GLIFWC would be pleased to accept an allocation of appropriated
    RPI funding that is in the same proportion to overall RPI funding as
    has been regularly provided in previous years when funding for the RPI
    line item was increased. This amount for Great Lakes Area Resource
    Management would be approximately $7,153,000, based on the
    administration's fiscal year 2016 proposal for the RPI line item.
        2.  A total tribal set-aside of $25,000,000 and GLIFWC's request of
    $1,200,000 under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to be
    distributed through the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance (ISDEA) Act.
        3.  Full funding for Contract Support Costs, as required by the
    ISDEA Act.
        4.  Sufficient funding in the Tribal Management and Development
    line item for GLIFWC's member tribes to fulfill their needs for
    reservation-based natural resource programs.
        glifwc's goal--a secure funding base to fulfill treaty purposes
        For more than 30 years, Congress has funded GLIFWC to implement
    comprehensive conservation, natural resource protection, and law
    enforcement programs that: (1) ensure member tribes are able to
    implement their treaty reserved rights to hunt, fish, and gather
    throughout the ceded territories; (2) ensure a healthy and sustainable
    natural resource base to support those rights; and (3) promote healthy,
    safe communities. These programs also provide a wide range of public
    benefits, and facilitate participation in management partnerships in
    Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota.

     glifwc's programs--promoting healthy communities and educating tribal
                     members through treaty rights exercise
        Established in 1984, GLIFWC is a natural resources management
    agency of 11 member Ojibwe Tribes with resource management
    responsibilities over their ceded territory (off-reservation) hunting,
    fishing and gathering treaty rights. These ceded territories extend
    over a 60,000 square mile area in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
    Michigan.\2\ GLIFWC employs 75 full-time staff, including natural
    resource scientists, technicians, conservation enforcement officers,
    policy specialists, and public information specialists.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ GLIFWC's programs do not duplicate those of the Chippewa-Ottawa
    Resource Authority or the 1854 Treaty Authority. GLIFWC also
    coordinates with its member tribes with respect to tribal treaty
    fishing that extends beyond reservation boundaries by virtue of the
    Treaty of 1854 and the reservations' locations on Lake Superior.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        GLIFWC strives to implement its programs in a holistic, integrated
    manner that is consistent with the culture and values of its member
    tribes, especially in light of the tribal lifeway that the exercise of
    treaty rights supports. This means not only ensuring that tribal
    members can legally exercise their rights, but supporting community
    efforts to educate them about the benefits (physical, spiritual, and
    cultural) of harvesting and consuming a more traditional diet, as well
    as promoting intergenerational learning and the transmission of
    traditional cultural and management practices. These programs, in turn,
    promote healthy, strong communities.
        GLIFWC and its member tribes thank Congress, and particularly this
    subcommittee, for its continuing support of these treaty obligations
    and its recognition of the ongoing success of these programs. There are
    two main elements of this fiscal year 2016 funding request:

        1. BIA Great Lakes Area Management (Within the RPI Line Item).--A
    proportionate share of the $40,138,000 proposed by the administration
    for the RPI line item. The administration's proposed increase for RPI
    in fiscal year 2016 is greatly appreciated as well as greatly needed.
    The demand for GLIFWC's services continues to increase, as does the
    need to address the impacts of climate change on natural resources and
    the tribal communities those resources support.
        GLIFWC has testified about the fact that the need is consistently
    greater than RPI funding, and the impacts that underfunding has on
    treaty rights programs. Increased funding in fiscal year 2015 allowed
    GLIFWC to restore some cuts it made to its programs due to previous
    unmet needs. The increase proposed in fiscal year 2016 will continue
    that trend and allow GLIFWC to better understand the physical, chemical
    and biological changes occurring in ceded territory ecosystems, and
    develop and implement adaptive management strategies to address those
    changes.
        Tribes can only protect the resources that support their rights if
    they undertake relevant scientific and technical analyses that inform
    the design and implementation of adaptive natural resource management
    activities. To this end, maximum flexibility should be provided to
    GLIFWC and its tribes to define for themselves the science and research
    activities best suited to the needs of their member tribes and the
    particular issues within their region. GLIFWC would gladly accept funds
    in proportion to overall RPI funding, as provided in fiscal year 2015.

        2. EPA Environmental Programs and Management.--$250,000,000.
    GLIFWC: $1,200,000. GLIFWC supports continued funding for the Great
    Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) as an important non-regulatory
    program that enhances and ensures coordinated governance in the Great
    Lakes, as well as substantive natural resource protection and
    restoration projects. GLIFWC supports funding of no less than $250
    million, but recognizes that this amount does not fulfill all of the
    protection and restoration needs that have been identified. GLIFWC also
    recommends that at least $25 million be provided to the BIA for tribes,
    to ensure that they: (i) are able to hire and support staff that
    provide the requisite capacity to participate in intergovernmental
    protection and restoration initiatives, and (ii) can undertake projects
    that contribute to the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes.
    At a minimum, current funding for tribal ``capacity'' must be
    maintained, and the amount of GLRI funding that has been provided to
    the BIA for projects must be restored to its historic proportion--over
    the past 5 years, that amount has been cut by 40 percent, while overall
    GLRI funding has remained steady.
        Sustained funding for GLIFWC at approximately $1.2 million will
    enable GLIFWC to augment its current natural resource protection and
    enhancement activities. It will also allow GLIFWC to maintain its
    participation in interjurisdictional governance structures, including
    the implementation of the revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
    (GLWQA). With GLRI funding, GLIFWC has been able to help create a team
    to seek out and use Traditional Ecological Knowledge in the
    implementation of commitments made in the Science Annex of the GLWQA.
    Without GLIFWC's participation, this team would likely not have been
    created and the cultural perspectives retained by generations of
    Anishinaabe residing in the Great Lakes would not be shared with those
    working to protect Great Lakes ecosystems.
        Tribal GLRI funding should be provided through the BIA and
    distributed under the ISDEA Act. This funding mechanism delivers
    funding to the field faster and has resulted in the earlier achievement
    of on-the-ground results. It also fulfills the Federal Government's
    long-standing policy of fostering tribal self-determination in the
    implementation of tribal programs.
                   results and benefits of glifwc's programs
        1. Maintain the Requisite Capability To Meet Legal Obligations, To
    Conserve Natural Resources and To Regulate Treaty Harvests.--While more
    funding would increase program comprehensiveness, sustained funding at
    the fiscal year 2016 level supports tribal compliance with various
    court decrees and intergovernmental agreements that govern the tribes'
    treaty-reserved hunting, fishing and gathering rights. Funding for
    science and research enhances GLIFWC's capability to undertake work and
    participate in relevant partnerships to address ecosystem threats that
    harm treaty natural resources.

        2. Remain a Trusted Management and Law Enforcement Partner, and
    Scientific Contributor in the Great Lakes Region.--GLIFWC has become a
    respected and integral part of management and law enforcement
    partnerships that conserve natural resources and protect public safety.
    It brings a tribal perspective to interjurisdictional Great Lakes
    management fora and would use its scientific expertise to study issues
    and geographic areas that are important to its member tribes but that
    others may not be examining.

        3. Maintain the Overall Public Benefits That Derive From Its
    Programs.--Over the years, GLIFWC has become a recognized and valued
    partner in natural resource management. Because of its institutional
    experience and staff expertise, GLIFWC has built and maintained
    numerous partnerships that: (i) provide accurate information and data
    to counter social misconceptions about tribal treaty harvests and the
    status of ceded territory natural resources; (ii) maximize each
    partner's financial resources and avoid duplication of effort and
    costs; (iii) engender cooperation rather than competition; and (iv)
    undertake projects that achieve public benefits that no one partner
    could accomplish alone.

        4. Encourage and Contribute to Healthy Tribal Communities.--GLIFWC
    works with its member tribes' communities to promote the benefits of
    treaty rights exercise. These include the health benefits associated
    with a more traditional diet and the intergenerational learning that
    takes place when elders teach youth. In addition, GLIFWC sponsors a
    camp each summer where tribal youth build leadership skills, strengthen
    connections to the outdoors, and learn about treaty rights and careers
    in natural resource fields.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition
        Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:

        On behalf of the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, we write
    to ask that you to support funding for Great Lakes restoration
    priorities in fiscal year 2016. The Great Lakes region has received
    much-needed support, and we are seeing on-the-ground results in
    Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania
    and Wisconsin.
        First, we ask you to support $300 million for the Great Lakes
    Restoration Initiative. Restoration efforts are improving the lives of
    millions of people and work is underway on over 2,000 restoration
    projects throughout the region that will restore the Great Lakes and
    address the most urgent problems facing them. These projects are
    cleaning up drinking water flowing to millions of homes and thousands
    of industries and improving infrastructure important for future
    economic growth in the eight-State region. These projects are
    delivering results, including:
      --Two Areas of Concern--Deer Lake, Michigan and White Lake,
            Michigan--were delisted last year. The Presque Isle,
            Pennsylvania Area of Concern was delisted in 2013. The
            management actions necessary for delisting Waukegan Harbor,
            Illinois, Sheboygan Harbor. Wisconsin, and the Ashtabula River,
            Ohio, have also been completed. The GLRI has accelerated the
            cleanup of toxic hotspots by delisting three formerly
            contaminated sites--in the previous two decades before the
            Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, only one site had been
            delisted.
      --Between 2010 and 2014, 52 beneficial use impairments (BUIs) at 13
            AOCs were removed in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New York,
            Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, more than tripling the total
            number of BUIs removed in the preceding 22 years. More BUIs
            have been removed since the GLRI began than between 1987 and
            2009.
      --From 2004 to 2009, the Great Lakes region was the only area in the
            country to show a gain in wetland acreage. Now the GLRI is
            building on that foundation with a goal to restore one million
            acres in the basin. So far, the FWS, NPS, NRCS, and NOAA (among
            others) have restored, protected, or enhanced over 115,000
            acres of wetlands and other habitat.
      --3,400 river-miles were cleared of over 250 barriers resulting in
            fish swimming into stretches of river where they have been
            absent for decades.
      --Based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service monitoring, GLRI-sponsored
            actions are increasing self-sustaining populations of 13 non-
            endangered and non-threatened native species important to the
            Great Lakes. For example, efforts in the Saginaw River
            watershed have contributed to the now self-sustaining walleye
            population in Saginaw Bay, Michigan.

        Second, the GLRI does not address aging sewers that discharge
    billions of gallons of sewage into the Great Lakes, closing beaches,
    threatening public health, and damaging local economies. Communities
    depend on the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) for low-interest
    loans to implement costly wastewater infrastructure projects that seek
    to stop overflows from happening. Based on a fixed formula, maintaining
    level funding for the Clean Water SRF will provide approximately $500
    million for the eight Great Lakes States in 2015. We request that you
    maintain current funding ($1.45 billion) for this important Great Lakes
    restoration program.
        Investments in Great Lakes restoration create short-term jobs and
    lead to long-term economic benefits for the Great Lakes States and the
    country. A Brookings Institution report shows that every $1 invested in
    Great Lakes restoration generates $2 in return, making Great Lakes
    restoration one of the best investments for the Federal dollar in the
    budget. More recent research from Grand Valley State University
    suggests that the return for certain projects may be closer to 6-to-1.
    The University of Michigan has also demonstrated that over 1.5 million
    jobs are dependent on clean and healthy Great Lakes, accounting for
    more than $60 billion in wages annually. We have also seen jobs being
    created by our Nation's efforts to clean up the Great Lakes and restore
    fish and wildlife habitat. These jobs include wetland scientists,
    electricians, engineers, landscape architects, plumbers, truck drivers
    and many others.
        However, there is still much work that needs to be done. Aging
    sewers, invasive species, and toxic pollutants are just a few of the
    pervasive threats that impact the region, endangering human and
    wildlife health, lowering property values, and hurting the region's
    economy. Cutting funding will slow restoration efforts, allowing
    problems to get worse and making them more expensive to solve.
    Ultimately, cutting spending on the Great Lakes won't save money--it
    will cost the Nation more. As the source of drinking water for 30
    million people, the Nation cannot afford to not protect and restore the
    Great Lakes.
        Progress is being made. Now is not the time to scale back our
    Nation's commitment to restore the Great Lakes environment and economy.
    If we wait and allow restoration efforts to slow, these serious
    problems will only get worse and the price we pay will be much higher.
    For the economy and the environment, please make sure that the fiscal
    year 2016 budget provides at least $300 million for the GLRI, SRF
    funding is maintained, and that all agency Great Lakes restoration base
    budgets are preserved.
        Sincerely,
                        Joel Brammeier, President & CEO, Alliance for the
                                Great Lakes; Gary Belan, Senior Director,
                                Clean Water Supply Program, American
                                Rivers; Erin Crotty, Executive Director,
                                Audubon New York; Loren H. Smith, Executive
                                Director, Buffalo Aububon Society; Jill
                                Jedlicka, Executive Director & Riverkeeper,
                                Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper; Mary Smith,
                                Communications Coordinator, Church Women
                                United in New York State; Brian Smith,
                                Associate Executive Director, Citizens
                                Campaign for the Environment; Deanna White,
                                State Director, Clean Water Action of
                                Minnesota; Mark Redsten, CEO, Clean
                                Wisconsin; Anne M. Vaara, Executive
                                Director, Clinton River Watershed Council;
                                Deb Yandala, CEO, The Conservancy for
                                Cuyahoga Valley National Park; and Jean
                                Pogge, CEO, Delta Institute.
                        Suzanne Moynihan, Director, The EDGE; Ally Fields,
                                Clean Water Advocate, Environment America;
                                Chuck Godfrey, President, Erie County
                                Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs; Jill Ryan,
                                Executive Director, Freshwater Future;
                                Kerry Kelly, Chairman of Board, Friends of
                                Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore;
                                Matt Meersman, President, Friends of the
                                St. Joe River Association; Mike Strigel,
                                Executive Director, Gathering Waters:
                                Wisconsin's Alliance for Land Trusts; June
                                Summers, President, Genesee Valley Audubon
                                Society; Jonathan Jarosz, Executive
                                Director, Heart of the Lakes Center for
                                Land Conservation Policy; Sr. Rose Therese
                                Nolta, SSpS, Justice and Peace Coordinator,
                                Holy Spirit Missionary Sisters, USA, JPIC;
                                Laura Rubin, Executive Director, Huron
                                River Watershed Council; and Darwin Adams,
                                Chairman, Illinois Council of Trout
                                Unlimited.
                        Mike Leahy, Conservation Director, Izaak Walton
                                League of America; John Stegmeier,
                                Conservation Chair, Dwight Lydell Chapter
                                of the Izaak Walton, League of America;
                                Ivan J. Hack, Jr., President, Headwaters
                                Chapter IWLA; Tim Russell, Division
                                President, Indiana Division Izaak Walton
                                League; Robert Stegmier, National Director,
                                Michigan, Izaak Walton League of America;
                                Les Monostory, President, New York State
                                Division, Izaak Walton League of America;
                                Jim Sweeney, President, Porter County
                                Chapter of the Izaak Walton, League of
                                America; Michelle Parker, Vice President,
                                Great Lakes and Sustainability, Daniel P.
                                Haerther Center for Conservation and
                                Research, John G. Shedd Aquarium; Alan J.
                                Weener, President, Kalamazoo River Sturgeon
                                for Tomorrow; Tom Fuhrman, President, Lake
                                Erie Region Convervancy; and Sandy Bihn,
                                Executive Director, Lake Erie Waterkeeper
                                Inc.
                        Gordon Morlan, Environmental Chairman, League of
                                Women Voters Grosse Pointe; Betsy Lawson,
                                Senior Lobbyest, League of Women Voters of
                                the United States; Nic Clark, Director,
                                Michigan Clean Water Action; Daniel
                                Eichinger, Executive Director, Michigan
                                United Conservation Clubs; John J. Ropp,
                                President/CEO, Michigan Wildlife
                                Conservancy; Cheryl Nenn, Riverkeeper,
                                Milwaukee Riverkeeper; Scott Strand,
                                Executive Director, Minnesota Center for
                                Environmental Advocacy; Gary Botzek,
                                Executive Director, Minnesota Conservation
                                Federation; Steve Morse, Executive
                                Director, Minnesota Environmental
                                Partnership; Lynn McClure, Senior Midwest
                                Director, National Parks Conservation
                                Association; Karen Hobbs, Senior Policy
                                Analyst, Natural Resources Defense Council;
                                Mike Shriberg, Regional Executive Director,
                                Great Lakes, National Wildlife Federation;
                                and Melinda Hughes-Wert, President, Nature
                                Abounds.
                        Marc Hudon, Chair, Water Commission, Nature Quebec;
                                Vincent Agnello, Executive Secretary,
                                Niagara Watershed Alliance; Dennis West,
                                President, Northern Initiatives; Dan Plath,
                                President, Northwest Indiana Paddling
                                Association; Michael Ryan, President,
                                Northwest Indiana Steelheaders; Ron Urban,
                                Chairman, NYS Council Trout Unlimited;
                                Kristy Meyer, Managing Director,
                                Agricultural, Health & Clean Water
                                Programs, Ohio Environmental Council; Ray
                                Stewart, President, Ohio Wetlands
                                Association; Kris Patterson, Executive
                                Director, Partners for Clean Streams; David
                                Masur, Director, PennEnvironment; Irene
                                Senn, Coordinator, Religious Coalition for
                                the Great Lakes; and Denny Caneff,
                                Executive Director, River Alliance of
                                Wisconsin.
                        Nicole Silk, President, River Network; Nicole
                                Barker, Executive Director, Save the Dunes;
                                Lee Willbanks, Upper St. Lawrence
                                Riverkeeper, Executive Director, Save The
                                River; Robin Schachat, President, Shaker
                                Lakes Garden Club; Melissa Damaschke, Great
                                Lakes Program Director, Sierra Club; Karen
                                Donahue, Sisters of Mercy West Midwest
                                Community, Justice Team; Sister Phyllis
                                Tierney, Coordinator, SSJ Justice & Peace
                                Ministry, Sisters of St. Joseph of
                                Rochester; Rafael Rosa, Regional Vice
                                President, Student Conservation
                                Association; Jennifer McKay, Policy
                                Specialist, Tip of the Mitt Watershed
                                Council; Carol A. Stepien, Director of the
                                Lake Erie Center, University of Toledo;
                                Christine Crissman, Executive Director, The
                                Watershed Center Grand Traverse Bay;
                                Antoinette Grote, President, Western NY
                                Trout Unlimited, Chapter #068; Ellen
                                Satterlee, President and Executive
                                Director, The Wege Foundation; Rich
                                Cochran, President and CEO, Western Reserve
                                Land Conservancy; Kerry Schumann, Executive
                                Director, Wisconsin League of Conservation
                                Voters; and Tracy Hames, Executive
                                Director, Wisconsin Wetlands Association.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS),
      Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF), and Doris Day Animal League
        Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on items of importance
    to our organizations. We urge the subcommittee to address these
    priority issues in the fiscal year 2016 Department of Interior
    appropriation.
                              rock creek park deer
        We request that funds made available in this Act give preference to
    non-lethal deer management programs over lethal techniques at Rock
    Creek Park. The National Park Service (NPS) has been using lethal
    methods for controlling the deer population in Rock Creek Park despite
    the availability of non-lethal methods that in the long run will use
    significantly less taxpayer money and result in a more effective long-
    term solution to human-wildlife conflicts in the park and its environs.
    In the future, we ask that priority be given to humane, non-lethal
    methods with respect to decisions regarding funding deer management
    programs.
                        environmental protection agency
        Thousands of chemicals are currently used and hundreds of new ones
    are introduced each year for which toxicity assessments need to be
    conducted. To answer this need, EPA established the National Center for
    Computational Toxicity to predict hazard and prioritize chemicals for
    further screening and testing, developing and using high-throughput
    assays and predictive tools which are less expensive and time consuming
    and more predictive of relevant biological pathways.
        Through EPA's CompTox program, EPA has screened more than 2,000
    chemicals (industrial, food additives, and consumer products) and
    evaluated them in more than 700 high-throughput assays. Additionally,
    EPA is using ToxCast data to prioritize chemicals for evaluation in the
    Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Tox21, a collaboration between
    EPA, NIEHS, NCATS and the FDA is currently screening 10,000 chemicals
    to improve the effectiveness of drug development.
        However, even as the need increases for this data, the program's
    budget has stagnated. An increase of $12,366 million to the NCCT budget
    is essential to achieving the goals presented in the CompTox program
    and assure a more predictable and relevant chemicals safety assessment.
                    multinational species conservation fund
        The administration's fiscal year 2016 budget requests $11.1 million
    for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF) program which
    funds African and Asian elephants, rhinos, tigers, great apes like
    chimps and gorillas, and sea turtles. The HSUS joins a broad coalition
    of organizations in support of the administration's request while
    ensuring that the sales from the semi-postal stamps benefiting this
    program remain supplementary to annually appropriated levels. We also
    support the fiscal year 2016 budget justification request from the
    USFWS Office of International Affairs of approximately $14.7 million
    but request that at least $13 million of these funds be allocated to
    the Wildlife Without Borders and International Wildlife Trade programs.
        While we wholeheartedly support continued funding for the MSCF, we
    are concerned about past incidents and oppose any future use of funds
    from these conservation programs to promote trophy hunting, trade in
    animal parts, and other consumptive uses--including live capture for
    trade, captive breeding, and entertainment for public display
    industry--under the guise of conservation for these animals. Grants
    made to projects under the MSCF must be consistent with the spirit of
    the law.
            bureau of land management--wild horse and burro program
        The Humane Society of the United States (The HSUS) is one of the
    leading advocates for the protection and welfare of wild horses and
    burros in the U.S. with a long history of working collaboratively with
    the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)--the agency mandated to protect
    America's wild horses and burros--on the development of effective and
    humane management techniques.
        The HSUS strongly supports a significant reduction in the number of
    wild horses and burros gathered and removed from our rangelands
    annually. We believe removing horses from the range without
    implementing any active program for suppressing the population growth
    rate has proven itself to be an unsustainable method of management of
    our Nation's wild horses, and simply leads to a continual cycle of
    roundups and removals when more long-term, cost-efficient and humane
    management strategies, such as fertility control, are readily
    available.
        For years, the BLM has removed far more wild horses and burros from
    the range than it could possibly expect to adopt annually, and as a
    consequence, the costs associated with caring for these animals off the
    range have continued to skyrocket. The annual costs associated with
    caring for one wild horse in a long term holding facility is
    approximately $500, and the average lifespan of a wild horse in
    captivity is 30 years. Today, there are more than 50,000 wild horses
    and burros in these pens, and the agency spends more than 50 percent of
    its annual Wild Horse and Burro budget on holding costs. The BLM must
    balance the number of animals removed from the range annually with the
    number of animals it can expect to adopt in a given year if it hopes to
    effectively reduce off-the-range management costs.
        Further, the BLM's current program of management of wild horses has
    negative effects that go beyond a simple cost-benefit analysis. For
    instance, the recommendations in the National Academy of Sciences 2013
    report ``Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program:
    A Way Forward,'' commissioned by the BLM itself, stated that it is
    BLM's own practices of managing wild horses ``below food-limited
    carrying capacity'' by rounding up and removing a significant
    proportion of the herd's population every 3 to 4 years that is
    facilitating high horse population growth rates on the range.
        As such, it is incumbent that the BLM move away from current
    management practices to create a long-term, humane and financially
    sustainable path. It is our belief that the most cost-effective and
    humane approach is for the BLM to move aggressively forward with a
    contraceptive program which prioritizes on-the-range management of wild
    horses and burros. This path forward is supported by the National
    Academy of Sciences report, which called for an increased usage of on-
    the-range management tools, including the usage of the fertility
    control vaccine PZP. Further, a 2008 paper determined that
    contraception on-the-range could reduce total wild horse and burro
    management costs by 14 percent, saving $6.1 million per year. Finally,
    the results of a paper describing an economic model commissioned by The
    HSUS indicates that by treating wild horses on one hypothetical Herd
    Management Area (HMA) with the fertility control vaccine Porcine Zona
    Pellucida (PZP), the BLM could save approximately $5 million dollars
    over 12 years while achieving and maintaining Appropriate Management
    Levels (AML) of 874 horses. Since the BLM estimates that more than
    40,000 wild horses roam on 179 HMAs in the U.S., the use of PZP could
    result in a cost-savings of tens of millions of dollars if applied
    broadly across all HMAs.
        For these reasons, while we support the BLM's request for a 2.8
    million dollar budget increase to fund additional research on
    contraception and population growth suppression methods, we request
    that the agency be required to immediately begin usage of the NAS-
    recommended fertility control methods that are currently available.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Independent Review Team
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and to address the
    serious funding needs that have limited and continue to hinder the
    operations of tribal judicial systems in Indian Country. I am the Lead
    Judge representing the Independent Tribal Court Review Team. The Indian
    Tribal Justice Act was enacted in 1993 which authorized $58.4 million
    per year for 7 years for tribal courts base funding. For more than two
    decades Congress has reauthorized the Act but funds have never been
    appropriated. In 2015 nothing has changed because the lack of funds to
    implement both the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) and the Violence
    Against Women Act (VAWA) have not been appropriated. Without funding to
    support these measures the intent and goals of Congress will never be
    achieved and tribal communities, tribal citizens and tribal women will
    never be safe. Tribal courts remain underfunded and the result is
    negatively impacting law enforcement operations which also was not the
    intent or goal when these bills were enacted. It is the strong
    recommendation of the Independent Tribal Courts Review Team that the
    Federal tribal courts budget be substantially increased in fiscal year
    2016 to support the needs of tribal judicial systems.
                budget priorities, requests and recommendations
    1.  +$82 million/year (fiscal year 2015 equivalent to $58.4 million
    authorized under the Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993, Public Law 103-
    176, 25 U.S.C. 3601 and re-authorized in year 2000 Public Law 106-559
    no funds have been appropriated to date).
    2.  +$15 million increase for tribal courts above the fiscal year 2010
    enacted level.
    3.  Support the requests and recommendations of the National Congress
    of American.

    The increase will support:

    1.  Hiring and training of court personnel.
    2.  Compliance with the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010.
    3.  Compliance/implementation of the VAWA Act of 2013.
    4.  Salary increases for existing judges and court personnel.
    5.  State-of-the-art technology for tribal courts.
    6.  Security and security systems to protect court records and privacy
    of case information.
    7.  Tribal court code development.
    8.  Financial code development.

        The Independent Court Review Team supports the proposed $5.0
    million increase in the fiscal year 2016 President's budget for tribal
    courts. The fight against crime and drugs has led to more arrests which
    is increasing the caseload in the tribal court system. Provisions in
    both the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) and the Violence Against Women
    Act (VAWA) will have a significant impact on tribal courts. Both
    requires that attorneys be provided to represent non-Indian defendants
    to further strain the capacity of the tribal judicial systems which is
    underfunded, understaffed and ill-equipped to function effectively and
    in a manner comparable to non-Indian government judicial systems.
    Tribal courts are at a critical stage in terms of need.
                                   background
        The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the Department of the
    Interior provides funding to tribal governments to supplement their
    justice systems including courts. Tribal courts play a ``vital role''
    in tribal Self-Determination and Self-Governance as cited in long-
    standing Federal policy and Acts of Congress. Funding levels from BIA
    to support tribal justice systems have not met the Federal obligations
    and needs.
        There is a great deal of variation in the types of tribal courts
    and how they apply laws. Some tribal courts resemble Western-style
    courts in that written laws and court procedures are applied. Others
    use traditional Native means of resolving disputes, such as
    peacemaking, elders' councils, and sentencing circles. Some tribes have
    both types of courts. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) also manages
    seven Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) courts.
        Since 1999, the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the Department of
    Justice has administered the Tribal Courts Assistance Program, designed
    to provide funds for tribes to plan, operate, and enhance tribal
    judicial systems. They have made attempts to evaluate tribal courts but
    discovered their means of doing so was insensitive to American Indian
    and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people and unrealistic in the absence of
    elements that were key to Indian Country, such as: (1) the importance
    of tribal culture and traditions; (2) the inability to apply State and
    local criminal justice initiatives to tribal settings; (3) the lack of
    cooperation from non-tribal entities; and, (4) the lack of available
    data on tribal justice.
        The Independent Court Review Team has had more hands on success in
    reviewing tribal court systems. For approximately 7 years, we have
    travelled throughout Indian Country assessing how tribal courts are
    operating. During this time, we completed 84 court reviews. We also
    completed 28 Corrective Actions. There is no one with more hands-on
    experience and knowledge regarding the current status of tribal courts
    than our review team.
                           justification for request
        1. Hiring and Training of Court Personnel.--Tribal courts make do
    with underpaid staff, under-experienced staff and minimal training. (We
    have determined that hiring tribal members limits the inclination of
    staff to move away; a poor excuse to underpay staff.)
        2. Compliance with the Tribal Law & Order Act of 2010.--To provide
    judges, prosecutors, public defenders, who are attorneys and who are
    bared to do ``enhanced sentencing'' in tribal courts.
        3. Compliance/implementation of the 2013 VAWA Act.--To provide
    tribal courts with the ability to provide non-Indians with all the
    rights under the U.S. Constitution in domestic violence actions in
    tribal courts (12 person juries, provide attorneys for non-Indians,
    provide attorneys in court personnel in domestic violence cases as in
    TLOA, etc.)
        4. Salary Increases for Existing Judges and Court Personnel.--
    Salaries should be comparable to local and State court personnel to
    keep pace with the non-tribal judicial systems and be competitive to
    maintain existing personnel.
        5. Tribal Courts Need State-of-the-Art Technology.--(Software,
    computers, phone systems, tape recording machines). Many Tribes cannot
    afford to purchase or upgrade existing court equipment unless they get
    a grant. This is accompanied by training expenses and licensing fees
    which do not last after the grant ends.
        6. Security and Security Systems to Protect Court Records and
    Privacy of Case Information.--Most tribal courts do not even have a
    full time bailiff, much less a state-of-the-art security system that
    uses locked doors and camera surveillance. This is a tragedy waiting to
    happen.
        7. Tribal Court Code Development.--Tribes cannot afford legal
    consultation. A small number of tribes hire on-site staff attorneys.
    These staff attorneys generally become enmeshed in economic development
    and code development does not take priority. Tribes make do with under-
    developed codes. The Adam Walsh Act created a hardship for tribes who
    were forced to develop codes, without funding, or have the State assume
    jurisdiction. (States have never properly overseen law enforcement in a
    tribal jurisdiction.)
        8. Financial Code Development.--We have rarely seen tribes with
    developed financial policies. The process of paying a bond, for
    example, varies greatly from tribe to tribe. The usual process of who
    collects it, where it is collected and how much it is, is never
    consistent among tribes.
                              about tribal courts
        There are many positive aspects about tribal courts. It is clear
    that tribal courts and justice systems are vital and important to the
    communities where they are located. Tribes value and want to be proud
    of their court systems. Tribes with even modest resources tend to
    allocate funding to courts before other costs. After decades of
    existence, many tribal courts, despite minimal funding, have achieved a
    level of experience and sophistication approaching, and in some cases
    surpassing, local non-Indian courts.
        Tribal courts, through the Indian Child Welfare Act, have mostly
    stopped the wholesale removal of Indian children from their families.
    Indian and non-Indian courts have developed formal and informal
    agreements regarding jurisdiction. Tribal governments have recognized
    the benefit of having law-trained judges, without doing away with
    judges who have cultural/traditional experience. Tribal court systems
    have appellate courts, jury trials, well-cared-for courthouses (even
    the poorer tribes), and tribal bar listings and fees. Perhaps most
    importantly, Tribes recognize the benefit of an independent judiciary
    and have taken steps to insulate courts and judges from political
    pressure. No longer in Indian country are judges automatically fired
    for decisions against the legislature.
        Nationwide, there are 185 tribes with courts that received $23.28
    million in Federal funding in 2015. The Review Team's Assessments have
    indicated that the Bureau of Indian Affairs only funds tribal courts at
    26 percent of the funding needed to operate. Now BIA faces the
    challenges in the new provisions of TLOA and VAWA with no
    appropriations. On the flip side, tribes who cannot afford to assist in
    the financial operations of the court are tasked with doing the best
    they can with what they have even at the expense of decreasing or
    eliminating services elsewhere. This while operating at a disadvantage
    with already overstrained resources and underserved needs of the tribal
    citizens. The assessment suggests that the smaller courts are both the
    busiest and most underfunded.
        The grant funding in the DOJ is intended to be temporary, but
    instead it is used for permanent needs; such as funding a Drug Court
    Clerk who then is used as a Court Clerk with Drug Court duties. When
    the funding runs out, so does the permanent position. We have witnessed
    many failed Drug Courts, failed court management software projects (due
    to training costs) and incomplete code development projects. When the
    justice funding runs out, so does the project.
        As a directive from the Office of Management and Budget in fiscal
    year 2005, our reviews specifically examined how tribes were using
    Federal funding. In the seven fiscal years through September of fiscal
    year 2011 there were only two isolated incidents of a questionable
    expenditure of Federal funds. It has been speculated that because of
    our limited resources, we compromise a person's due process and invoke
    ``speedy trials'' violations to save tribal courts money. Everyone who
    is processed through the tribal judicial system is afforded their
    Constitutional civil liberties and civil rights.
        We do not wish to leave an entirely negative impression about
    tribal courts. Tribal courts need an immediate, sustained and increased
    level of funding. True. However, there are strong indications that the
    courts will put such funding to good use.
        Tribal courts have other serious needs. Tribal appellate court
    judges are mostly attorneys who dedicate their services for modest fees
    that barely cover costs for copying and transcription fees. Tribal
    courts do offer jury trials. In many courts, one sustained jury trial
    will deplete the available budget. The only place to minimize expenses
    is to fire staff. Many tribal courts have defense advocates. These
    advocates are generally not law trained and do a good job protecting an
    individual's rights (including assuring speedy trial limitations are
    not violated.) However, this is a large item in court budgets and if
    the defense advocate, or prosecutor, should leave, the replacement
    process is slow.
        This Congress and this administration can do something great. Put
    your money where your promises have been and support the Acts you have
    passed. Thank You.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME)
                                interest of ime
        IME is a nonprofit association founded in 1913 to provide accurate
    information and comprehensive recommendations concerning the safety and
    security of commercial explosive materials. Our mission is to promote
    safety and the protection of employees, users, the public and the
    environment, and to encourage the adoption of uniform rules and
    regulations in the manufacture, transportation, storage, handling, use
    and disposal of explosive materials used in blasting and other
    essential operations.
        IME represents U.S. manufacturers and distributors of commercial
    explosive materials and oxidizers as well as other companies that
    provide related services. Millions of metric tons of high explosives,
    blasting agents, and oxidizers are consumed annually in the United
    States. Of this, IME member companies produce over 98 percent of the
    high explosives and a great majority of the blasting agents and
    oxidizers.
        Commercial explosives are pervasively regulated by a myriad of
    Federal and State agencies. Explosives manufacturing, storage and
    transportation facilities comply with Environmental Protection Agency
    (``EPA'') regulations implementing various Federal environmental
    statutes such as the Clean Air Act (``CAA''), including the Risk
    Management Program (``RMP''), and the Emergency Planning and Community
    Right To Know Act (``EPCRA''). EPA participates in the Chemical
    Facility Safety and Security Working Group, or Interagency Working
    Group (``IWG''), which is engaged in satisfying the requirements of
    Executive Order (``EO'') 13650, Improving Chemical Facility Safety and
    Security. The IWG's June 6, 2014 status report, Actions to Improve
    Chemical Facility Safety and Security--A Shared Commitment, includes
    actions that have the potential to significantly impact the commercial
    explosives industry.
        We offer the following comments on the need to provide EPA
    sufficient funds to address and improve chemical facility safety, and
    the concurrent need to ensure that the agency's actions complement the
    regulatory requirements of other Federal agencies while avoiding
    unnecessary regulation and/or redundancy within and between agency
    programs.
        fiscal year 2016 activities and performance plan--rmp and epcra
        The administration's fiscal year 2016 budget request includes funds
    that would allow EPA to identify and focus its enforcement efforts on
    significant vulnerabilities at the Nation's chemical facilities. The
    request would also be aimed at enhancing oversight, inspections and
    enforcement at high-risk facilities subject to the RMP. Activities
    would include, among other things, RMP and EPCRA compliance
    inspections; national coordination for chemical accident prevention and
    emergency response planning program policy, inspections, compliance and
    enforcement; program oversight, monitoring, and support for the
    Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations (``CAMEO'') system;
    training for inspectors; and communication/cooperation with State and
    local governments to provide outreach and training on RMP and EPCRA.
        IME supports the agency's efforts to expand and enhance its current
    training, inspection and enforcement programs. In particular, EPA
    should be provided with sufficient resources to ensure that it has an
    adequately trained cadre of inspectors and is capable, at least, of
    inspecting all facilities designated by the agency as ``high risk.''
    According to EPA, the number of facilities is currently 1,900. We
    expect, however, that this number may grow as the agency identifies and
    scrutinizes additional facilities through its improved coordination
    with the Department of Homeland Security and its other IWG partners.
    The subcommittee should take this into consideration as it examines the
    budget request.
        Enhanced communication and coordination with State and local
    governments and organizations is critical if EPA is to identify high
    risk and other ``outlier'' facilities that are operating in violation
    of current regulatory requirements. As part of this effort, the IWG
    envisions improvements in the Local Emergency Planning Committee
    (``LEPC'') program established under EPCRA. Although EPA administers
    the program, it does not control the distribution of funds to LEPCs.
    Rather, incongruously, the LEPC program is funded through the issuance
    of Hazardous Materials Emergency Program (``HMEP'') grants administered
    by the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
    Safety Administration (``PHMSA''), as authorized by the Hazardous
    Materials Transportation Act.
        This bifurcated administrative and funding arrangement is awkward
    at best. In addition, PHMSA's management of the HMEP grant program is
    ineffective and is, in large part, responsible for the failure of the
    LEPC program in many areas of the country.\1\ If the LEPC program is to
    be improved, a necessary first step would be to place the funding of
    the program under the control of the agency that is actually
    responsible for overseeing and administering it. The need to support
    LEPCs is highlighted in the IWG status report as essential to community
    engagement in properly planning for public safety and the safeguarding
    of property and the environment in the event of a chemical emergency.
    The LEPC system, if it is to be made workable, must be administered
    wholly by EPA in both its financial and programmatic elements. We ask
    the subcommittee to support EPA's request for funds to support this
    program.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ PHMSA's Inadequate Management and Oversight of Hazardous
    Materials Emergency Preparedness Grants Limited the Program's
    Effectiveness, DOT-OIG, AV-2012-040, January 12, 2012.
        \2\ Fiscal Year 2016 USEPA Budget Justification, EPA-190-R-15-001
    (Feb. 2015), at p. 360.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           fiscal year 2016 activities and performance plan--eo 13650
        The administration's fiscal year 2016 budget request also includes
    funding for EPA's activities in support of EO 13650. As part of its
    effort to implement the requirements of the EO, EPA published a Request
    for Information (``RFI'') on the RMP in 2014. Among other things, EPA
    inquired whether explosives and/or ammonium nitrate (``AN'') should be
    included on an expanded RMP list of substances. We do not believe that
    any resources appropriated to support the RMP program should be used to
    fund an expansion of the program to include explosives or AN.
    Explosives
        As we stated in our comments on the RFI, an expansion of the RMP to
    include explosives would unnecessarily duplicate extant Federal
    regulatory programs including EPA's EPCRA program, the Occupational
    Safety and Health Administration (``OSHA'') Process Safety Management
    Standard (``PSM'') and Explosives and Blasting Agents Standard, and
    quantity/distance requirements administered by the Bureau of Alcohol,
    Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (``ATF''). This existing suite of
    controls already delivers the three key protections provided by the
    RMP, i.e.; (i) emergency response planning and communication (EPCRA),
    (ii) accident prevention (PSM), and (iii) protection against offsite
    consequences (ATF).
        In short, there is no need for EPA to expend valuable resources
    reexamining the exclusion of explosives from the RMP. As noted,
    existing regulations administered by a variety of agencies, including
    EPA, already sufficiently cover the ground that RMP is intended to
    safeguard. Coverage under OSHA's PSM and Explosives and Blasting Agents
    Standards provide accident prevention at the same level that would be
    provided by the RMP. Compliance with PSM, EPCRA, and ATF rules furnish
    local responders with the information necessary to respond to an
    emergency. ATF and OSHA regulations incorporating the American Table of
    Distances (i.e., quantity/distance requirements) ensure that the
    effects of an accidental explosion would be confined to facility
    property, thus obviating the need for RMP rules aimed at estimating and
    responding to offsite consequences. Moreover, independent industry
    efforts to guarantee safety through the use of IMESAFR, a widely
    accepted quantitative risk assessment program developed by IME, and
    industry best practices and standards published in IME's Safety Library
    Publications and guidance documents operate as additional safeguards of
    worker and public safety. No further regulation is necessary.
    Ammonium Nitrate
        EPA's RFI also inquires whether there are safety gaps in current
    regulations covering AN that could be addressed under the RMP. We
    believe that no gaps exist and that the agency's resources would be
    better spent in addressing problematic but improvable areas such as the
    LEPC program and coordination between Federal agency programs.
        As we also noted in our response to the RFI, we believe that
    existing regulatory requirements, with recommended enhancements, are
    adequate to safely regulate the management of AN. AN can present a
    hazard if managed or stored improperly, but it does not warrant
    inclusion in a complex regulatory program like the RMP. The proper
    management of AN is not only straightforward, but, done correctly,
    effectively eliminates any potential hazard. AN is not a volatile or
    self-reactive chemical requiring constant diligence in its handling.
    The proper management of AN is simple, well understood, and easily
    accomplished. IME's Safety and Security Guidelines for Ammonium Nitrate
    \3\ describe appropriate management parameters: AN must be stored in
    non-combustible bins or storage buildings, isolated from potential
    contaminants, and protected from substantial and sustained heat sources
    (e.g., fire) and shock. Where these uncomplicated tenets are followed,
    the reactive hazard associated with AN is negligible if not
    nonexistent.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ IME Safety and Security Guidelines for Ammonium Nitrate (2013).
        \4\ This can be substantiated through quantitative risk assessment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        IME would oppose any appropriation that could be used to expand the
    RMP to include AN (whether on its own or as a ``reactive chemical'').
    Existing OSHA rules at 29 CFR 1910.109(i) are adequate to ensure the
    safe storage and handling of this material and the inclusion of AN in
    the RMP would do nothing to enhance the safety of workers or the
    public.\5\ IME recommends that specific language be included in
    appropriations legislation prohibiting the expansion of the RMP to
    include AN.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ IME has recommended, however, that 29 CFR 1910.109(i) be
    updated consistent with our Guidelines. IME is also a member of the
    National Fire Protection Association (``NFPA'') 400 Committee and has
    made similar recommendations as part of the ongoing review of NFPA 400,
    Chapter 11, Ammonium Nitrate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    toxic substances control act (``tsca'')
        In EPA's Congressional Justification the agency has indicated that
    it plans to submit legislative language that would allow it to assess
    fees to manage chemical manufacturers' requests that the agency protect
    designated information as confidential business information
    (``CBI'').\6\ The legislative language would establish a revolving fund
    in the U.S. Treasury known as the TSCA CBI Management Fund that would
    be used by the agency to manage CBI claims, support its specialized CBI
    communications and database, and fund physical security and CBI
    reviews.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Fiscal Year 2016 USEPA Budget Justification, EPA-190-R-15-001
    (Feb. 2015), at p. 1014-15.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        IME does not support this request. Chemical manufacturers,
    including the commercial explosives industry, expend hundreds of
    millions of dollars in researching and developing unique and innovative
    products that help fuel the U.S. economy. Manufacturers should not, in
    addition, have to pay fees to the Federal Government in order to
    safeguard the confidentiality of their own work product.
                                   conclusion
        IME supports EPA's request for funding to support improvements in
    chemical facility safety and local and regional emergency preparedness
    planning. We oppose, however, any effort to expand the RMP to include
    explosives or AN, and we oppose the imposition of fees to safeguard CBI
    under TSCA.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission
        My name is John Stefanko and I serve as Deputy Secretary of the
    Office of Active and Abandoned Mine Operations within the Pennsylvania
    Department of Environmental Protection. I appreciate the opportunity to
    present this statement to the subcommittee regarding the views of the
    Interstate Mining Compact Commission's 26 member States on the fiscal
    year 2016 budget request for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
    and Enforcement (OSM) within the U.S. Department of the Interior. In
    its proposed budget, OSM is requesting $63.5 million to fund title V
    grants to States for the implementation of their regulatory programs, a
    reduction of $5.1 million or 7.4 percent below the fiscal year 2015
    enacted level. OSM also proposes to reduce mandatory spending for the
    abandoned mine lands (AML) program by $24.4 million pursuant to a
    legislative proposal to eliminate all AML funding for certified States
    and tribes.
        The Compact is comprised of 26 States that together produce some 95
    percent of the Nation's coal, as well as important noncoal minerals.
    The Compact's purposes are to advance the protection and restoration of
    land, water and other resources affected by mining through the
    encouragement of programs in each of the party States that will achieve
    comparable results in protecting, conserving and improving the
    usefulness of natural resources and to assist in achieving and
    maintaining an efficient, productive and economically viable mining
    industry.
        OSM has projected an amount of $63.5 million for title V grants to
    States in fiscal year 2016, an amount which is matched by the States.
    These grants support the implementation of State regulatory programs
    under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and as
    such are essential to the full and effective operation of those
    programs. Pursuant to these primacy programs, the States have the most
    direct and critical responsibilities for conducting regulatory
    operations to minimize the impact of coal extraction operations on
    people and the environment. The States accomplish this through a
    combination of permitting, inspection and enforcement duties,
    designating lands as unsuitable for mining operations, and ensuring
    that timely reclamation occurs after mining.
        In fiscal year 2015, Congress approved $68.6 million for State and
    tribal title V grants pursuant to the Omnibus Appropriations bill.\1\
    This continued a much-needed trend whereby the amount appropriated for
    these regulatory grants aligned with the demonstrated needs of the
    States. The States are greatly encouraged by the amount approved by
    Congress for title V grant funding over the past several fiscal years.
    These grants had been stagnant for over 12 years and the gap between
    the States' requests and what they received was widening. This
    debilitating trend was compounding the problems caused by inflation and
    uncontrollable costs, thus undermining our efforts to realize needed
    program improvements and enhancements and jeopardizing our efforts to
    minimize the potential adverse impacts of coal extraction operations on
    people and the environment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ In approving this amount for State grant funding in fiscal year
    2015, Congress noted that: ``The Committees find the budget proposal to
    reduce regulatory grants would undermine the State-based regulatory
    system. It is imperative that States continue to operate protective
    regulatory programs as delegation of authority to the States is the
    cornerstone of the surface mining regulatory program.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In recent budget requests, OSM displayed a pattern of proposing
    woefully inadequate funding for State title V regulatory programs.
    Congress consistently rejected the proposed reductions and funded the
    programs at amounts that more closely aligned with the States'
    projected needs. OSM's fiscal year 2016 budget proposal reflects a
    better understanding of the importance of adequately funding State
    regulatory programs and thus represents a welcome departure from
    previous years.
        While the States are appreciative of OSM's apparent change of
    direction, the amounts proposed will still inhibit the States' ability
    to operate at the optimal level. The title V grant amount proposed by
    OSM is $5.1 million less than the 2015 enacted level. As a rationale
    for the reductions, OSM asserts that any shortfalls in fiscal year 2016
    can be covered by the carryover from previous fiscal years. While the
    States understand OSM's position, we believe this plan to be
    shortsighted in that it fails to consider the improving fiscal
    conditions in many States and the damaging precedent set by
    appropriating suboptimal grant amounts. Furthermore, there is no
    guarantee that these carryover funds will be available into the future
    or that they would not be reprogrammed for other purposes.
        It should be kept in mind that, given fiscal constraints on State
    budgets from the downturn in the economy, some States have only
    recently been able to move beyond hiring and salary freezes and
    restrictions on equipment and vehicle purchases, all of which have
    inhibited the States' ability to spend all of their Federal grant money
    in years past. With many States now recovering enough to utilize their
    full grant amount, it is imperative that funding be maintained at the
    current level of $68.6 million. Any supplemental increases for tribal
    primacy programs would need to be in addition to that amount.
        Clear indications from Congress that reliable, consistent funding
    will continue into the future has done much to stimulate support for
    these programs by State legislatures and budget officers who, in the
    face of difficult fiscal climates and constraints, have had to deal
    with the challenge of matching Federal grant dollars with State funds.
    Recall that any cut in Federal funding generally translates to an
    additional cut of an equal amount for overall program funding for many
    States, especially those without Federal lands, since these States can
    generally only match what they receive in Federal money.
        At the same time that OSM is proposing cuts for State programs, the
    agency is proposing sizeable increases for its own program operations
    (almost $4 million), including an increase of 12 full time employees.
    In making the case for its funding increase, OSM's budget justification
    document contains vague references to the need ``to improve the
    implementation of existing laws.'' More specifically, OSM states in its
    budget justification document that ``with greater technical skills, OSM
    anticipates improved evaluation of permit-related actions and
    resolution of issues to prevent unanticipated situations that otherwise
    may occur as operations progress, thereby improving implementation of
    existing laws'' (pg. 58). In our view, this is code language for
    enhanced and expanded Federal oversight of State programs and reflects
    a move by OSM to exert a more direct role in State programs, especially
    regarding permitting decisions, thereby weakening State primacy.
    Without more to justify the need for additional oversight and the
    concomitant increase in funding for Federal operations related thereto,
    Congress should reject this request.
        The overall performance of the States as detailed in OSM's annual
    State program evaluation reports demonstrates that the States are
    implementing their programs effectively and in accordance with the
    purposes and objectives of SMCRA.\2\ In our view, this suggests that
    OSM is adequately accomplishing its statutory oversight obligations
    with current Federal program funding and that any increased workloads
    are likely to fall upon the States, which have primary responsibility
    for implementing appropriate adjustments to their programs identified
    during Federal oversight.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The Congress agreed with this assessment when it commented as
    follows on OSM's proposed increase in fiscal year 2015: ``The [Omnibus
    Appropriations] agreement does not provide funds to expand and enhance
    Federal oversight activities of State programs.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To the extent that OSM seeks to enhance State primacy, we would
    support a renewed focus on processing State program amendments.
    Additionally, if OSM is looking for ways to improve and enhance the
    overall implementation of SMCRA at both the State and Federal level, we
    would urge the agency to move forward with the findings and
    recommendations of the Government Efficiency Work Groups that spent
    considerable time and effort throughout 2014 to, among other things,
    address the continuing fiscal impacts on program implementation and
    develop workable solutions. While OSM mentions the work of this State/
    Federal initiative in its Budget Justification document (pg. 10), there
    has been little movement to follow up on this excellent work since the
    submission of the Work Group reports last July.
        For all the above reasons, we urge Congress to approve not less
    than $68.6 million for State and tribal title V regulatory grants, the
    same amount enacted by Congress over the past few fiscal years. In
    doing so, Congress will continue its commitment to ensuring the States
    have the resources they need to continue their work on the forefront of
    environmental protection and preservation of public health and safety.
        With regard to funding for State title IV Abandoned Mine Land (AML)
    program grants, congressional action in 2006 to reauthorize title IV of
    SMCRA has significantly changed the method by which State reclamation
    grants are funded. These grants are still based on receipts from a fee
    on coal production, but beginning in fiscal year 2008, the grants are
    funded primarily by mandatory appropriations. As a result, the States
    and tribes should receive $209 million in fiscal year 2016. In its
    fiscal year 2016 proposed budget, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) is
    requesting $385 million for State and tribal AML grants, an increase of
    $176 million. OSM's budget also includes five legislative proposals,
    the first of which would eliminate funding to States and tribes that
    have ``certified'' completion of their highest priority abandoned coal
    reclamation sites (a reduction of $24.4 million in fiscal year 2016);
    the second of which would return the AML reclamation fee paid by coal
    operators to pre-2006 levels; the third of which would establish a
    hardrock AML fee and accompanying program; the fourth of which would
    provide enhanced payouts to the United Mine Workers Retirement Funds,
    and the fifth of which would accelerate the distribution of grant funds
    for a portion of the remaining unappropriated balance in the AML Trust
    Fund to ``facilitate sustainable revitalization'' in addition to
    cleanup and redevelopment of eligible lands and waters (an additional
    $200 million in fiscal year 2016).
        With regard to this latter proposal, while the States are
    supportive of the spirit of the proposal and have in fact designed many
    projects around these types of purposes using local contractors
    whenever the opportunities and partnerships exist, we cannot support a
    programmatic change of this magnitude without a better understanding of
    the specifics of how it will be implemented. The success of such an
    endeavor, as well as the States' support for it, is highly dependent on
    robust consultation between OSM and State AML Program Managers. At this
    juncture, the States are concerned that the proposal could have
    negative ramifications for the overall remediation of AML hazards and
    thus public health and safety. Depending on how the proposal is
    implemented, the addition of ``economic eligibility factors'' to
    existing site selection criteria could potentially divert some amount
    of funding away from the highest priority AML sites. Please keep in
    mind that the $1 billion of AML Fund money which would be repurposed by
    the proposal is already slated for dispersal to the States under the
    allocation system and site prioritization method ordained by Congress
    in the 2006 amendments to SMCRA.
        With regard to the proposal contained in OSM's budget to establish
    a hardrock AML program, the States are well aware of the need to
    address historic hardrock AML problem areas, beginning with the
    inclusion of section 409 of SMCRA in 1977. There is clearly a need to
    establish both the funding mechanism and the administrative program to
    address these legacy sites, be it through a fee or through a meaningful
    Good Samaritan program that provides liability protection for those
    undertaking this type of work. We believe that OSM is in the best
    position to administer a hardrock AML program, given its 35 years of
    experience in operating the title IV program under SMCRA. Our only
    concern is that, while on the one hand OSM is advocating for the
    establishment of a hardrock AML program, it is also pushing for the
    elimination of funding for certified States and tribes to accomplish
    this very work.
        OSM's budget proposal also includes a legislative proposal which
    would require a massive transfer of $363.4 million from the Treasury to
    various components of the UMWA Health and Retirement Funds. The States
    recognize the importance of this issue and are supportive of efforts to
    ensure the long-term solvency of the UMWA Pension Funds. However, the
    States believe that this issue should be pursued as part of a more
    comprehensive reauthorization package given the overall implications
    for the AML program. Furthermore, the States are concerned that this
    significant dispersal of Treasury funds could impact the application of
    the $490 million cap on transfers from the Treasury vis-a-vis mandatory
    Treasury payments to the States for AML work.
        We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement on the
    Office of Surface Mining's proposed budget for fiscal year 2016. We
    also endorse the statement of the National Association of Abandoned
    Mine Land Programs (NAAMLP), which goes into greater detail regarding
    the implications of OSM's funding and legislative proposals for the
    States and tribes. We would be happy to answer any questions.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Intertribal Timber Council
                                    summary
        Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Phil Rigdon,
    President of the Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) and Deputy Director
    of Natural Resources for the Yakama Nation. The ITC submits the
    following recommendations for fiscal year 2016 Indian forestry-related
    activities in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Department of
    Interior (DOI) Office of Wildland Fire Management (OWF), and the
    U.S.D.A. Forest Service (USFS):
    Bureau of Indian Affairs
         (1)  Increase BIA Forestry by $25 million, to $76.9 million, as a
    first step to providing the $100 million needed for funding parity with
    other Federal forestry programs, as recommended by the IFMAT III
    report. Require tribal participation in allocation of this increase.
         (2)  Separately, increase BIA Forestry Projects by $12.7 million
    to initiate a BIA Forestry Workforce Development program, as
    recommended by IFMAT III.
         (3)  Support BIA's Tribal Climate Resilience program request of
    $30.355 million.
         (4)  Increase the BIA Endangered Species funding to $10 million.
    Interior Office of Wildland Fire Management
         (5)  Support the Preparedness request of $323.7 million, with
    transparency for tribal Contract Support Costs (CSCs).
         (6)  Increase Fuels Management funding to $206 million; allow RTRL
    funds on tribal lands.
         (7)  Support the Disaster Fire Funding legislative proposal.
         (8)  Support the $30 million Resilient Landscapes initiative.
    U.S.D.A. Forest Service
         (9)  Encourage expanded support for the ITC Anchor Forest
    initiative.
        (10)  Encourage the USFS to improve implementation of the Tribal
    Forest Protection Act.
                                   ifmat iii
        Many of our comments and recommendations reflect the third IFMAT
    report, the statutorily required (Public Law 101-630, Sec. 312) decadal
    review and report on tribal forests and forestry conducted by an
    independent Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT). The IFMAT
    III report (in two volumes plus an executive summary) was completed in
    and dated 2013, and was printed and distributed the spring of 2014,
    including a copy to the subcommittee.
        The IFMAT III report examines tribal forests using a ``FIT''
    framework: Fire, Investment and Transformation: ``Fire'' for the large
    role wildland fire and other threats present to tribal forest health
    and productivity; ``Investment'' for the Federal funding and trust
    support needed for meeting the Federal trust and ensuring a sustainable
    future for Indian forests; and ``Transformation'' for the role of
    Indian forestry as a model for sustainable land management.
        IFMAT III examines eight specific review areas required by the
    statute, including staffing and funding, and looks at additional issues
    including Indian forest benefits, climate change, and the Anchor
    Forests initiative and implementation of the Tribal Forest Protection
    Act.
        IFMAT III found that chronically insufficient funding and worsening
    staff shortages are threatening tribal forests and communities from
    foregone economic opportunities, inadequate management, and resource
    losses due to wildland fire, insects, disease, and climate change.
    Federal trust management funding of Indian forests is still only one
    third of that for National Forests; an additional $100 million in base
    funding is needed to bring Indian forestry and wildfire management to
    parity. Staffing shortfalls are jeopardizing the capacity to care for
    forest resources: 800 additional positions are needed for adequate
    staffing and $12.7 million is needed annually for staff recruitment,
    training and retention.
        Against this background, the ITC makes the following comments and
    requests for fiscal year 2016.
    Bureau of Indian Affairs
    (1)  Increase BIA Forestry by $25 million, to $76.9 million, as a first
            step to providing the $100 million needed for funding parity
            with other Federal forestry programs, as recommended by IFMAT
            III. Require tribal participation in allocation of this
            increase.

        Within the total 56 million Indian acres in Federal trust, 18.6
    million acres are forested, of which 7.3 million acres are designated
    as commercial forest capable of supporting an annual allowable cut
    (AAC) of 723 million board feet per year. We request that the fiscal
    year 2016 BIA Forestry budget be increased by $25 million, to $76.9
    million, to begin to reduce the glaring $100 million funding disparity
    with other Federal forestry programs as discussed in the IFMAT III
    report. The ITC also asks the subcommittee to require tribal
    participation in the allocation of these additional funds to help
    assure appropriate allocation among various BIA Forestry and Wildland
    Fire programs.
        BIA Forestry's chronic underfunding contributes to the failure to
    harvest the full AAC, with serious repercussions for tribal economies
    and the health of the trust corpus. The AAC reflects tribal policy
    decisions on balancing multiple use considerations involving economy,
    ecology, and cultural values. The difference between the AAC and the
    actual harvest level funded and overseen by the BIA is a key metric
    that can be used to help measure the degree to which the U.S. is
    fulfilling its fiduciary duties for managing the Indian trust forests.
    In fiscal year 2014, the 437 million board feet of timber harvested
    from Indian forests generated $62 million in stumpage income and
    supported over 22,000 jobs (tribal and non-tribal communities
    combined), but these benefits were 40 percent below the levels that
    would have been received had the full AAC been harvested. The failure
    to harvest the full AAC in fiscal year 2014 reduced stumpage revenue by
    over $41 million and represented a loss of over 15,000 jobs (tribal and
    non-tribal combined). Since IFMAT I was issued in1991, the failure to
    harvest the full AAC has resulted in the loss of $727 million in
    stumpage income and 272,000 jobs in Indian Country.
        The chronic underfunding of Indian trust forests also impacts and
    potentially jeopardizes non-timber forest products, with an estimated
    national annual value of $10 million, and places these forests and all
    their benefits at risk of catastrophic loss from wildfire, climate
    change, insects, disease, trespass, and invasive species. A $25 million
    funding increase is an essential first step toward providing Indian
    trust forests with funding equal to that provided other Federal
    forests, improving tribal economies, sustaining the health and
    productivity of the trust forests, and avoiding the prospects of future
    trust mismanagement lawsuits.

    (2)  Separately, increase BIA Forestry Projects by $12.7 million to
            initiate a BIA Forestry Workforce Development program, as
            recommended by IFMAT III.

        BIA and tribal Forestry are facing a staffing crisis. The IFMAT III
    report states 800 additional BIA Forestry positions are needed, and an
    increasing number of existing positions are unfilled due to retirements
    and funding shortfalls. Trained personnel are essential for the
    sustainable trust management of our forests, including timber for
    tribal economies and healthy forests for tribal communities. As an
    example, on my reservation--the Yakama Nation--33 of the 55 BIA
    Forestry positions have not been filled for a long time, despite
    repeated tribal pleas. Harvest targets sought by the tribe are not
    being met, forest health is suffering, and economic opportunities are
    being lost. Nationally, to begin to address this large and growing
    personnel shortage and its negative consequences on the Federal trust
    and tribal economies, $12.7 million is needed to start a program to
    attract, train and retain forestry staff.

    (3)  Support BIA's Tribal Climate Resilience program request of $30.355
            million.

        ITC supports the BIA $30.355 million request for the Tribal Climate
    Resilience program. This provides a useful amount needed for evaluating
    climate change on our homelands, and to plan and conduct actual on-the-
    ground projects to begin addressing its consequences. America's 566
    Indian tribes are a segment of the population most closely tied to and
    reliant upon our lands, which are our history, our culture, our
    livelihoods, and our future. We appreciate and support this request to
    help protect our homes from the impacts of climate change.

    (4)  Increase BIA Endangered Species funding to $10 million.

        ITC requests BIA ESA be funded at $10 million so the myriad listed
    species throughout Indian Country nationwide can be better addressed.
    BIA's $3.7 million request for ESA is an improvement over past years,
    but the proposal is less than the ESA per-acre funding for BLM and
    still only slightly above the $3 million appropriated for BIA ESA in
    fiscal year 2002. A further significant increase in BIA ESA to $10
    million is fully warranted.
    Department of the Interior Wildland Fire Management
    (5)  Support the Preparedness request of $323.7 million, with
            transparency for tribal CSCs.

        Within this requested amount, ITC supports designations for tribal
    contract support costs (CSCs) and for BIA and tribal fire workforce
    development. However, we ask that the Department be directed to
    dialogue transparently with tribes on the allocation of these
    designated funds, particularly CSCs, which are being siphoned off by
    the administering agency, leaving only a fraction of the designated
    amount to help tribes cover the costs of contracting preparedness
    functions on the ground.

    (6)  Increase Fuels Management funding to $206 million; allow RTRL
            funds on tribal lands.

        For fiscal year 2016, ITC again urges Fuels Management funding at
    its fiscal year 2010 $206 million level. The Department's fuels
    reduction backlog remains huge, funding has never come close to need,
    and prevention is more cost effective than suppression. Within the
    fiscal year 2016 Fuels Management appropriation, ITC strongly supports
    the designation of $10 million for Reserved Treaty Rights Lands (RTRL)
    landscape restoration, to allow tribes to engage in proactive fuels and
    forest health projects to protect tribal trust assets on treaty lands.
    However, we ask that these funds be allowed on tribal lands, and not
    just off-reservation. The ITC also wishes to note again our
    appreciation of OWF for its efforts to engage tribes in its policy and
    funding considerations.

    (7)  Support the Disaster Fire Funding legislative proposal.

        ITC supports the legislative proposal to address extreme fire
    suppression costs (above 70 percent of the 10 year average) as the
    natural disasters that they are, reducing the adverse impacts of these
    large costs on both DOI's operations and budgets.

    (8)  Support the $30 million Resilient Landscape initiative.

        With this initiative, fuels and health projects can be more broadly
    and cooperatively applied across landscapes and beyond the wildland-
    urban interface (WUI).
    U.S.D.A. Forest Service
    (9)  Encourage expanded support for the ITC Anchor Forest initiative.

        We ask that you support, and encourage continued Forest Service
    support of, the ITC's Anchor Forest initiative. The initiative, in
    which tribes play a key role, works across forest landscape boundaries
    and diverse stakeholders to foster long-term collaboration to maintain
    ecological functions and sustain economically viable infrastructure for
    management, harvesting, transportation, and processing of forest
    products. Currently, the ITC is engaged in a pilot project involving
    three Anchor Forest study areas in Washington and Idaho (involving
    Yakama, Colville, and the Spokane and Coeur d'Alene Tribes), with
    participation and support from USFS, BIA, Washington State, the
    conservation community, and local forestland owners and businesses that
    are affected by forest health and productivity. Tribes in the Lakes
    States, the Plains States, Alaska, and the Southwest are beginning to
    express interest in the Anchor Forest concept, so we ask the
    subcommittee to encourage continued and expanded USFS support of the
    initiative.

    (10)  Encourage the USFS to improve implementation of the Tribal Forest
            Protection Act.

        Finally, we ask the subcommittee to encourage DoAg and DOI to make
    wider use of Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA, Public Law 108-278)
    agreements, in which tribes are authorized to conduct address fuels and
    health projects on adjacent Federal forests to help address threats
    like fire, disease and insect infestations. The USFS has been very slow
    in implementing the TFPA, but some progress is being made: this spring,
    the USFS and ITC are conducting regional workshops for USFS and other
    Federal personnel, tribes, and other interested parties to learn about
    TFPA and to actually start forging TFPA agreements. But there is still
    a dearth of active or new TFPA projects, and we urge the subcommittee
    to actively support and urge increased TFPA projects.
                     intertribal timber council background
        The ITC is a 39 year old association of forest owning tribes and
    Alaska Native organizations that collectively manage more than 90
    percent of the 18.6 million acres of BIA trust timberland and woodland
    that provide thousands of jobs and significant economic activity in and
    around Indian Country. In addition, our forests store and filter the
    water and air, sustain habitats, and produce foods, medicines, fuel,
    and materials for shelter, transportation, and artistic expression. We
    invite you to come visit.
        That concludes my statement. Thank you.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
        On behalf of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, I am pleased to submit
    this written testimony on our funding priorities and requests for the
    fiscal year 2016 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health
    Service (IHS) budgets. Funding for Indian country is appropriated in
    the non-defense discretionary portion of the Federal budget. We,
    therefore, renew our request that Congress work together to achieve a
    balanced approach to the budget deficit that includes raising new
    revenue sources and that doesn't rely solely on cuts to discretionary
    spending.
        We strongly support the administration's fiscal year 2016 budget
    proposal as it reflects an improved commitment on behalf of the Federal
    Government to uphold treaty and trust obligations with an investment in
    Indian programs that includes a 12 percent increase for the BIA over
    the fiscal year 2015 enacted level, a 9 percent increase for the IHS,
    and mandatory funding for contract support costs. These proposed
    increases are extremely important to tribes because we rely on this
    funding to support our core governmental programs and critical services
    that promote the safety and well-being of our tribal citizens and
    Indian community. We also advocate for the expansion of Self-Governance
    so that tribes can continue to have the flexibility to redesign
    programs and services throughout the Federal Government to better
    address their community needs.
        In addition to the items detailed below, our tribe would like to
    reiterate that we are a direct beneficiary of the collective and
    continuing efforts of the National Congress of American Indians, the
    Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, the Northwest Portland Area
    Indian Health Board, and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
    TRIBAL SPECIFIC BUDGET PRIORITIES--Indian Health Service and Bureau of
            Indian Affairs:
         1.  $737,000--Five Quarter Funding to Move the Jamestown Self-
    Governance Funding Agreements from Fiscal Year to Calendar Year
    REGIONAL BUDGET PRIORITY--Bureau of Indian Affairs:
         2.  Increase Rights Protection Implementation to $52 million
    NATIONAL BUDGET PRIORITIES:
         3.  Exempt Tribes from Sequestration and Rescissions and Restore
    2013 Sequestration Cuts
         4.  Full Funding/Mandatory Funding for CSC which is included in
    President's Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request
    INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE:
         5.  Increased Funding for Purchased and Referred Care to $198.2
    million
         6.  Maintain Current Services $166.1 million
         7.  Special Diabetes Program for Indians $200 million a year for 5
    years
    BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS:
         8.  Economic Development: $15 million Loan Guarantee/$9 million
    Surety Bonds
         9.  Support for Tribal Governments Fixed Costs/Paycosts
        10.  Roads Maintenance $40 million
    TRIBAL SPECIFIC BUDGET REQUEST JUSTIFICATION--$737,000 to extend our
            fiscal year 2015 Jamestown Self-Governance Funding Agreements
            in the Indian Health Service (IHS) and the Bureau of Indian
            Affairs (BIA) from fiscal year to calendar year funding:

    Estimate of funds needed to extend our fiscal year 2015 Funding
    Agreement to December 31, 2015: Indian Health Service (based on fiscal
    year 2015 total funds and AFA) $352,560.14 (92 days of funding)
    Department of Interior (based on fiscal year 2015 AFA and fiscal year
    2014 Contract Support Costs actual) Direct Funding $435,467.26/CSC
    Funding $301,120.79/Total = $736,588.05

        We are requesting this change in the funding cycle of our Annual
    Funding Agreements to minimize the impact the tribe has incurred
    because of Continuing Resolutions (CR) have on our programs and
    services for the nearly two decades. Since fiscal year 1998, there has
    only been 1 year (2006) in which the Interior, Environment and Related
    Agencies Appropriations Bill has been enacted before the beginning of
    the new fiscal year. Delayed appropriations undermines Tribal Self-
    Governance because it creates budgetary uncertainty, disrupts programs
    and service delivery which impedes the tribes' ability to efficiently
    and effectively utilize our Federal funds. We currently operate our
    programs and services under a fiscal year annual funding agreement that
    is consistently not available to us until half-way or later in the
    fiscal year due to CRs. This year, we received our final allocation for
    IHS facilities money on February 11, 2015, or, 4\1/2\ months into the
    fiscal year. On the BIA side, we are still waiting for almost $1
    million dollars of contract support costs (CSC). When we do not receive
    our funding in a timely manner it interrupts our government operations
    in the following ways: we are forced to borrow money from our tribal
    businesses to supplement our programs and services; we have to work out
    deals with our vendors to extend payments which costs us additional
    money in finance costs; projects are postponed; our ability to invest
    in economic development and job creation is limited; and the amount of
    money we can leverage to enhance programs and services is not realized.
    Program performance is a significant factor that influences budgetary
    decision-makers. Yet, we cannot demonstrate program success or the
    effective and efficient use of Federal funds when we do not receive our
    funding at the beginning of the fiscal year. Self-Governance was
    designed to allow tribes flexibility to redesign programs, services,
    functions and actions to meet the needs of our tribal citizens. We
    therefore respectfully request five quarter funding to allow us to
    transition from fiscal year to calendar year funding.
    REGIONAL BUDGET REQUEST--Rights Protection Implementation: Increase to
            $52 Million (BIA):
        Rights Protection Implementation funds important court ordered
    management activities which support off reservation treaty rights of 49
    tribes and other intertribal management efforts. This funding is
    essential for the protection of tribal economic, subsistence, cultural
    and medicinal practices as well as the sustenance of healthy productive
    tribal nations and their surrounding States, local governments and
    neighboring communities.
    NATIONAL BUDGET REQUESTS
    3.  Exempt Tribes from Sequestration and Further Rescissions and
            Restore 2013 Sequestration Cuts (BIA and IHS):
        Budgetary reductions undermine Indian Treaty Rights and Federal
    obligations. The Federal trust obligation must be honored and vital
    programs and services for tribes must be sustained despite the budget
    deficit. In fiscal year 2013, the Budget Control Act imposed a $228
    million reduction for the Indian Health Service which translated into a
    reduction of 3,000 inpatient admissions and 804,000 outpatient visits
    for American Indian/Alaska Natives to IHS and tribal hospitals and
    clinics. In addition, the BIA endured a $119 million reduction which
    directly impacted public safety, education, housing, roads, Indian
    child welfare and social services for Tribal citizens and Indian
    communities. Sequestration and rescissions further exasperate an
    already precarious budgetary situation undermining the tribes abilities
    to maximize their unfunded operations and provide basic services to our
    tribal citizens. We urge Congress to exempt tribes from any further
    reductions imposed by the Budget Control Act and to restore funding
    cuts due to the 2013 sequestration and rescissions.
    4.  Full Funding/Mandatory Funding for Contract Support Costs (BIA and
            IHS):
      --BIA $277 million, an increase of $26 million above the fiscal year
            2015 enacted level
      --IHS $718 million, an increase of $55 million above the fiscal year
            2015 enacted level

        Although we are pleased that the Federal Government has provided
    full funding for contract support costs under the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) in fiscal year 2014
    and 2015, tribal programs should not be subjected to programmatic
    decreases in order to fulfill the Federal Government's contractual
    obligations. CSC should be appropriated as a mandatory entitlement.
    Under the ISDEAA, the full payment of CSC is not discretionary, but is
    a legal obligation of the United States to pay tribes for services. We
    strongly urge Congress to fund CSC on a mandatory basis as included in
    the fiscal year 2016 President's budget proposal.
    5.  Increase Funding for Purchased/Referred Care (formally called
            Contract Health Services)--$198.2 million:
        Purchased and Referred Care (PR/C) is important to tribes in the
    Northwest because we do not have any hospitals to address emergency and
    specialty care services. Much of the secondary care, and nearly all of
    the tertiary care needed must be purchased from the private sector. PR/
    C funds are used to purchase essential healthcare services, including
    inpatient and outpatient care, routine emergency ambulatory care, and
    transportation and medical support services. These funds are critical
    to securing the care needed to address many of the diseases which are
    among the leading causes of death for American Indian and Alaska
    Natives (AI/AN). Tribes have been forced to rely on 3rd party revenue
    (Medicare, Medicaid and Private Insurance) when PR/C funds have been
    depleted. The IHS has established medical priorities because PR/C
    funding is inadequate to fund all needed medical services. Most tribal
    facilities are only able to address Priority 1 life and limb and
    catastrophic healthcare emergency cases. We request an increase of
    $198.2 million for Purchased/Referred Care in the fiscal year 2016
    budget to meet this critical need.
    6.  IHS Mandatory Funding (maintaining current services--+$368.9
            million over the fiscal year 2015 President's proposed budget:
        Current Services include mandatory costs that are required to
    maintain health services to include population growth, medical and non-
    medical inflation, paycosts and CSC. When these mandatory costs are not
    funded, Tribes are faced with having to cut programs and services for
    our tribal citizens. Tribes cannot continue to absorb these costs and
    maintain the level of quality care our tribal communities deserve.
    7.  Special Diabetes Program for Indians--$200 million a year for 5
            years (Special Appropriations administered by IHS)):
        American Indian/Alaska Natives (AI/AN) are two to four times as
    likely to develop diabetes compared to other races. The SDPI program
    has proven effective in combatting diabetes and enhancing care and
    education in AI/AN communities. As a result, the program has
    successfully reduced costly health complications and the incidence of
    the disease itself.
    8.  Economic Development/Loan Guarantee/Surety Bonds--$15 million Loan
            Guarantee/$9 million Surety Bonds (BIA):
        Tribal governmental revenues depend entirely on effective economic
    development to support nearly every aspect of reservation life and
    government operations. Chronic underfunding of Indian programs and the
    severe lack of private investment has left the economic potential of
    Indian country unrealized. The Loan Guarantee Program provides eligible
    tribal and individual Native borrowers a mechanism to obtain
    conventional lender financing for businesses and economic development
    projects. Funding the Surety Bonding component of the Loan Guarantee
    Program would create an avenue for tribes to compete for Federal
    contracts. In order for tribes to attain economic self-sufficiency,
    they need access to capital, investment in infrastructure, parity in
    funding and tax incentives and resources for technical assistance and
    training to develop tribal capacity.
    9. Support for Tribal Government TPA/Fixed Costs Paycosts--+$139
            Million Increase (BIA):
        The BIA tribal base funding allows tribes to exercise their
    inherent right to Self-Governance and is used to support core
    governmental programs. These funds pay the wages of our cops,
    firefighters, social workers, child welfare workers, and resource
    managers. Since 1996, tribal government core services are operating
    with over a 30 percent reduction in base funds. While base funding has
    decreased, there has been an increase of grant funding. Allocating new
    funding for BIA via grant opportunities marginalizes and impedes the
    exercise of tribal self-determination because grants limit the
    flexibility and local control available to tribes under the ISDEAA.
    Tribes advocate for an increase to base funding instead of funding
    tribes with grants. Tribal paycosts represent the only TPA base
    increase most tribal service programs receive. Most Federal agencies
    receive annual increases to their fixed costs rates each year to
    address inflationary costs associated with fringe benefits and pay
    costs. Partially funding or failing to fund paycosts devastates tribal
    communities by causing critical job losses.
    10.  Road Maintenance $40 million:
        The Road Maintenance Program is frequently identified as one of the
    tribes top budget priorities, and yet, it is frequently targeted for
    funding reductions and remains one the BIA's most underfunded programs.
    Tribes often have to use their maintenance dollars for day to day
    activities to maintain public safety such as snow and ice removal on
    tribal roads. Currently the deferred maintenance backlog is about $75
    million but road maintenance is currently funded at less than $25
    million.
        Thank you on behalf of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe. I
    respectfully request that these recommendations be included in the
    fiscal year 2016 budget in order to honor the trust responsibility and
    support tribal prosperity and well-being.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the JMS Naval Architects
        Dear Senators:

        The Great Lakes is a vast international natural resource which
    represents a massive economic engine generating nearly $35 billion/year
    and is responsible for 75,000 jobs in fishing, tourism and related
    industries. Several independent sources estimate $7.0 billion/year is
    attributable to Great Lakes fisheries alone. To make wise management
    decisions regarding conservation, water management and fisheries
    resources throughout the Great Lakes basin, the highest quality science
    possible is required. The U.S. Geological Survey's Great Lakes Science
    Center (USGS GLSC) relies on a fleet of state-of-the-art fisheries
    research vessels to perform its critical science mission requirements.
    For over 20 years, JMS Naval Architects has supported GLSC by providing
    engineering and design services to assist in the management of their
    fleet. We are proud to play a role in maintaining the fleet with an
    outstanding record for safety, mission readiness and cost effective
    operations.
        Due to the mobile nature of research vessels, the fleet of vessels
    and the science performed on them contribute to local economies
    throughout the Great Lakes and beyond. Small towns across the Great
    Lakes provide the necessary logistics and provisioning support for
    science missions. Shipyards provide critical maintenance and
    construction services. Just in the past few years, shipyards in
    Manitowoc and Cleveland have benefitted from new vessel construction
    projects valued at $5.6 million and $9.4 million respectively. The need
    for routine shipyard maintenance also provides recurring work and
    stable jobs for many private sector interests. JMS Naval Architects has
    provided the engineering and design support to help manage the fleet's
    operations, maintenance and new construction. Our longstanding
    partnership with USGS has enabled us to recruit employees to Mystic,
    Connecticut and expand our business. Although our engineers are based
    in Connecticut, the work is often performed at USGS home port locations
    and private shipyards throughout the Great Lakes region casting a wide
    net of economic impact.
        JMS Naval Architects strongly supports USGS GLSC fisheries science
    as the products they develop are foundational to management
    decisionmaking on Great Lakes fisheries. The USGS GLSC conducts
    impartial, high quality science essential to Federal, State, Tribal,
    and Provincial management programs throughout all five Great Lakes and
    in all eight Great Lakes States. Great Lakes management jurisdictions
    depend on USGS GLSC Deepwater and Invasive Species Programs to provide
    data critical to understanding the long-term condition of the fish
    communities and to develop tools and technologies needed to combat
    invasive species like the sea lamprey that threaten the valuable sport
    and commercial fisheries.
        USGS GLSC scientific research capabilities have been hard hit by
    back-to-back years of budget erosion and worsened by a 6 percent cut
    from sequestration in 2013. Their 2014 budget was back to the level it
    was in 2009. The ongoing budget impacts have led to an accumulation of
    more than 15 unfilled scientific/technical positions distributed
    throughout the Great Lakes Region. The USGS has been improvising for
    several years to address the unfilled positions, but their capacity to
    deliver the critical and high quality scientific information in a
    timely manner is in jeopardy. This high quality, impartial scientific
    information is absolutely essential for wise management of the
    fisheries and protection from invasive species.
        For the first time since the President was elected, his 2016 budget
    highlights two areas where the USGS GLSC programs would experience
    relatively small budget increases. The President proposes: (1) $250,000
    increase for the Great Lakes Deepwater Assessments; and (2) bureau-wide
    $2.0 million increase for Invasive Species, which would likely result
    in a portion of those funds being directed to USGS GLSC. The language
    for the proposed funds for Great Lakes Fisheries Assessments (pg. C-52)
    and for New and Emerging Invasive Species (pg. C-26) can be found in
    the fiscal year 2016 USGS Budget Justification at: http://www.doi.gov/
    budget/appropriations/2016/upload/FY2016_USGS_Greenbook.pdf.
        JMS Naval Architects greatly appreciates the subcommittees' ongoing
    support for programs that sustain and restore the Great Lakes. We join
    with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission Council of Lake Committees in
    supporting $17.5 million in fiscal year 2016 appropriations for the
    U.S. Geological Survey's Great Lakes Science Center. Currently the USGS
    GLSC receives approximately $8.5 million in appropriated funding to
    support science programs critical to the management of these incredibly
    valuable resources. Compared to economic returns generated from the
    Great Lakes, this funding level only represents about 1.2 percent of
    the annual fisheries related revenue and less than 0.03 percent of the
    revenue attributable to closely related industries.
        These needs were previously detailed in a March 2010 bi-partisan
    letter, authored by nine U.S. Senators and 21 U.S. House members,
    written to their congressional appropriation leadership to request a
    total science budget of $15.0 million; and again 2 years later in April
    2012, by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies describing the
    importance of the USGS programs to regional management decisions and
    recommending an appropriated science budget of $15.0 million. The
    current requested increase to $17.5 million will address uncontrollable
    costs over the past 5 years and boost investments in advanced
    technology. Investments in technologies to assess the fishery have
    fallen well behind marine programs. GLSC scientists need to have access
    to 21st Century innovations like autonomous samplers that can provide
    critical resource information with greater spatial and seasonal
    coverage and less overall cost than traditional hands-on measurements.
        The importance of the USGS information and the risks posed by
    budget cuts to their science has been well documented. We urge you to
    embrace these requests in the President's budget and respectfully ask
    you to increase these additions by $8.75 million for a total increase
    of $9.0 million for the USGS GLSC Deepwater Assessments.

        [This statement was submitted by T. Blake Powell, President.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
                                Chippewa Indians
        My name is Eric Chapman, I am a councilman for the Lac du Flambeau
    Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, located in Wisconsin. I am
    pleased to submit this testimony, which reflects the needs and concerns
    of our tribal members for fiscal year 2016. My testimony addresses the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    and Indian Health Service (IHS) programs that are vital to my people.
        The President's fiscal year 2016 budget has some important and
    positive initiatives for tribes. For example, fully funding contract
    support costs and requesting that Congress reclassify this funding as
    mandatory. Doing so would implement what two Supreme Court cases have
    already stated is the law. This funding must be paid, it is time that
    Congress make the necessary changes in the statute to implement the
    Court's decisions.
                      i. generation indigenous initiative
        I call on you to fully support the administration's emphasis on our
    youth. The Generation Indigenous Initiative is the first time this
    Nation has taken a comprehensive approach to improving the lives of
    Indian children. The administration called on all agencies including
    those outside of the Department of the Interior and the Indian Health
    Service to do their part to fulfill the trust responsibility to Indian
    children. Based the Federal trust responsibility, the Federal
    Government should be committed to providing fundamental fairness to
    tribes, not just in selected areas but across the board--and
    appropriations for all programs affecting Indians should provide
    funding levels based on this fundamental principle.
        BIA Tiwahe (Family) Initiative.--The tribe strongly supports the
    continuation of the administration's Tiwahe initiative, a broad-based,
    interdisciplinary, and culturally appropriate program for addressing
    the needs of Indian families and communities--including child welfare
    and family services, housing and job training. This program fills an
    immediate and critical need.
        At Lac du Flambeau, over the last few years we have faced a crisis
    in our community arising from a growing epidemic of drug abuse. The
    problem has been far-reaching--as we find widespread abuse of
    prescription drugs, synthetic marijuana, and heroin on our reservation.
    The impact on our community has been devastating in terms of the health
    and well-being of our families. This is why the tribe supports the
    administration's request for $22 million to increase the number of
    behavioral health providers focused on Indian youth through the Indian
    Health Care System. We also support the complementing request within
    the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
    including the $15 million for Tribal Behavioral Health Grants, which is
    targeted at reducing substance use and the incidence of suicide
    attempts among Native youth.
        The rise in drug abuse often leaves our children caught in unsafe
    situations at home. This has led to an increase in the need for foster
    care and other temporary placements for our children. The
    administration's $47 million requested for tribal social service
    programs and the $15.6 million requested for Indian Child Welfare
    programs will help meet this need. In addition the $28 million
    requested for tribal courts ($5 million for tribal family courts) will
    also ensure that our children are safer as these institutions will have
    additional resources to supervise and monitor the children in their
    care.
                         ii. department of the interior
    A. Natural Resource Programs
        As we address our communities' social services needs, we are
    mindful that one of the cornerstones of a healthy community is a
    healthy environment. Clean air, water and land are vital for the
    physical and emotional health of our people, and provide both a
    foundation for our tribal culture and the basis for economic
    opportunity on our reservation. That is our obligation to future
    generations--to ensure that our lands, air and waters are adequately
    protected.
    B. Bureau of Indian Affairs Climate Resiliency
        The tribe endorses the requested $20 million increase to address
    the impact of the changing climate on our natural resources. Our
    community is reliant on our natural resources to survive. If people
    cannot fish the lakes we have been fishing since the beginning of time
    or hunt wild game because these resources are not there, who we are as
    a people will be forever changed.
    C. Tribal Natural Resource Management and Development; Tribal Fish
            Hatchery Operations and Maintenance
        Tribes are leaders in natural resource protection and BIA natural
    resource funding is essential to maintain our programs. Lac du Flambeau
    has a comprehensive Natural Resources Department and dedicated staff
    with considerable expertise in natural resource and land management.
    Among our many programs, the tribe operates a fish hatchery that stocks
    many of our lakes. Along with our other natural resource programs, our
    fish production activities are essential to protect our natural
    resources and to foster economic activity on our reservation. We
    support full funding for these programs. According the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, this year's request for fish hatchery maintenance should
    support 40 new projects to address climate change impact on hatcheries.
    This is important work, but we ask the subcommittee to be mindful that
    the operations funding has not received an increase in a number of
    years. If we do not have the resources to operate these facilities,
    there is no point in maintaining them.
    D. Circle of Flight: Wetlands Waterfowl Program
        We urge the subcommittee to continue to provide support for the BIA
    Circle of Flight Program. This program supports tribal efforts
    throughout the Great Lakes Region to restore and preserve wetlands and
    waterfowl habitat within tribal territories.
    E. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
        The tribe strongly supports the work of the Great Lakes Indian Fish
    and Wildlife Commission (``GLIFWC''). GLIFWC assists in protecting and
    implementing its treaty-guaranteed hunting, fishing and gathering
    rights. We urge the subcommittee to fully support the programmatic
    funding for GLIFWC from both BIA and EPA. GLIFWC has played an
    invaluable role in providing science and sound management practices for
    our off-reservation resources. This role could not be filled by any
    other agency.
    F. Conservation Law Enforcement Officers
        Related to our responsibilities to maintaining our environmental is
    the need for funding for Conservation Law Enforcement Officers.
    Conservation Law Enforcement Officers are responsible for enforcing
    hunting and fishing regulations related to the exercise of treaty
    rights, but they also are often the first to respond to emergency
    situations. These officers play an integral part in protecting our
    cultural and economic resources, as well as assisting with protecting
    public safety. We urge the subcommittee to provide funding for
    Conservation Law Enforcement as an acknowledgement of the importance of
    tribal conservation law enforcement officers to the Federal law
    enforcement family.
    G. Transportation
        Proper road maintenance on the reservation is essential for the
    safety and health of our community, and for promoting economic
    opportunities. We urge the subcommittee to increase funding for the BIA
    road maintenance program. Please augment the $2 million increase you
    saw was justified last year for this important safety programs.
    H. Tribal Historic Preservation Offices
        The Tribe supports the $15 million requested by the National Tribal
    Historic Officers Association to fund tribal Historic Preservation Act
    compliance. While more tribes have assumed the responsibility under the
    Historic Preservation Act Federal appropriations have not kept pace.
                      iii. environmental protection agency
    A. EPA Tribal General Assistance Program
        The tribe strongly supports the proposed $31 million increase in
    the EPA Tribal General Assistance Program, known as ``Tribal GAP.''
    This program provides base environmental funding to assist tribes in
    building their environmental capacity to assess environmental
    conditions, utilize available data and build their environmental
    programs to meet their local needs. This is a foundational program for
    tribes to address the broad range of challenging circumstances we face
    regarding our reservation environment.
    B. Clean Water Programs
        The tribe also supports the proposed funding for the pollution
    control program under section 106, and for non-point source pollution
    under section 319 of the Clean Water Act. At Lac du Flambeau, the tribe
    has obtained Treatment as a State status under the Clean Water Act for
    establishing water quality standards, and we have an active program to
    monitor, maintain and improve water quality, as well as a program to
    address non-point source pollution. Water is basically everywhere on
    our reservation, as we have 260 lakes covering over 17,000 acres, as
    well as 71 miles of streams and 24,000 acres of wetlands. The section
    106 and section 319 programs should be funded at the recommended levels
    to enable tribes to protect their water resources.
    C. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
        The tribe strongly supports funding for the Great Lakes Restoration
    Initiative. For the indigenous people of Wisconsin, the Great Lakes
    represent the lifeblood of our culture and the foundation of our
    economies. The protection and preservation of the Great Lakes are
    necessary to preserve the tribal communities that have made the Great
    Lakes area their home since time immemorial. The funding needs for
    tribal initiatives under this program is $5.2 million; notwithstanding
    this need tribal initiatives were only awarded $3.8 million. The tribe
    asks the subcommittee to consider a tribal set-aside of this funding to
    ensure there is parity funding for all tribal needs.
    D. Brownfields
        The Brownfields program provides funding for tribes and others to
    assess and clean up lands that have been contaminated. Brownfields
    funding is divided among those seeking funding--so the more tribes that
    participate in efforts to clean up their contaminated lands, the less
    money is available for each tribe. While the number of tribes needing
    these funds has been increasing in recent years, the funding has not.
    We urge the subcommittee to provide greater funding so tribes can
    properly protect their homelands and clean up Brownfields.
                             iv. education programs
        Education remains a critical investment in the future of the
    tribes. The Johnson-O'Malley Program provides vital support for Indian
    students in public schools. We support the $17.3 million requested for
    this program, and the subcommittee's continuing oversight to obtain an
    accurate JOM student count. We must do more for our students in public
    schools. Likewise, we are proud to see an increasing number of our
    students attending and graduating from colleges and other post-
    secondary institutions. But the cost of such education is staggering
    and funds must be available for our students to succeed in higher
    education. More scholarship funding is needed. The tribe also supports
    the administration's proposed increase in BIA funding for fellowship
    and training opportunities for post graduate study.
        We also support the $52.9 million requested for the Department of
    Education Native Youth Community Projects to support community driven
    strategies to improve college and career readiness of Native youth in
    public schools. Empowering tribal communities to meet the needs of
    their children is at the heart of the Self-Determination policy and is
    what will lead to a brighter future for our children.
                       v. indian health service programs
        The administration's $5.1 billion request for the Indian Health
    Service is a 10 percent increase in funding above the fiscal year 2015
    level. Importantly, some of this increase is dedicated to population
    growth and medical inflation so that our healthcare programs can keep
    pace with the growing need and costs. This increase will allow for a
    significant investment in Purchased and Referred Care with a $70
    million increase. This increased level of funding should provide for
    980 additional hospital admissions, 19,800 additional outpatient
    visits, and finally, an additional 1,210 patient transports.
        Research has clearly demonstrated that our overall health is tied
    to our oral health. The Lac du Flambeau Tribe recognized this and that
    is why in 2013 we opened a state-of-the-art dental clinic to serve the
    needs of our people. No longer are dental visits done by an occasional
    dental visit at our schools. We are now seeing our members in our
    facility early and often and are preventing dental disease before it
    can happen. We fully support the requested $7 million increase for the
    dental health services program. This increase will address the not only
    medical inflation, but also the population increase our community has
    experienced.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the League of American Orchestras
        The League of American Orchestras urges the Senate Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee to
    support fiscal year 2016 funding for the National Endowment for the
    Arts (NEA) at a level of $155 million. We ask Congress to continue
    recognizing the important work of this agency to increase public access
    to and engagement with the arts, promote the creation of new artistic
    works, and cultivate a sense of cultural, community, and historic
    pride, all while supporting millions of jobs in communities nationwide.
        The League of American Orchestras leads, supports, and champions
    America's orchestras and the vitality of the music they perform. Its
    diverse membership of approximately 800 orchestras runs the gamut from
    world-renowned symphonies to community groups, from summer festivals to
    student and youth ensembles. Orchestras unite people through creativity
    and artistry, fuel local economies and civic vitality, and educate
    young people and adults. The League is committed to helping orchestras
    engage with their communities, and the NEA plays an invaluable role
    through its direct grants, Federal/State partnerships, and research on
    trends in public participation and workforce development.
        The award of a competitive NEA grant is widely considered an
    affirmation of national artistic significance. The ability to present
    nationally recognized programs is highly valued by communities large
    and small, and being an NEA grant recipient is critical in securing
    additional funding for a variety of programming and operations. In
    fiscal year 2014, the NEA's Grants to Organizations included 116 direct
    grants to orchestras in the Art Works and Challenge America categories.
    The following ten highlighted awards from fiscal year 2015 total
    $220,000 in NEA support.
    NEA Funding Enables Orchestras to Innovate and Collaborate Across
            Disciplines
        Grant support from the NEA helps make it possible for orchestras to
    collaborate with partners in other artistic disciplines to offer
    innovative programming. An Art Works grant supported a concert opera
    production by the Lexington Philharmonic of composer Osvaldo Golijov's
    ``Ainadamar (Fountain of Tears).'' This Spanish work combines singing,
    visual arts, flamenco dance, and orchestral music in its exploration of
    the life of playwright Federico Garcia Lorca. In addition to the main
    performance, the grant supports lecture-demonstrations and school
    performances. The orchestra's 100 full- and part-time employees work
    with area public schools, colleges and universities, providing music
    education and cross-curricular learning. Moreover, the orchestra
    partners with more than 60 area nonprofit, educational, and arts
    organizations per year. This particular NEA-supported project is
    especially meaningful because it fully exercises each of the
    orchestra's core values of artistic excellence, innovation,
    collaboration, and accessibility.
        The St. Louis Symphony Orchestra also received Art Works support
    for a cross-disciplinary opera program, presenting Giuseppe Verdi's
    opera ``Aida,'' incorporating multi-sensory video and lighting
    installations designed by visual artist S. Katy Tucker to supplement
    the music and story line of the opera and give concertgoers an enhanced
    environment in which to hear and see the music at historic Powell Hall.
    Each concert will be preceded by engaging, interactive conversations
    led by acclaimed music director David Robertson. The Nation's second-
    oldest orchestra founded in 1880, the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra
    employs 93 musicians and 61 full-time staff and serves upward of
    300,000 individuals each season through an average of 120 orchestral
    concerts, 250 free education/community activities in a 125-mile radius
    of the City of St. Louis, and weekly radio broadcasts and tours and
    recordings--their latest winning the 2015 GRAMMY Award for ``Best
    Orchestral Performance.''
    NEA Funding Supports Orchestral Commemoration of Key Historical Moments
        The Kansas City Symphony, with 80 full-time musicians and 35 full-
    time staff members, is presenting Upheaval and Transformation, a
    season-long exploration of the music leading up to World War I.
    Featuring works by Debussy, Mahler, Nielsen, Ravel, Schoenberg, Richard
    Strauss, and Stravinsky, the Art Works-supported project commemorates
    the start of World War I, combining with several other community arts
    events including exhibits, concerts, and performances in Kansas City by
    the Nelson-Atkins Museum, Lyric Opera of Kansas City, Harriman-Jewell
    Series, Kansas City Repertory Theatre, and Friends of Chamber Music.
    This community-wide artistic exploration is especially important to the
    city due to the presence of the National World War I Museum in Kansas
    City. Music Director Michael Stern, who holds a degree in American
    history from Harvard University, has written special program notes and
    discusses the project at pre-concert talks with audience members. In
    June, a Symphony ensemble will perform Stravinsky's L'Histoire du
    soldat (The Soldier's Tale) at the National World War I Museum followed
    by a panel discussion about the cataclysmic impact of the Great War on
    the arts and our society.
        Reflecting upon more recent events, the Detroit Symphony Orchestra
    (DSO) will utilize its NEA grant for a performance of New Orleans-born
    jazz trumpeter and composer Terence Blanchard's ``A Tale of God's Will
    (A Requiem for Katrina),'' along with related educational activities.
    In commemoration of the tenth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, the
    suite of 13 original pieces will be performed by Blanchard and members
    of his band along with symphony musicians as the centerpiece of three-
    day festival A Musical Tale of Two Cities: Motown Meets the Big Easy.
    Additional activities include: pre- and post-concert performances by
    student groups from the DSO's Civic program and the New Orleans Center
    for Creative Arts, a concert by a funk jazz group from New Orleans, a
    pre-concert talk by Blanchard and other special guests, a jazz
    community forum, a masterclass with Blanchard, and a screening of the
    documentary ``When the Levees Broke'' along with a Q&A session. The
    orchestra, which employs 76 musicians, 201 part- and full-time staff,
    received NEA support for this project, along with a substantial grant
    from the Knight Foundation's Knight Arts Challenge, which is a powerful
    illustration of the public/private partnership that makes projects such
    as this possible.
    NEA Funding Broadens Access for Underserved Communities and Young
            Students
        Together with the organizations it supports, the NEA is dedicated
    to improving public access to the arts. An Art Works grant enabled the
    Spartanburg Philharmonic Orchestra to present a new concerto written
    for percussionist Dame Evelyn Glennie, a master class, and a lecture-
    demonstration exploring the importance of listening skills with
    Glennie, who is profoundly deaf. The orchestra sent its co-principal
    percussionists to the South Carolina School for the Deaf and Blind to
    work with music students for 2 days preceding Glennie's visit, teaching
    the students about rhythm and creating sounds. When Glennie arrived in
    Spartanburg, the students performed on stage for her alongside the co-
    principal percussionists, and then learned directly from Glennie
    afterward. With just two full-time staff and 60 musicians, the
    Spartanburg Philharmonic Orchestra was thrilled and excited to bring
    such a meaningful project to its community and to students who could
    learn from such a uniquely accomplished artist.
        The Central Ohio Symphony received a Challenge America grant to
    bring The Great Animal Orchestra project to residents of the rural
    Buckeye Valley East community, including elementary students of Title I
    schools. This presentation, involving more than 10 partnerships, will
    provide students of Buckeye Valley East Elementary an opportunity to
    learn to create and write music with a guest artist composer, and their
    compositions will be played by Symphony musicians. The NEA grant is a
    first for the orchestra and it has been matched by a corporate grant
    and has prompted the city government to support the orchestra's yearly
    operations for the first time. Thanks to these partnerships and
    support, the orchestra will fund a week long residency with composer
    Richard Blackford, who will work with high school students, senior
    citizens, and the community at large to share his expertise and skills.
    With an administrative staff of two, the Central Ohio Symphony employs
    more than 100 musicians during the year and plays a significant role in
    economic development in the downtown area of Delaware, Ohio.
        Another Challenge America recipient is the Burlington Chamber
    Orchestra (BCO), whose Music for Minors program brings professional
    musicians into Vermont classrooms. The Music for Minors program helps
    realize the orchestra's vision of reaching students who have not had an
    opportunity to extensively study music--whether due to geography,
    cultural differences, or economic limitations. Students first learn
    about music in the classroom from BCO musicians and then are invited to
    attend, free of charge, a May concert to solidify the classroom
    learning. This year's ``Annual Celebration of Youth'' concert will
    feature a young student composer from North Country High School in
    Newport and this year's winner of the BCO's Young Artist Solo
    Competition--a saxophonist from Bellows Free Academy in St. Albans.
        An Art Works grant to the Eugene Symphony, which employs six full-
    time staff, four part-time staff, and 83 part-time musicians, made
    possible a concert and weeklong residency by NEA Jazz Master and Grammy
    Award-winning saxophonist Branford Marsalis. In addition to drawing a
    near-capacity audience to his Eugene Symphony debut, 300 of whom were
    first-time attendees at a Eugene Symphony event--Mr. Marsalis took part
    in related community programs which included free lectures for the
    general public and artistic development programs for young musicians at
    the middle-school, high-school, and collegiate levels. One example of
    Mr. Marsalis' numerous activities included master classes for two high-
    school jazz bands and one middle-school jazz band, during which he
    provided critical feedback on how to improve their performance. In all,
    Mr. Marsalis' concert and residency activities engaged over 4,000
    students and adults throughout the greater Eugene community.
        Focusing its NEA grant entirely on young musicians, the Tucson
    Symphony Orchestra's (TSO) Young Composers Project teaches elementary
    through high school students to compose original works for orchestra.
    Saturday sessions begin with basic theory, ear training, and score
    reading as students learn about clefs, keys, modes, notation, chords,
    rhythm, form, ranges, and transposition. Each session includes a
    listening component with score study focused on orchestral repertoire,
    and students learn to use Finale music notation software in the project
    lab, working closely with TSO musicians to create their own works. The
    project culminates in public reading sessions and recording of their
    work by the Tucson Symphony Orchestra and TSO String Quartet.
        The New York Youth Symphony also focuses its NEA grant in support
    of its Youth Symphony Composition Program. Student composers
    participate in a series of interactive seminars, workshops, and guest
    lectures on composition and participants hear performances of their
    work by guest musicians. Drawing from the classical repertoire and
    range of musical traditions throughout the world, students explore a
    variety of composers, study scores, instrumentation, recordings, and
    orchestration books. Through class discussion, written exercises, and
    composition, students will cultivate their own musical voices in this
    tuition-free program led by professional composers and musicians. The
    New York Youth Symphony has four full-time and 12 part-time staff and
    engages numerous professional chamber coaches and professional
    orchestral musicians to provide compositional and orchestral coaching.
        Thank you for this opportunity to convey the tremendous value of
    NEA support for the communities served by orchestras across the Nation.
    These are but a small sampling of the innovative collaborations,
    thoughtful programming for underserved communities, and lifelong
    learning opportunities orchestras provide in service to adults and
    children from all walks of life. The Endowment's unique ability to
    provide a national forum to promote excellence and engagement through
    high standards for artistic products and the highest expectation of
    accessibility remains one of the strongest arguments for a Federal role
    in support of the arts. We urge you to support creativity and access to
    the arts by approving $155 million in funding for the National
    Endowment for the Arts.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians
        Chairwoman Murkowski, respected members of the subcommittee:

        I am Jessica Burger, Tribal Manager of the Little River Band of
    Ottawa Indians (LRBOI). I am honored to present this testimony on
    behalf of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, regarding our views
    and priorities for the fiscal year 2016 President's annual budget
    request. Our Ogema (Chief), Mr. Larry Romanelli, regrets that he was
    unable to travel here from Manistee, Michigan, our homelands, to
    deliver this testimony himself.
        LRBOI is pleased with the ongoing commitment of the administration,
    to ``do right by (our) nations,'' through appropriations requests for
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) at $2.9 billion, and the Indian
    Health Services (IHS) of $5.1 billion; fully $323 million and $461
    million above the fiscal year 2015 enacted levels. The increases are
    positive steps in the United States' efforts to live up to its promises
    to honor treaty and trust responsibilities, support nation building,
    and restore our unique governance and self-determination. LRBOI
    believes that tribal consultation works. This subcommittees'
    willingness to hear the concerns of tribal leadership and our views
    regarding the impact of the administration's budget requests derives
    informed appropriations language that facilitates the outcomes we are
    all wishing to achieve--successful, safer and prospering Native
    Nations.
        Since Reaffirmation in 1994, LRBOI has prioritized its economic
    development efforts, programs, and service delivery to enhance the
    standard of living of its members. Assisting LRBOI members to achieve a
    middle class economic standard has been an overarching goal since
    reaffirmation, and while gains are being made, persistent issues
    remain:
      --over half (56 percent) of tribal member households earn less than
            $30,000 annually, compared to a mean household income of just
            over $64,500 for Michigan residents;
      --less than 40 percent of LRBOI tribal members adults have achieved
            education beyond a high school diploma, compared to nearly 60
            percent of Michigan adults reporting some degree of higher
            education;
      --\1/3\ of tribal members access one or more tribal assistance
            programs annually--current enrollment stands at just over 4200
            persons.

        Our Tribe is a ``young tribe''--the majority are working age adults
    (2,652) with a large female overall population (2,228). As the overall
    demographic suggests, the focus of planning for our future needs will
    require addressing the issues facing a majority-female population,
    significantly less than retirement age, lacking higher education, and
    with annual incomes below Federal poverty level. These factors make
    achieving ``middle class'' living standards less likely for many of our
    people. As the population ages into ``elder status'' (age 55 and
    older)--affordable housing, medical and long term healthcare services
    for a population that has less opportunity in the workforce and less
    earning potential due to gender--adds to the potential of instability
    for our community.
        Unfortunately, this is happening now, not someday in the future.
    Increased need resulting in greater requests and access of our
    assistance programs, along with diminished revenue sources in fiscal
    year 2014 (both tribal generated supports and Federal program
    reductions), left unmet obligations in all service categories,
    adversely impacting our families. Initiatives that were rolled out to
    Indian Country, specifically the Tiwahe Initiative, did little to
    assist our efforts. LRBOI implemented our community-specific model
    targeting the dire impact of poverty on LRBOI families in 2014. We call
    it ``Zoongaadiziwin,'' and it includes many of the same service
    targets, with an end goal to strengthen the family unit. Zoongaadiziwin
    engages general welfare, counseling supports, education, and employment
    training opportunities under a case-managed, client-centered process,
    including client-identified milestones that promote and enhance family
    stability, ultimately strengthening our community. As our overall
    numbers are smaller than other tribes, it is difficult to write an
    effective competitive proposal for this program. LRBOI recommends this
    initiative be funded as a formula-based tribal priority allocation to
    put all tribes within reach of this needed assistance.
        LRBOI is encouraged by the potential described in the ``All of
    Government'' approach to addressing unmet obligations in Indian
    Country. As suggested, DOI and BIA have historically been the point of
    contact for tribes to access resources necessary to address the needs
    of tribal communities. We are intrigued by the Generation Indigenous
    Initiative. Creating government-wide collaboration placing priority on
    ``all of the Federal Government'' to assist in the preservation of our
    most precious resource, Native American Youth, seems very achievable.
    LRBOI suggests taking this one step further: allow the program dollars
    to be accessed under a new cross-cutting self-governance line item
    called ``Gen-I Native Youth'' in non-BIA agreements, as well as BIA and
    IHS self-governance agreements.
        All tribes are facing record numbers of youth committing suicide,
    facing homelessness and not achieving high school diplomas, let alone
    seeking higher education degrees. To illustrate the need for the
    subcommittee, I provide two examples:
        First, we have a youth in our community that served as Tribal
    Princess; her story is not typical in Indian Country. She comes from a
    stable family unit that is affluent by most standards. She has achieved
    exceptional SAT and ACT scores and is in her junior year in the public
    school system. Yet, she is failing classes, contributed in part to the
    medical challenge of being a type 1 diabetic, which takes her out of
    class with missed school days, and a diagnosis of acute depression and
    anxiety disorder. This perfect storm has culminated in 3 suicide
    attempts in the past 18 months of her life. In addition, her family is
    faced with inadequate mental and medical specialty practice
    availability. Juvenile psychiatric services are non-existent, and the
    closest medical specialty services are over an hour and a half drive
    away. Both have limited openings. I know her well; she is my daughter.
    She has so many gifts, and simply cannot climb out of the mire that is
    her world--depression, self-image issues, and chronic illness. In my
    role as the administrator for our tribe, I am unable to secure the
    professionals my community needs to address her issues. She is not the
    only one. I am sad to report, we also had a ``successful suicide
    attempt'' on March 15th of this year and lost a promising young woman.
    We will never realize her potential. Her family is devastated.
        These are just two examples. We have many for our small population.
    In 2014, our Behavioral Health Department addressed 12 suicide
    attempts. Our local referral system is overloaded. We simply cannot
    recruit and retain mental health service providers or specialty medical
    practice needs with short-term granting initiatives. LRBOI asks the
    committee to place the funds in the hands of the tribes under self-
    governing authorities to allow the flexibility to address community-
    specific priorities. Create a true ``all of government'' approach and
    dedicate funds to a ``Gen-I Native Youth'' tribal share and priority
    allocation. Allow the tribes to align the funds to the priority areas
    the tribes determine, on a recurring funding basis, to ensure that the
    issues facing youth and their families are addressed with sustainable,
    successful interventions and services.
        Sustainable programs require stable base funding inclusive of
    adjustments for inflation, population and in an ideal scenario,
    utilization. All of those factors should converge to create realistic
    support that enhances the potential of addressing the challenges faced
    in Indian Country: health status, employment and training, child
    welfare, and education. LRBOI appreciates the administration's proposal
    to create a three-year mandatory appropriation for contract support
    costs. This proposal presents an opportunity for the Federal Government
    to comply at long last with the decisions in the Cherokee, Arctic Slope
    and Ramah Supreme Court cases. LRBOI would like the subcommittee to
    consider a permanent mandatory appropriation for contact support costs,
    removing them from the discretionary budget scenario to permanent
    appropriation. To enact this would eliminate the risk of untoward
    program reductions in discretionary budgets and protect the
    congressional intent of those funds--to provide needed services to
    American Indian/Alaska Native peoples.
        A permanent mandatory appropriation for contact support costs would
    have an immediate impact on the following ongoing challenges:
      --Services are vulnerable during times when short-term mandatory
            spending measures enacted by Congress expire and require
            reauthorization. The uncertainty of renewal results in roll-
            back of program delivery at the local level, and redirection of
            funds that support services to meet the costs of service
            provision. Or, in some cases, the uncertainty of renewal
            results in elimination of services altogether.
      --The amounts necessary for contract support costs are often in
            dispute. Establishment of ``such amounts as may be necessary''
            to pay full contract support costs places the onus on the
            agencies and tribes to work together to determine the actual
            costs to ensure accurate appropriations of only the total
            dollars needed. LRBOI urges the subcommittee to consider adding
            the establishment of a permanent contract support cost
            workgroup that will provide ongoing technical assistance and
            convene quarterly to assist with the determination of those
            ``necessary amounts'' from year to year.
      --Contract support cost shortfalls are not determined in a timely
            fashion. A mandatory appropriations scheme that carries funding
            forward in each fiscal year could require the IHS and BIA to
            consult with and share shortfall information with tribes though
            the establishment of deadlines in the appropriations language,
            with the goal of appropriations year-to-year being only those
            funds ``necessary'' to achieve full payment. LRBOI asks the
            subcommittee to compel the agencies to produce the shortfall
            reports for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 and to engage now to
            finalize information for fiscal year 2015.

        As the President's proposal suggests, mandatory full funding of
    contract support costs will enhance healthcare delivery by stabilizing
    the cost base year-to-year. Tribes will be able to plan on a long-term
    basis the types of services that can be delivered. LRBOI encourages the
    subcommittee to support permanent mandatory appropriations. It is a
    clean deal. LRBOI does not support the transition to mandatory
    appropriations with a ``special appropriations'' creating a
    demonstration project that is aimed at establishing the funding
    formulas. The shortfall reports are already in the hands of Congress.
    Build from those documents the permanent appropriations mechanisms,
    with immediate implementation in fiscal year 2016. It is doable and
    necessary.
        LRBOI appreciates many of the proposed increases in the President's
    fiscal year 2016 budget. The increases are necessary and promising. We
    see the positive impact of ongoing meaningful consultation that is
    occurring through the Tribal Interior Budget Council and National
    Budget Formulation Workgroup as it relates to the recommendations of
    those groups in the translation of budget priorities. We urge the
    subcommittee to continue to support the efforts of these tribally
    driven bodies to inform the work of the administration and, ultimately,
    Congress. We also believe in the partnership that continues to evolve
    out of the Federal Indian trust relationship. The United States and
    Native Nations truly do share a ``sacred bond'' borne from treaties--a
    mutual exchange for the benefit of both ``nations.'' LRBOI urges the
    subcommittee to do right by our Nations; help us ensure the future of
    our children, our families, and the seven generations to come.
        Little River Band appreciates the opportunity to present this
    testimony to the subcommittee on these important matters. I am happy to
    answer any questions the members of the subcommittee may have.

        KchiMiigwech (Many Thanks)
        Gdagaanaagaanik (All Our Relations)
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Maniilaq Association
        Summary.--The Maniilaq Association is an Alaska Native tribal
    organization representing twelve tribes in northwest Alaska. We provide
    health services through a self-governance agreement with the Indian
    Health Service (IHS) and social services through a self-governance
    agreement with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). We make the
    following recommendations regarding fiscal year 2016 IHS and BIA
    funding.
      --Increase funding for the Village Built Clinic leases in Alaska by
            at least $12.5 million and make it a line item in the IHS
            budget;
      --Make Contract Support Costs funding for the IHS and BIA mandatory;
      --Fund the IHS budget on an advanced appropriations basis;
      --Support the proposed increase in behavioral health spending in the
            IHS and BIA budgets.
    Village Built Clinics
        Our Village Built Clinic (VBC) facilities continue to face a
    significant funding crisis. The VBCs are essential for maintaining our
    Community Health Aide/Practitioner (CHAP) programs in our villages. The
    CHAP program provides the only local source of healthcare for our
    Alaska Native people.
        Because the CHAPs could not operate in most of rural Alaska without
    clinic facilities in the Alaska Native villages, the IHS established
    the VBC leasing program in the 1970s, but the leases have been
    chronically underfunded. Moreover, IHS has taken the position that
    VBCs--unlike comparable facilities in the lower 48--are not eligible
    for maintenance and improvement funding, for which Congress
    appropriated over $53.6 million in fiscal year 2015 and for which the
    administration has requested a $35 million increase. Current funding
    for the VBCs is not sufficient to cover the cost of repair and
    renovation as necessary to maintain the facilities in a safe condition.
    Many have been closed due to the hazards to the health service
    employees and patients, leaving villages without a clinic or access to
    CHAP services. Lease rental amounts for VBCs have failed to keep pace
    with costs; the majority of leases have not increased since 1989.
        A very recent estimate is that $12.5 million more per year, in
    addition to the current VBC allocation from IHS of about $4 million,
    would be needed to maintain and operate Alaska VBCs on a par with
    similar tribal health facilities elsewhere. Congress typically has not
    appropriated VBC funding as a separate line item. Instead, IHS
    allocates VBC lease funds from the Hospitals and Clinics line in its
    multi-billion-dollar lump-sum appropriation. This leaves IHS the
    discretion, in its view, to allocate however much--or little--it wishes
    to VBCs. Congress, of course, can override this discretion. We
    respectfully request that you direct IHS to (1) identify the amount
    needed to fully fund all Alaska VBCs, (2) request that amount in a
    separate line in the IHS budget, and (3) allocate that amount to the
    VBC lease program.
        An alternative way to secure full funding for VBC facilities that
    they own is through mandatory leases under Section 105(l) of the Indian
    Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA). Maniilaq
    Association has submitted two such lease proposals, which has resulted
    in litigation with the IHS that is still ongoing. IHS has refused to
    provide full payment under the Section 105(l) leasing regulations or to
    incorporate the leases into Maniilaq Association's ISDEAA Funding
    Agreement. The IHS's rejection of Maniilaq's first lease proposal, for
    its VBC facility in Ambler, Alaska, was overturned by a Federal
    district court in August, 2014, on the grounds that the IHS failed to
    respond to the proposal within the statutorily-mandated timeframe.
    Maniilaq Association v. Burwell, Civ. No. 13-380 (D.D.C. Aug. 22,
    2014). The district court ruled that Section 105(l) leases may be
    incorporated into an ISDEAA funding agreement, but did not reach the
    question of whether or not full funding under the Section 105(l)
    regulations is mandatory or discretionary. That question will likely be
    litigated in Maniilaq's appeal of its second lease proposal, for its
    VBC facility in Kivalina, Alaska, which was filed in the same district
    court on January 30, 2015.
    IHS Advance Appropriations
        The Maniilaq Association has been working for several years on the
    issue of transitioning the IHS budget to an advance appropriations
    basis. We know you are sympathetic to our frustrations caused by the
    funding of IHS and other Federal agencies via a series of start and
    stop Continuing Resolutions. We are grateful to Representative Don
    Young for introducing legislation (H.R. 395) to authorize IHS advance
    appropriations and for our entire Alaska delegation in the 113th
    Congress for introducing the same legislation.
        The current (fiscal year 2015) fiscal year funding was enacted 2\1/
    2\ months after the beginning of the fiscal year; in fiscal years 2013
    and 2014 it was 6 months and 3\1/2\ months, respectively, after the
    beginning of the fiscal year. Following enactment, there is a couple
    month process of clearance through the agency and the OMB and then
    allotment to the Area Offices and finally to the tribes. Both the
    tribal and IHS programs suffer under this situation. We want to do the
    best job possible in planning, decisionmaking and administering
    programs but are limited by not knowing how much funding will be
    available or when it will be available. It also requires constant re-
    working of our budget, time we would much rather devote to providing
    healthcare services. Especially affected are recruiting and hiring
    decisions and our ability to buy things in bulk and thus at a cheaper
    cost, notably for us, heating fuel.
        Congress has provided the authority for the Veterans Administration
    (VA) medical accounts funding to be appropriated on an advance basis
    and the Budget and Appropriations Committees have provided the
    necessary support for that authority. We are struck by the
    justification in the proposed fiscal year 2016 budget (fiscal year 2017
    advance appropriations) for the VA. The term ``Indian and Alaska
    Natives'' could be appropriately be used each time it says
    ``veterans''. We ask for parity.

            For 2017, the Budget requests $63.3 billion in advance
            appropriations for the three medical care appropriations:
            Medical Services, Medical Support and Compliance, and Medical
            Facilities. This request for advance appropriations fulfills
            the Administration's commitment to provide reliable and timely
            resources to support the delivery of accessible and high-
            quality medical services for veterans. This funding enables
            timely and predictable funding for VA's medical care to prevent
            our Nation's veterans from being adversely affected by budget
            delays, and provides opportunities to more effectively use
            resources in a constrained fiscal environment. (Appendix,
            Budget of the U.S. Government, 2016, p.1058)

    Contract Support Costs Mandatory Funding
        We and all of Indian Country appreciate the bipartisan support of
    the Interior Appropriations Subcommittees for full funding of Contract
    Support Costs (CSC). We support the administration's proposal to move
    CSC funding to a mandatory funding basis although we and others in
    Indian Country would like it to begin in fiscal year 2016 rather than
    waiting until fiscal year 2017. It differs from our and others proposal
    that CSC be funded indefinitely and not capped, but we gratefully
    acknowledge this proposal as a huge step for the IHS, BIA and OMB. We
    are hopeful that the $718 million proposed for CSC funds for IHS and
    $277 million for the BIA will be sufficient for full funding for fiscal
    year 2016--a lot of work has gone into the estimated calculations and
    that should bode well for future estimates as well.
        We ask for this subcommittee's help in working with the Budget
    Committee and any others that may want to weigh in on this proposal for
    mandatory CSC funding. You have had a great deal of experience in
    talking with Indian and Alaska Native leaders about the frustrations
    and the inequity of tribes and tribal organizations who contract to
    assume administration of Federal programs not being paid for the costs
    to administer them. It was helpful that the Joint Explanatory Statement
    for fiscal year 2014 Appropriations included the statement that the
    Committees on Appropriations were in the ``untenable position of
    appropriating discretionary funds for the payment of any legally
    obligated contract support costs.'' You have much to offer others in
    Congress who will weigh in on this issue. Indian Country will continue
    to do its part as well.
    Behavioral Health, Suicide Prevention, and Alcohol & Substance Abuse
            Treatment
        Alaska faces particular hardships in providing for our communities'
    behavioral and mental health. There is a dire need for more prevention
    funding for suicide intervention as well as alcohol and substance abuse
    prevention, particularly for our youth. Alaska has twice the national
    rate of suicide, and ranks second in the Nation in suicide attempts
    requiring hospitalization. Alaska Native teens commit suicide at a rate
    nearly six times that of non-Native teenagers. Compounding and
    complicating the suicide epidemic is alcohol and substance abuse, a
    mental health disorder. The overwhelming majority of the people we lose
    to suicide suffer from diagnosable, treatable mental health or
    substance abuse problems. However, the waiting list for treatment
    averages nearly 9 months, and due to lack of funding there is often no
    place to refer people, particularly young people.
        Thus we urge you to support the administration's Generations
    Indigeneous (or ``Gen-I'') proposal for increased resources for tribes
    to address youth behavioral, mental health and substance abuse and
    auxiliary issues. For the IHS, the Gen-I proposal would include a $25
    million increase ($10 million increase in Mental Health and $15 million
    increase in Substance Abuse Prevention accounts), plus the $5 million
    from last year for a total of $30 million for tribal behavioral health
    grants. For the BIA the proposal is an increase of $15 million to
    expand the Tiwahe Initiative designed to address the inter-related
    problems of poverty, violence and substance abuse faced by Native
    communities. Of note, but not under this subcommittee's jurisdiction,
    is the request for a $25 million increase of SAMHSA as part of Gen-I--
    $10 million from the Mental Health account and $15 million from the
    Substance Abuse Prevention account.
        Oftentimes, tribes in Alaska have a difficult time working through
    the State of Alaska to provide social services, which adds layers of
    guidelines, regulations, and reduced funding. We have found that tribes
    and tribal organizations can provide better services if they receive
    the funding directly, utilizing their local knowledge and cultural
    values.
    Other
        We cannot in four pages comment on everything of interest to us but
    want you to know that we join others in support of extending the
    Special Diabetes Program for Indians, for establishment of Medicare-
    like Rates for non-hospital services thus stretching our Purchased/
    Referred Care dollars, and stopping the drain on tribal and IHS
    healthcare programs caused by the lack of sufficient funding for annual
    built-in costs for medical and non-medical inflation, pay increases,
    and population growth.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Metlakatla Indian Community
        Summary.--The requests of the Metlakatla Indian Community for
    fiscal year 2016 are:
      --Support the administration's request to make Contract Support Costs
            funding mandatory, with a preference that such a change occur
            beginning in fiscal year 2016.
      --Exempt the IHS from any future sequestration, as Congress has done
            for the Veterans Health Administration programs.
      --Extend the Special Diabetes Program for Indians.
      --Substantially increase funding for BIA Natural Resources; the
            administration requested a $48 million increase but given the
            wide array of programs for which the Metlakatla Indian
            Community has historically received far less funding than
            necessary, the need is much more than that.
        The Metlakatla Indian Community (Community) is located on the
    Annette Island Reserve in southeast Alaska, a land base of 87,000
    acres. Through our Annette Island Service Unit we provide primary
    health services at our outpatient facility through funding from the IHS
    as a co-signer to the Alaska Tribal Health Compact under the Indian
    Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. We have significant
    fish and forestry resources but as noted elsewhere in this testimony,
    we require more resources to fully manage them.
        Contract Support Costs (CSC) Mandatory Funding.--We are encouraged
    by the administration's policy proposal changes with regard to contract
    support costs and the widespread recognition that these costs are
    mandatory in nature. In our testimony of just 2 years ago we were
    fighting against the administration's proposals to not only underfund
    CSC but to cap each BIA and IHS individual contract. Now we are
    testifying in support of an administration proposal to move IHS and BIA
    contract support costs to a mandatory funding basis and in amounts that
    appear to be sufficient for full funding.
        We support the administration's proposal to make IHS and BIA
    contract support costs funding mandatory although we and other tribes
    and tribal organizations would like this designation to begin with
    fiscal year 2016. It differs from our and others in Indian Country
    proposal that CSC be funded indefinitely and not capped, but we
    acknowledge the administration's proposal as a huge step for the
    Federal agencies directly involved and the Office of Management and
    Budget. We are hopeful that the $718 million proposed for CSC funds for
    IHS and $277 million for the BIA will be sufficient for full funding
    for fiscal year 2016--a lot of work has gone into the estimated
    calculations and that should bode well for future estimates as well.
        Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act,
    the full payment of CSC is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation,
    affirmed by the U.S Supreme Court. Funding of CSC on a discretionary
    basis has placed the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, in
    their own words, of being in the ``untenable position of appropriating
    discretionary funds for the payment of any legally obligated contract
    support costs.''
        We ask for this subcommittee's intervention with the Budget
    Committee and any others that may influence this proposal for mandatory
    CSC funding. You have had a great deal of experience in talking with
    Alaska Native and Indian leaders over the years about the frustrations
    and the inequity of tribes and tribal organizations who contract to
    assume administration of Federal programs not being paid for the true
    costs to administer them. You have much to offer others in Congress who
    will weigh in on this issue.
        Sequestration.--We ask that IHS funding be exempt from
    sequestration, as is the Veterans Health Administration programs. We
    understand that a number of Members of Congress, including some on this
    subcommittee, have indicated that it was an oversight that IHS was not
    exempted from sequestration and that it should be corrected. We are
    grateful for this and trust it will be done this year. That oversight
    that resulted in a $220 million cut in funding IHS for fiscal year
    2013, made worse by the fact that it had to be absorbed in a matter of
    a few months. Those sequestered levels then become the base for future
    funding.
        The Veterans Health Administration (VA) was made fully exempt from
    the sequestration for all programs administered by the VA. See Sec. 255
    of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA), as
    amended by Public Law 111-139 (2010). Also exempt are State Medicaid
    grants, and Medicare payments are held harmless except for a 2 percent
    reduction for administration of the program. We thus strongly urge the
    subcommittee to support an amendment to the BBEDCA to fully exempt the
    IHS from any future sequestration, just as the VA's health programs are
    exempt.
        Special Diabetes Program for Indians.--The authorization and
    funding for the Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) expires at
    the end of fiscal year 2015. The SDPI provides crucial funding for
    diabetes treatment and prevention programs for Alaska Natives and
    American Indians, among whom diabetes is an epidemic. The SDPI is
    showing significant outcomes--both in terms of dramatically increased
    access to treatment and prevention services and for improved blood
    sugar control and blood lipid levels. The President's fiscal year 2016
    budget proposal recommends extending SDPI for 3 years at its current
    level of $150 million per year, and we appreciate their advocacy.
    However, we join with others in Indian Country in recommending a 5-year
    extension at $200 million per year. We ask for your support of the
    efforts to pass such a multi-year extension of the SDPI and that the
    extension be accomplished as quickly as possible--well in advance of
    its expiration in September, 2015--so that these indispensable programs
    can continue to provide uninterrupted care and contracts can be renewed
    without disruption and loss of expertise.
        BIA Natural Resources Funding.--The Metlakatla Indian Community has
    the only reservation (Annette Island Reserve) within the State of
    Alaska--87,000 acres, plus the marine waters 3,000 feet out from the
    shorelines of Annette Islands. We did not participate in the Alaska
    Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), though were given the opportunity
    to do so. Instead we communicated to the congressional drafters of
    ANCSA the need for the reservation to stay intact. As a result, section
    19 of ANCSA excludes the Metlakatla Indian Community, thus preserving
    the Community's trust land and reservation intact.
        Today I want to bring to your attention a terrible injustice: the
    BIA has, for decades, underfunded our natural resource programs. We
    recently conducted a detailed analysis of not only the funding we
    currently receive to carry out BIA natural resource programs
    ($957,205), but an analysis of the funding necessary to adequately
    protect the trust assets (our lands, waters, habitat, minerals, and
    fish and wildlife), and also to steward those trust assets to meeting
    tribal needs on an ongoing basis. We determined that our BIA natural
    resource programs require a total funding of $4,274,731 on an annual
    basis, which means additional appropriations in the amount of
    $3,317,526.
        This breaks down as additional funds needed for the Community in
    the following budgetary accounts: BIA Hatchery Operations (+$500,000);
    Fisheries Management and Development & Wildlife Management and
    Development (+$1,006,068); Forestry (+$464,545); Natural Resources
    General/Administration (+$533,369); Other Rights Protection (including
    water) (+$191,709); Mineral Development (+$304,372); and Invasive
    Species Management (+$317,463).
        We urge the subcommittee to fully fund these needs to that the
    Community can adequately carry out responsibilities that are critical
    to ensure that the Community's natural resources programs are
    adequately funded. I discuss below two of these program areas--
    Fisheries and Forestry--to greater illustrate all that is involved in
    carrying out these natural resource programs, the existing inequitable
    share of these funds that the Community receives in comparison with
    other tribes in the Northwest, and why this funding is so critical to
    the Community.
        Fisheries.--Because State-managed waters surround the reservation's
    waters, and because there is no court-ordered co-management
    relationship between the Community and the State, Tribal fisheries must
    be managed in a way that accounts for the Community's fishing effort,
    as well as the State's. This must be done without having any influence
    over the State's management strategies, which, at times, have been
    preemptive of our subsistence and harvest rights. In order to properly
    manage our fishery resources, we need to bring our own scientists and
    resource managers to the table, but have insufficient funding to do so.
        We manage the following commercial fisheries (subject to
    Secretarial approval): Salmon--The Community's fishery is the largest
    tribally managed salmon fishery in the Nation. In fact, the Community
    annually harvests more salmon than the five top fishing tribes in
    western Washington combined; Herring--we manage the second largest
    herring stock in southeast Alaska (second only to the Sitka fishery),
    the largest (almost certainly the only) tribally managed herring
    fishery in the Nation; Halibut--our halibut fishery is comparable to
    the tribal halibut fisheries in western Washington; and Dive Fisheries
    for Sea Cucumber and Geoduck--Comparable to tribal fisheries in western
    Washington.
        The tribes of western Washington, which conduct fisheries that are
    most similar to the Community's, also have complex managerial,
    technical and scientific needs. Yet, their funding, although
    substantially greater than the Community's, is still inadequate to
    cover the costs of retaining staff in each of the individual
    disciplines that, in combination, make up a legitimate fishery
    management program. However, Congress, through the BIA, makes millions
    of dollars available to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
    (NWIFC) for that very purpose. The NWIFC, like the Columbia River
    Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, is able to draw on economies of scale and
    consortia staff, so that when tribes meet with the State, or other
    management authorities, they are supported by expertise that the State
    cannot ignore. By contrast, the Community not only does not have the
    funds necessary to hire its own experts, we are also not able to draw
    upon the expertise of an inter-tribal consortium. Our Tamgas Creek
    Hatchery is possibly the largest tribally operated hatchery in the
    Nation, but it inexplicably receives $0 in the Hatchery Operations line
    item in the BIA budget, while Oregon and Washington tribes receive
    substantial funding. Our Community is very much on its own. When
    considered in this light, the disparity between the fishery management
    support available to western Washington tribes and the support
    available to the Metlakatla Indian Community is enormous. As a result,
    we are severely handicapped in efforts to protect our fishing rights
    and conserve our fishery resources.
        Forestry.--A second example of critically needed funding to meet
    tribal natural resource program needs is in the forestry program. We
    receive $62,000 for our forestry program. This is insufficient funding
    to hire even one position in the program, let alone plan, design, and
    implement silvicultural prescriptions, forest harvest, conservation,
    and wildfire prevention and control strategies on the 21,172 acres of
    commercial forestland, and 54,197 acres of non-commercial forestland
    and associated muskeg habitat. Using the formula developed by the IFMAT
    III team in 2011, the Community's forestry program should receive a
    minimum of $646,223.32 in Federal funding in order to ensure forest
    health and Federal trust obligations are met. We have requested less
    than this full amount, or only an additional $464,545.
        We are glad to provide any additional information you may request.
    Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and needs.

        [This statement was submitted by Audrey Hudson, Mayor and Tribal
    Chair.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
                                   California
        Chairperson Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the
    subcommittee:

        The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
    (Metropolitan) encourages the subcommittee's support for the U.S.
    Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air
    Management. This Subactivity includes Colorado River Salinity Control
    as a primary focus area. For fiscal year 2016, a funding level of $1.5
    million for salinity specific projects is needed in this primary focus
    area to prevent further degradation of Colorado River water quality and
    increased downstream economic damages.
        The concentrations of salts in the Colorado River cause about $382
    million in damages to water users each year. While this figure is
    significant, had it not been for the efforts of the Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control Program (Salinity Control Program), salinity
    concentrations of Colorado River water today would have been about 90
    milligrams per liter (mg/L) higher, which has avoided additional
    damages of approximately $200 million per year.
        Metropolitan is the regional water supplier for most of urban
    southern California, providing supplemental water to retail agencies
    that serve over 18 million people. Water imported via the Colorado
    River Aqueduct has the highest level of salinity of all of
    Metropolitan's sources of supply, averaging around 630 mg/L since 1976,
    which leads to economic damages. For example, damages occur from:
      --A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
            water use for leaching in the agricultural sector;
      --A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
            water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
            dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
            softeners in the household sector;
      --An increase in the cost of cooling operations, and the cost of
            water softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in
            the commercial sector;
      --An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
            and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
      --A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
            utility sector;
      --Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
            with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
            terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
            disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
            basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling due to
            groundwater quality deterioration; and
      --Increased cost of desalination and brine disposal for recycled
            water in the municipal sector.

        Concern over salinity levels in the Colorado River has existed for
    many years. To deal with the concern, the International Boundary and
    Water Commission signed Minute No. 242, Permanent and Definitive
    Solution to the International Problem of the Salinity of the Colorado
    River in 1973, and the President signed into law the Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control Act in 1974 (Act). High total dissolved solids
    in the Colorado River as it enters Mexico and the concerns of the seven
    Colorado River Basin States regarding the quality of Colorado River
    water in the United States drove these initial actions. To foster
    interstate cooperation and coordinate the Colorado River Basin States'
    efforts on salinity control, the seven Basin States formed the Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Forum.
        The salts in the Colorado River system are indigenous and
    pervasive, mostly resulting from saline sediments in the Basin that
    were deposited in prehistoric marine environments. They are easily
    eroded, dissolved, and transported into the river system, and enter the
    River through both natural and anthropogenic sources.
        The Salinity Control Program reduces salinity by preventing salts
    from dissolving and mixing with the River's flow. Irrigation
    improvements (sprinklers, gated pipe, lined ditches) and vegetation
    management reduce the amount of salt transported to the Colorado River.
    Point sources such as saline springs are also controlled.
        The Salinity Control Program, as set forth in the Act, benefits the
    Upper Colorado River Basin water users through more efficient water
    management, increased crop production, benefits to local economies
    through construction contracts, and through environmental enhancements.
    The Salinity Control Program benefits Lower Basin water users, hundreds
    of miles downstream from salt sources in the Upper Basin, through
    reduced salinity concentration of Colorado River water. California's
    Colorado River water users are presently suffering economic damages in
    the hundreds of millions of dollars per year due to the River's
    salinity.
        The Act provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall ``develop
    a comprehensive program for minimizing salt contributions to the
    Colorado River from lands administered by the Bureau of Land
    Management.'' BLM is the largest landowner in the Colorado River Basin.
    Due to geological conditions, much of the lands that are controlled and
    managed by the BLM are heavily laden with salt. Past management
    practices have led to human-induced and accelerated erosion processes
    from which soil and rocks, heavily laden with salt have been deposited
    in various stream beds or flood plains. As a result, salts are
    dissolved into the Colorado River system causing water quality problems
    downstream.
        Congress has charged Federal agencies, including the BLM, to
    proceed with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River.
    BLM's rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-
    effective salinity control measures available. These measures
    significantly complement programs and activities being considered for
    implementation by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation through its Basin-wide
    Program and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through its on-farm
    Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
        Over the past years, the Salinity Control Program has proven to be
    a very cost effective approach to help mitigate the impacts of
    increased salinity in the Colorado River. Continued Federal funding of
    this important Basin-wide program is essential.
        Metropolitan encourages the subcommittee's support for sufficient
    funding in the Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air Management to allow
    for general water quality improvement efforts in the Colorado River
    Basin and $1.5 million for salinity specific projects in 2016. This
    amount is needed to prevent further degradation of the quality of the
    Colorado River and increased downstream economic damages.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Minerals Science and Information Coalition
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on the
    importance of minerals science and statistical information to the
    economy and national security. The Minerals Science and Information
    Coalition (MSIC), an ad hoc group representing both upstream and
    downstream minerals interests, respectfully submits this testimony in
    favor of increased funding for the Mineral Resources Program in the
    U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
        MSIC and its members are united in support of minerals science and
    information functions in the Federal Government. Minerals and their
    materials form the basis of critical infrastructure and advanced
    technologies upon which we rely. The United States is the world's
    largest user of mineral commodities. Aggregates for bridges and roads,
    metals for pipelines and transportation, and elements for computers and
    defense systems contribute to our national security, economy, and
    overall global competitiveness. Despite our dependence on these
    materials, the U.S. has not invested the necessary funds in programs to
    identify and characterize our mineral wealth and quantify the domestic
    and global supply of, demand for, and flow of minerals and mineral
    materials. The Nation lacks the infrastructure necessary to support
    advanced mineral forecasting, leaving important supply chains
    susceptible to disruptions. Increased Federal investments in minerals
    science and research are necessary to overcome this liability. MSIC
    supports the President's request of $47.7 million for the USGS Mineral
    Resources Program, but suggests that new investments be made in the
    USMIN Project to continue development of a comprehensive minerals
    database and the National Minerals Information Center (NMIC) to create
    minerals forecasting capabilities.
        NMIC is the world's premier source of statistical information on
    current production and consumption of mineral commodities for more than
    180 countries. U.S. manufacturers and financial firms, as well as
    Federal, State, and local agencies, such as the Department of Defense,
    the Department of State, and the Department of Transportation use this
    information as a guide to economic and strategic decisionmaking. The
    ability to accurately forecast minerals' availability ahead of supply
    disruptions for these vital organizations is currently nonexistent. By
    comparison, in fiscal year 2015, the Energy Information Administration
    (EIA) received $117 million for energy information and forecasting,
    whereas the budget for minerals information at USGS was $15 million
    with no provision for minerals forecasting. NMIC's information
    gathering and analysis functions must be strengthened in fiscal year
    2016, and it is essential that new money be provided to fund minerals
    forecasting.
        MSIC notes the success of the Critical Materials Institute (CMI) at
    the Ames National Laboratory and suggests equal investments be made in
    upstream minerals information and research. The CMI is tasked with
    creating alternatives to and streamlining the efficiency of materials
    that are vulnerable to supply disruptions, including rare earth
    elements. This one-sided approach to supply chain management ignores
    the critical upstream research and analysis necessary to identify these
    high-risk resources in the first place. Additionally, there is little
    point in developing new materials if we cannot supply the raw materials
    to manufacture them. The USGS is uniquely positioned to provide the up-
    to-date forecasts on potential mineral disruptions and to provide the
    essential geological research and information to help locate and
    characterize sources of critical minerals. MSIC suggests the creation
    of a Critical Minerals initiative within the USGS to complement DOE's
    Critical Materials Institute.
        We support $25 million per year to fund a Critical Minerals
    initiative at USGS. Federal investment in critical mineral resources
    should, at a minimum, match Federal investment in critical materials.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
    subcommittee.

                Sincerely,

                        Aluminum Association; American Exploration & Mining
                                Association; American Geosciences
                                Institute; American Physical Society;
                                Associated Equipment Distributors;
                                Industrial Minerals Association--North
                                America; Materials Research Society; Mining
                                & Metallurgical Society of America;
                                National Electrical Manufacturers
                                Association; National Mining Association;
                                National Stone, Sand and Gravel
                                Association; The Pennsylvania Bureau of
                                Topographic and Geologic Survey; Society of
                                Economic Geologists; and Society for
                                Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Patty Murray
                                          United States Senate,
                                        Washington, DC, April 27, 2015.
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Chairman,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, Senate
            Appropriations Committee, Senate Dirksen Office Building, Room
            131, Washington, DC, 20150
    Hon. Tom Udall, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, Senate
            Appropriations Committee, Senate Hart Office Building, Room
            125, Washington, DC, 20510

        Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:

        I thank you for your support of important projects that have made a
    real difference in the lives of millions of people in Washington State,
    the Pacific Northwest, and the United States. As the subcommittee
    prepares to write the fiscal year 2016 Interior, Environment and
    Related Agencies Appropriations bill, I ask for your support of
    projects important to Washington State and the Nation. I have outlined
    my requests for fiscal year 2016 in priority order, and provide brief
    descriptions below.

    Agency:                                Environmental Protection Agency
    Account:                               Environmental Programs and
                                            Management
    Program:                               Geographic Programs
    Activity:                              Puget Sound
    FY2016 Request:                        $30 million with an increase
                                            above the President's Budget as
                                            possible
    FY2016 PB:                             $30 million
    Rationale:                             This funding is requested to
                                            provide continued Federal
                                            leadership while supplementing
                                            State and local efforts to
                                            implement Washington State's
                                            Puget Sound Action Agenda. The
                                            President's Budget Request
                                            provides a slight increase from
                                            funding provided by the fiscal
                                            year 2015 Consolidated and
                                            Further Continuing
                                            Appropriations Act; however,
                                            additional investment is still
                                            required to return Puget Sound
                                            funding to historical levels,
                                            and I respectfully request
                                            additional funding as may be
                                            available. Puget Sound recovery
                                            and restoration is critical to
                                            my State, to the Pacific
                                            Northwest region, and to the
                                            country as a whole. A healthy
                                            Puget Sound plays an essential
                                            role in the region's economy and
                                            is important to the
                                            environmental and economic
                                            future of my State. Healthy
                                            waters and tributaries are
                                            essential to the recovery of
                                            several Endangered Species Act-
                                            listed salmon populations and
                                            the protection of tribal treaty
                                            rights. This request is my
                                            highest priority in the
                                            Interior, Environment, and
                                            Related Agencies Appropriations
                                            bill.

    Agency:                                USDA U.S. Forest Service
    Account:                               Capital Improvement and
                                            Maintenance
    Program/Activity:                      Legacy Roads and Trails
    FY2016 Request:                        $40 million
    FY2016 PB:                             $0 (Consolidated into Integrated
                                            Resource Restoration)
    Rationale:                             The Legacy Roads and Trails
                                            program provides funding for
                                            maintenance and decommissioning
                                            work on Forest Service roads in
                                            the Pacific Northwest and across
                                            the Nation. This program funds
                                            projects to combat water quality
                                            issues. It is critical to my
                                            home State of Washington, where
                                            it plays an important role
                                            enhancing and improving habitat
                                            for salmon, steelhead, and bull
                                            trout species while supporting
                                            good paying jobs in rural areas.
                                            The Forest Service's road system
                                            vastly outstrips the available
                                            funding for maintenance and
                                            repair, and Legacy Roads and
                                            Trails has successfully
                                            decommissioned no longer needed
                                            roads that otherwise result in
                                            habitat blockages and water
                                            quality issues.

    Agency:                                USDA U.S. Forest Service
    Account:                               State and Private Forestry
    Program/Activity:                      Forest Legacy
    FY2016 Request:                        Highest level possible
    FY2016 PB:                             $61 million
    Rationale:                             The Forest Legacy program is an
                                            important, voluntary tool
                                            helping individuals protect some
                                            of America's unique landscapes.
                                            Forest Legacy provides Federal
                                            support to preserve private
                                            forests as working timber lands,
                                            thereby supporting jobs in rural
                                            communities, wildlife habitat,
                                            recreation opportunities, and
                                            water quality. Funding the
                                            Forest Legacy program at the
                                            highest level possible will
                                            allow adequate funds to be made
                                            available for important projects
                                            in my home State, including the
                                            Mount St. Helens Forest Project
                                            Phase 2. Without the support of
                                            the Forest Legacy program, these
                                            lands could be at risk of
                                            development, resulting in long-
                                            term impacts to future
                                            generations.

    Agency:                                Bureau of Indian Affairs
    Account:                               Operation of Indian Programs
    Program:                               Trust--Natural Resources
                                            Management
    Activity:                              Rights Protection Implementation
    FY2016 Request:                        Highest level possible
    FY2016 PB:                             $40.1 million
    Rationale:                             Rights Protection Implementation
                                            funding supports the off-
                                            reservation hunting, fishing,
                                            and gathering rights of 49
                                            federally-recognized tribes,
                                            including several in Washington
                                            State. This funding also
                                            supports the implementation of
                                            court orders and the co-
                                            management of treaty-protected
                                            fishing rights by intertribal
                                            organizations, which is
                                            especially important to
                                            Washington State tribes who have
                                            taken on increasing
                                            responsibilities in fisheries
                                            management without a
                                            corresponding increase in
                                            funding. Within this activity, I
                                            especially support the
                                            President's request for Western
                                            Washington Fisheries Management,
                                            the Washington State Timber Fish
                                            and Wildlife Project, Columbia
                                            River Fisheries Management, the
                                            U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon
                                            Treaty Implementation, Salmon
                                            Marking, and Youth Initiatives.

    Agency:                                National Park Service
    Account:                               Land Acquisition and State
                                            Assistance
    FY2016 Request:                        Highest level possible
    FY2016 PB:                             $153.7 million
    Rationale:                             The Land and Water Conservation
                                            Fund's (LWCF) land acquisition
                                            funding is an important tool to
                                            protect some of America's most
                                            treasured landscapes. LWCF
                                            projects preserve land and
                                            enhance recreational activities
                                            including hiking, hunting, and
                                            angling, which stimulate rural
                                            economies and support thriving
                                            outdoor recreation industries in
                                            Washington, Alaska, New Mexico,
                                            and other States. This account
                                            has previously supported
                                            important projects in Washington
                                            State and robust funding this
                                            year would support the purchase
                                            of land within Ebey's Landing
                                            National Historical Reserve. I
                                            am a cosponsor of legislation to
                                            permanently reauthorize LWCF and
                                            expect Congress will address
                                            this reauthorization effort. I
                                            commend the President for
                                            advocating a switch to mandatory
                                            funding of LWCF, and as
                                            authorizing committees consider
                                            reauthorization, I support any
                                            additional funding the
                                            subcommittee can provide to all
                                            LWCF streams in this constrained
                                            fiscal environment.

    Agency:                                USDA U.S. Forest Service
    Account:                               Land Acquisition
    Program/Activity:                      Land and Water Conservation Fund
    FY2016 Request:                        Highest level possible
    FY2016 PB:                             $63 million
    Rationale:                             The Land and Water Conservation
                                            Fund's (LWCF) land acquisition
                                            funding is an important tool to
                                            protect some of America's most
                                            treasured landscapes. LWCF
                                            projects preserve land and
                                            enhance recreational activities
                                            including hiking, hunting, and
                                            angling, which stimulate rural
                                            economies and support thriving
                                            outdoor recreation industries in
                                            Washington, Alaska, New Mexico,
                                            and other States. This account
                                            previously supported critical
                                            projects in Washington State and
                                            the President's request this
                                            year includes efforts in my
                                            State to consolidate ownership
                                            of the Okanogan-Wenatchee
                                            National Forest checkerboard
                                            lands. I am a cosponsor of
                                            legislation to permanently
                                            reauthorize LWCF and expect
                                            Congress will address this
                                            reauthorization effort. I
                                            commend the President for
                                            advocating a switch to mandatory
                                            funding of LWCF, and as
                                            authorizing committees consider
                                            reauthorization, I support any
                                            additional funding the
                                            subcommittee can provide to all
                                            LWCF streams in this constrained
                                            fiscal environment.

    Agency:                                Environmental Protection Agency
    Account:                               Environmental Programs Management
    Program/Activity:                      National Estuary Program
    FY2016 Request:                        Highest level possible, with
                                            language specifying $600,000 per
                                            NEP
    FY2016 PB:                             $27.3 million
    Rationale:                             The Clean Water Act of 1987
                                            authorized 28 local National
                                            Estuary Programs (NEPs), two of
                                            which are in Washington State--
                                            Puget Sound and the Lower
                                            Columbia River Estuary
                                            Partnership. These NEPs protect
                                            nationally significant estuaries
                                            by bringing together diverse
                                            parties to identify problems,
                                            define actionable steps, and
                                            implement actions. NEP funds are
                                            critical to my home State and
                                            enhance opportunities to secure
                                            additional project-specific
                                            grants in areas including
                                            habitat restoration, toxics
                                            reduction, and environmental
                                            education. I am particularly
                                            supportive of language to
                                            specify the direction of
                                            $600,000 per NEP.

    Agency:                                USDA U.S. Forest Service
    Account:                               National Forest System
    Program/Activity:                      Collaborative Forest Landscape
                                            Restoration Program
    FY2016 Request:                        $60 million
    FY2016 PB:                             $60 million
    Rationale:                             The Collaborative Forest
                                            Landscape Restoration Program
                                            supports forest and watershed
                                            restoration projects that
                                            ultimately reduce wildfire
                                            suppression costs, create jobs,
                                            improve forest and watershed
                                            health, and leverage non-Federal
                                            investments. In my home State of
                                            Washington, Collaborative
                                            efforts have been successful in
                                            bringing together diverse
                                            parties to support, restore, and
                                            enhance habitat, reduce risk to
                                            communities, and support the
                                            local economy. Robust funding
                                            will enable the Forest Service
                                            to select and implement
                                            additional high-priority
                                            projects across the country,
                                            thereby making communities and
                                            forests safer, healthier, and
                                            more resistant to climate
                                            change.

    Agency:                                United States Geological Survey
    Activity:                              Natural Hazards
    Subactivity:                           Earthquake Hazards
    FY2016 Request:                        $70 million
    FY2016 PB:                             $57.5 million
    Rationale:                             Millions of Americans live within
                                            fault zones and are therefore
                                            subject to the potentially
                                            devastating impacts of an
                                            earthquake, from loss of life to
                                            economic losses and building
                                            damage. Unfortunately,
                                            earthquakes come with little
                                            advance notice and therefore put
                                            millions of dollars of economic
                                            activity, as well as millions of
                                            lives, at risk. An increase in
                                            this account would help fund
                                            earthquake early warning
                                            research and development, which
                                            is important for natural
                                            disasters such as these with
                                            mere minutes for response.
                                            Robust funding is essential to
                                            support the construction,
                                            operation, and maintenance costs
                                            of an early warning system to
                                            benefit millions of Americans,
                                            particularly along the entire
                                            West Coast where many major
                                            fault lines exist, without
                                            leaving one region of the
                                            coastline at greater risk than
                                            other parts.

    Bill Language Request--Earthquake Hazards
        ``[overall USGS funding for fiscal year 2016], of which $70,000,000
    shall be available for the Earthquake Hazards Program: Provided,
    $16,100,000 shall be available for initiating implementation of an
    earthquake early warning system in regions at greatest risk.''
    Report Language Request--Earthquake Hazards
        ``Earthquake Hazards.--The Committee supports efforts to continue
    developing an earthquake early warning prototype system on the West
    Coast. The Committee is concerned about the lack of knowledge and real-
    time instrumentation available for the Cascadia subduction zone. Our
    scientific understanding of earthquakes and the ocean environment will
    benefit from the wealth of offshore data collected and the continued
    development of an early earthquake warning system for the Cascadia
    system to help prepare for and mitigate the negative human and economic
    impacts to the Pacific Northwest like those felt by Japan in 2011.''
        Problem.--Earthquakes have enormous potential to cause catastrophic
    casualties, damage, economic loss, and disruption. Many urbanized areas
    across the country, including in the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, and
    California, are at particular risk of significant damage to human
    health and property should a significant earthquake hit. Research is
    ongoing to develop earthquake early warning systems in order to provide
    seconds to minutes of advance notice before an earthquake or
    earthquake-triggered tsunami hits, which could play an important role
    in human health and property protection, resulting in significant
    benefits to hospitals, transportation systems, manufacturing
    activities, and potentially limiting loss of life or damage. Increased
    funding is necessary to improve the Advanced National Seismic System
    and implement earthquake early warning systems for regions at greatest
    risk. The bill and report language provided above would address these
    issues and support this activity.

    Agency:                                Bureau of Indian Affairs
    Account:                               Operation of Indian Programs
    Program:                               Tribal Management Development
                                            Program
    FY 2016 Request:                       Highest funding possible
    FY2016 PB:                             $14.3 million
    Rationale:                             Funding through the Tribal
                                            Management Development Program
                                            helps tribes fulfill Federal
                                            mandates in natural resource
                                            management on trust land and
                                            supports tribal self-
                                            determination in deciding which
                                            priority projects to fund. With
                                            this funding, tribes employ law
                                            enforcement officers on
                                            Washington State's Lake
                                            Roosevelt and its shoreline to
                                            enforce Federal laws and tribal
                                            health and safety laws. This
                                            funding also supports the
                                            protection, restoration, and
                                            management of fish and wildlife
                                            and their habitats. Without this
                                            funding, tribal participation in
                                            processes and activities
                                            including permitting, hydropower
                                            operations, and fish and
                                            wildlife program implementation
                                            would be hamstrung. I am
                                            particularly supportive of
                                            robust funding for Tribal
                                            Management Development Program
                                            funding for Lake Roosevelt,
                                            Yakama, and the Upper Columbia
                                            United Tribes.

    USGS Natural Hazards Report Language
        ``Natural Hazards.--The Committee is concerned that the lahar
    warning system on Mount Rainier, Washington, monitors only two of the
    six river valleys off the mountain and that the technology has reached
    its `end of life.' A population of nearly 3 million and associated
    property lives within the drainages of Mount Rainier's six river
    valleys and the Committee applauds the joint efforts to protect life
    and property that begun in 1998 by the United States Geological
    Survey's Cascades Volcanic Observatory and the Pierce County Management
    Department. These efforts should continue until all six impacted river
    valleys achieve the same level of coverage. Recognizing Mount Rainier
    as the most dangerous active volcano in North America, and the real
    possibility of a lahar event, the Committee urges the Survey to replace
    and expand the lahar warning system. This update must cover all six
    river valleys off Mount Rainier and employ the necessary up-to-date
    technology and systems to adequately monitor, detect, alert, and warn
    of a lahar event. Such a project will greatly complement the near and
    long term plans of the Survey for providing natural hazard detection
    and warning systems on the West Coast.''
        Problem.--In 1998, the Pierce County Department of Emergency
    Management and United States Geological Survey Cascades Volcanic
    Observatory began a pilot project for a Mount Rainier lahar warning
    system. The existing system currently monitors only two of the six
    river valleys potentially impacted by a Mount Rainier lahar event.
    According to USGS, Mount Rainier is the most dangerous active volcano
    in North America. Approximately 3 million people, as well as
    approximately $13 billion in buildings and land value, could be
    impacted by a catastrophic lahar flow in Mount Rainier's six river
    valleys. Pierce County, in partnership with USGS, other Federal
    agencies, the State of Washington, and impacted counties King, Lewis,
    and Thurston, seek to replace the outdated and limited lahar warning
    system with the installation of technology to monitor, detect, alert,
    and warn of lahar events in any of the six river valleys.

    Agency:                                Department of Health and Human
                                            Services
    Account:                               Indian Health Service
    Program:                               Urban Indian Health
    FY2016 Request:                        Highest level possible, with
                                            dedicated facility needs funding
    FY2016 PB:                             $44 million
    Rationale:                             The Indian Health Service (IHS)
                                            was created in 1979, and funding
                                            for urban Indian health has
                                            consistently represented
                                            approximately 1 percent of the
                                            overall IHS appropriation. Since
                                            that time, however, the
                                            population of Indians moving to
                                            cities has steadily increased,
                                            with the 2010 census finding
                                            that approximately 70 percent of
                                            the 5.2 million Americans self-
                                            identifying as American Indian
                                            or Alaska Native (either alone
                                            or in combination with another
                                            race) living in cities. There
                                            are 34 Urban Indian Health
                                            Centers across the country,
                                            including one in my home State
                                            of Washington. These centers
                                            provide culturally appropriate
                                            health services such as primary
                                            care, outreach, and referral
                                            services to many Native
                                            Americans. Many of these
                                            facilities are in need of
                                            repairs and renovations but have
                                            been hamstrung by limited
                                            resources. I support additional
                                            funding as available for
                                            facility needs.

    Legacy Roads and Trails Report Language
        ``Legacy Roads and Trails.--The Committee retains the Legacy Roads
    and Trails Remediation program as a separate budget line item for
    fiscal year 2016 in order to ensure these funds are targeted to support
    Forest Service road improvements and decommissioning in locations with
    the greatest need. This program has improved the Forest Service's
    ability to address problems associated with its extensive and aging
    road system, but the Committee is concerned that the funds are not
    being allocated in a manner proportionate to the distribution of roads
    in need of attention across the system and directs the Forest Service
    to direct funds to regions most in need of road remediation.''
        Problem.--The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) road system was built
    decades ago to support large-scale timber harvest, and the USFS is now
    burdened with a road system larger than can effectively be managed.
    This expansive system negatively impacts water quality and wildlife
    habitat across the country. The Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation
    (LRT) program was created in fiscal year 2008 to help the USFS make
    targeted progress in addressing problems associated with this aging
    infrastructure. In addition to improved habitat and better water
    quality for downstream communities, LRT supports good-paying jobs in
    rural areas that have been impacted by decreased timber harvests. LRT
    funds have successfully been used to maintain and improve roads still
    needed for resource extraction or recreation, while decommissioning
    those that are no longer needed. Right-sizing the USFS road system
    helps reduce the fiscal and environmental burden of roads while
    allowing better, more reliable access to the Forest system for
    recreators. USFS Region 6 (Oregon and Washington) contain approximately
    a quarter of the Nation's USFS road miles, but the Region received only
    16 percent of appropriated LRT dollars in fiscal year 2014. The
    inclusion of this language in the fiscal year 2015 Appropriations bill
    helped direct proportional funds to Region 6, and retaining this
    language will ensure continued targeting of funds to regions of
    greatest need.

    Agency:                                U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    Account:                               Land Acquisition
    FY2016 Request:                        Highest level possible
    FY2016 PB:                             $58.5 million
    Rationale:                             The Land and Water Conservation
                                            Fund's (LWCF) land acquisition
                                            funding is an important tool to
                                            protect some of America's most
                                            treasured landscapes. LWCF
                                            projects preserve land and
                                            enhance recreational activities
                                            including hiking, hunting, and
                                            angling, which stimulate rural
                                            economies and support thriving
                                            outdoor recreation industries in
                                            Washington, Alaska, New Mexico,
                                            and other States. This account
                                            has previously supported
                                            important projects in Washington
                                            State. I am a cosponsor of
                                            legislation to permanently
                                            reauthorize LWCF and expect
                                            Congress will address this
                                            reauthorization effort. I
                                            commend the President for
                                            advocating a switch to mandatory
                                            funding of LWCF, and as
                                            authorizing committees consider
                                            reauthorization, I support any
                                            additional funding the
                                            subcommittee can provide to all
                                            LWCF streams in this constrained
                                            fiscal environment.

    Agency:                                U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    Account:                               Resource Management
    Activity:                              Habitat Conservation
    Subactivity:                           Partners for Fish and Wildlife
    FY2016 Request:                        $52.4 million
    FY2016 PB:                             $52.4 million
    Rationale:                             Partners for Fish and Wildlife
                                            supports voluntary and community-
                                            based efforts to improve fish
                                            and wildlife conservation on
                                            private land. In Washington
                                            State, these funds support
                                            collaborative partnerships with
                                            Federal, State, and local
                                            agencies, tribes, businesses,
                                            citizen groups, and landowners
                                            to enhance, restore, assess,
                                            educate, and conduct monitoring
                                            projects on many important
                                            efforts, including salmon
                                            recovery. With a relatively
                                            small Federal investment,
                                            Partners for Fish and Wildlife
                                            recipients are able to leverage
                                            impressive sums to make
                                            significant habitat improvements
                                            and support good-paying jobs. I
                                            support the President's funding
                                            request, with particular focus
                                            on existing programs proven to
                                            be effective.

    Agency:                                USDA U.S. Forest Service
    Account:                               Wildland Fire Management
    FY2016 Request:                        $2.354 billion
    FY2016 PB:                             $2.354 billion
    Rationale:                             In 2014, the Carlton Complex Fire
                                            burned over 256,000 acres,
                                            making it the largest fire by
                                            acres burned in Washington State
                                            history. Washington State,
                                            particularly east of the Cascade
                                            mountain range, is consistently
                                            under threat of devastating
                                            wildland fires, and given the
                                            increasing risk, regularity, and
                                            severity of wildland fires, I am
                                            supportive of the President's
                                            Request for Wildland Fire
                                            Management. Within this account,
                                            I am particularly supportive of
                                            the request of $78 million for
                                            State Fire Assistance, which is
                                            an important tool to help State,
                                            local, and private landowners
                                            prepare for and respond to
                                            wildfires. I am especially
                                            concerned with the President's
                                            request to reduce the Hazardous
                                            Fuels account, and encourage the
                                            Committee to retain funding at
                                            the fiscal year 2015 enacted
                                            level of $361.749 million.
                                            Reduction of hazardous fuel
                                            loads, paid for by this funding,
                                            plays an important role in
                                            reducing the risk of wildland
                                            fires, and therefore warrants
                                            sustained funding as we grapple
                                            with massive fires across the
                                            West.

    Agency:                                USDA U.S. Forest Service
    Account:                               State and Private Forestry
    Program/Activity:                      International Forestry
    FY2016 Request:                        Highest level possible
    FY2016 PB:                             $4.004 million
    Rationale:                             Illegal logging activities result
                                            in an annual loss of
                                            approximately $1 billion to U.S.
                                            forestry industries as American
                                            businesses are undersold by
                                            cheaper illegal supply. The U.S.
                                            Forest Service Office of
                                            International Programs (FSIP)
                                            represents the U.S. forest
                                            products industry in
                                            international trade agreements,
                                            while also providing expertise
                                            to the U.S. Department of State
                                            and the Office of the U.S. Trade
                                            Representative. FSIP plays an
                                            important role working to level
                                            the international playing field
                                            for U.S. timber producers,
                                            advancing U.S. forestry
                                            interests, protecting the U.S.
                                            from invasive species that could
                                            damage our forests, and
                                            providing unique perspective
                                            pertaining to our national
                                            security. I appreciate the
                                            subcommittee's commitment to
                                            FSIP and was pleased the
                                            President returned this
                                            important program to his budget
                                            request this year, and I support
                                            continued funding for
                                            International Forestry at the
                                            highest level possible.

    Agency:                                Department of the Interior
    Account:                               Operation of the National Park
                                            System
    Program/Activity:                      Manhattan Project National
                                            Historical Park
    FY2016 Request:                        $180,000
    FY2016 PB:                             $180,000
    Rationale:                             The Manhattan Project National
                                            Historical Park tells an
                                            important story in our Nation's
                                            history: the development and
                                            production of the technology and
                                            materials necessary to create
                                            the world's first atomic bomb.
                                            The facilities and stories of
                                            the Manhattan Project will keep
                                            the history alive of millions of
                                            Americans whose work was
                                            essential to the World War II
                                            effort. Creation of the
                                            Manhattan Project National
                                            Historical Park was a bipartisan
                                            effort over several Congresses,
                                            with final passage secured as
                                            part of the fiscal year 2015
                                            National Defense Authorization
                                            Act. The new Park will have
                                            locations in Hanford,
                                            Washington, Los Alamos, New
                                            Mexico, and Oak Ridge,
                                            Tennessee. It will be
                                            administered and operated in
                                            conjunction with the Department
                                            of Energy, which has primary
                                            Federal responsibility for the
                                            cleanup of these sites. As we
                                            prepare for the National Park
                                            Service centenary year and this
                                            new Park Unit becomes
                                            operational, I support funding
                                            at the highest level possible
                                            for this and other Park units.

        Additionally, I support funding at the highest possible level for
    the following programs:
      --National Park Service
      --EPA--State and Tribal Assistance Grants--Drinking Water State
            Revolving Fund
      --EPA--State and Tribal Assistance Grants--Clean Water State
            Revolving Fund
      --BIA--Public Safety and Justice--Law Enforcement
      --BIA--Trust--Natural Resources Management--Cooperative Landscape
            Conservation
      --FWS--Ecological Services Habitat Conservation--Coastal Programs
      --USFS--State and Private Forestry--Economic Action Program: Economic
            Development Grant Program
      --Capital Improvements and Maintenance (U.S. Forest Service and
            Bureau of Land Management)
      --FWS--Fish and Aquatic Conservation--Aquatic Invasive Species
      --National Park Service--Historic Preservation Fund
      --BIA--Contract Support
      --EPA--General Assistance Program
      --EPA--Diesel Emissions Reduction Grants Program
      --EPA--Environmental Programs and Management--Technical Assistance
            Competitive Grant Program
      --FWS--Resource Management--Fish and Aquatic Conservation--National
            Fish Hatchery Operations
      --USFS--Research and Development--USDA Forest Products Laboratory--
            Forest Products Advanced Utilization
      --BIE--Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities
      --USGS--Natural Hazards--Global Seismographic Network
      --Multinational Species Conservation Fund
      --North American Wetlands Conservation Act
      --EPA--Environmental Education Grants
      --National Endowment for the Arts
      --National Endowment for the Humanities
      --FWS--National Wildlife Refuge System
      --USGS--Surveys, Investigations and Research, Water Resources--Water
            Resources Research Act Program

        I encourage you to oppose the inclusion of policy riders related to
    activities by the agencies under your jurisdiction in the Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. I thank you and
    the subcommittee in advance for your assistance and look forward to
    working with you as we begin the fiscal year 2016 appropriations
    process.
        I understand and appreciate the subcommittee's previous efforts to
    use the Appropriations process as a vehicle to provide a long-term
    solution to wildfire disaster funding and I support continued efforts,
    through the Appropriations process or other vehicles, to complete this
    goal. The long-term practice of fire-borrowing is unsustainable and I
    support the equitable treatment of wildland fire disasters with other
    forms of natural disaster funding.

                Sincerely,
                                       Patty Murray,
                                               United States Senator.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
                                    Programs
        My name is Eric Cavazza and I serve as the Director of the Bureau
    of Abandoned Mine Reclamation within the Pennsylvania Department of
    Environmental Protection. I am providing this statement on behalf of
    the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs (NAAMLP), for
    which I currently serve as President. The NAAMLP represents 31 States
    and tribes, of which 28 implement federally approved abandoned mine
    land reclamation (AML) programs authorized under Title IV of the
    Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). As you know, Title
    IV of SMCRA was amended in 2006 and significantly changed how State and
    tribal AML grants are funded. These grants are still based on receipts
    from a fee on coal production, but beginning in fiscal year 2008, the
    grants are funded primarily by mandatory appropriations. As a result,
    the States and tribes should receive $209 million in fiscal year 2016.
    In its fiscal year 2016 proposed budget, the Office of Surface Mining
    (OSM) is requesting $385 million for State and tribal AML grants (which
    includes $200 million of new funding for the President's Power Plus
    Plan), an increase of $176 million. OSM's budget also includes five
    legislative proposals, the first of which would eliminate funding to
    States and tribes that have ``certified'' completion of their highest
    priority abandoned coal reclamation sites (a reduction of $24.4 million
    in fiscal year 2016); the second of which would return the AML
    reclamation fee paid by coal operators to pre-2006 levels; the third of
    which would establish a hardrock AML fee and accompanying program; the
    fourth of which would provide enhanced payouts to the United Mine
    Workers pension funds; and the fifth of which would accelerate the
    distribution of grant funds for a portion of the remaining
    unappropriated balance in the AML Trust Fund to target the cleanup and
    redevelopment of eligible lands and waters (an additional $200 million
    in fiscal year 2016).
        Over the past 35 years, the accomplishments of the States and
    tribes under the AML program have resulted in tens of thousands of
    acres of abandoned mine lands having been reclaimed, thousands of mine
    openings having been closed, many streams having been restored from the
    adverse impacts of acid mine drainage, hundreds of mine fires having
    been extinguished, thousands of homes, schools and businesses having
    been stabilized from the adverse impacts of mine subsidence and
    landslides, and safeguards for people, property and the environment
    having been put in place. Additionally, potable drinking water supplies
    have been re-established for tens of thousands of citizens in areas
    where groundwater and water wells have been contaminated or diminished
    by mining. Be assured that States and tribes continue to be committed
    to address the unabated hazards at both coal and non-coal abandoned
    mines. We are united in achieving the goals and objectives as set forth
    by Congress when SMCRA was first enacted--including protecting public
    health and safety, enhancing the environment, providing employment, and
    adding to the economies of communities impacted by past coal and
    noncoal mining. In this regard, a recently updated ``Safeguarding,
    Reclaiming, Restoring'' accomplishments report prepared by State and
    tribal administrators of AML programs under SMCRA is available on the
    NAAMLP Web site (http://naamlp.net/documents/), which provides several
    on-the-ground examples of the type of work that is being done around
    the country.
        When passed in 1977, SMCRA set national regulatory and reclamation
    standards for coal mining. The Act also established a Reclamation Trust
    Fund to work towards eliminating the innumerable health, safety and
    environmental problems that existed throughout the Nation from mines
    that were abandoned prior to the Act. The Fund generates revenue
    through a fee on current coal production. This fee is collected by OSM
    and distributed to States and tribes that have federally approved
    regulatory and AML programs. The promise Congress made in 1977, and
    with every subsequent amendment to the Act, was that, at a minimum,
    half the money generated from fees collected by OSM on coal mined
    within the boundaries of a State or tribe, referred to as the ``State
    Share'', would be returned for the uses described in Title IV of the
    Act if the State or tribe assumed responsibility for regulating active
    coal mining operations pursuant to Title V of SMCRA. The 2006
    Amendments clarified the scope of what the State Share funds could be
    used for and reaffirmed the promise made by Congress in 1977.
        If a State or tribe was successful in completing reclamation of
    abandoned coal mines and was able to ``certify'' under Section 411 of
    SMCRA,\1\ then the State Share funds could be used to address a myriad
    of other abandoned mine issues as authorized by SMCRA and as further
    defined under each State's or tribe's Abandoned Mine Reclamation Plan,
    each of which is approved by OSM. Like all abandoned mine reclamation,
    the work of certified States and tribes eliminates health and safety
    problems, cleans up the environment, and creates jobs in rural areas
    impacted by mining. In this regard, the certified States and tribes
    have been good stewards of the AML funds they receive, especially with
    regard to addressing dangerous non-coal mines.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ While a certified State or tribe confirms at the time of
    certification that it has completed all of the coal sites on its
    current inventory, the certification contemplates that new, formerly
    unidentified high priority coal AML sites may occur in the future and
    the State/tribe commits to addressing these sites immediately. All AML
    States and tribes, including those that are certified, have identified
    additional previously unknown high priority coal sites as a result of
    on-going field investigations, new information and features that have
    been expressed to the surface. The State of Montana alone spent $8.5
    million on coal projects (80 percent of the annual grant) in fiscal
    year 2014.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The legislative proposal to eliminate funding for certified State
    and tribal AML grants not only breaks the promise of State and Tribal
    Share funding, but upsets the balance and compromise that was achieved
    in the comprehensive restructuring of SMCRA accomplished by the 2006
    Amendments following more than 10 years of discussion and negotiation
    by all affected parties. The funding reduction is inconsistent with the
    administration's stated goals regarding jobs and environmental
    protection. We therefore respectfully ask the subcommittee to support
    continued funding for certified States and tribes at the statutorily
    authorized levels, and turn back any efforts by OSM to amend SMCRA in
    this regard.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ In this regard, we should note that funding to certified States
    and tribes was already capped at $15 million annually pursuant to an
    amendment to SMCRA as part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
    Century Act (Public Law 112-14) in 2012.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        OSM's budget includes several new discretionary funding requests
    related to the AML program under Title IV of SMCRA. The first would
    provide funding and additional FTE's to evaluate AML program
    implementation, including ``identifying more effective and efficient
    tools for AML site identification, contract management and program
    oversight''. Part of this funding will be used to review the current
    projects in the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (AMLIS) given the
    date when they were originally entered into AMLIS. While we see this as
    a potentially useful exercise, especially as we look toward
    reauthorization of the program prior the expiration of fee collection
    authority in 2021, we believe it is critical that OSM coordinate any
    such efforts with State AML program managers given that much of the
    inventory data and information resides with the States (and can often
    be updated more effectively by syncing AMLIS with State AML inventories
    which are generally more up to date and accurate). A portion of this
    increased funding is also targeted at program oversight. Frankly, we
    are unaware of any significant problems with the States' and tribes'
    administration of their respective AML programs and therefore believe
    OSM should spend this funding on more useful and productive initiatives
    related to overall program improvements. For instance, we believe the
    proposed increase in funding for applied science projects related to
    AML work is justified.
        One of the more effective mechanisms for accomplishing AML
    restoration work is through leveraging or matching other grant
    programs, such as EPA's 319 program. In fiscal year 2014, language was
    included in OSM's appropriation that encouraged the use of these types
    of matching funds, particularly for the purpose of environmental
    restoration related to treatment or abatement of acid mine drainage
    (AMD) from abandoned mines. This is an ongoing, and often expensive,
    problem, especially in Appalachia. NAAMLP therefore requests that the
    subcommittee once again include language in the fiscal year 2016
    appropriations bill that would allow the use of AML funds for any non-
    Federal cost-share required by the Federal Government for AMD
    abatement.
        We also urge the subcommittee to support increased funding for
    OSM's training program and TIPS, including moneys for State/tribal
    travel. These programs are central to the effective implementation of
    State and tribal AML programs as they provide necessary training and
    continuing education for State/tribal agency personnel, as well as
    critical technical assistance. We also strongly support funding for the
    Watershed Cooperative Agreements in the amount of $1.5 million because
    it facilitates and enhances State and local partnerships by providing
    direct financial assistance to watershed organizations for acid mine
    drainage remediation.
        Among the legislative proposals contained in OSM's proposed budget,
    two deserve special attention. The first is a proposal to ``Revitalize
    Communities Impacted by Abandoned Mine Lands,'' which would be
    accomplished by dispersing $1 billion from the AML Fund over 5 years
    for the purpose of reclamation that ``facilitates sustainable
    revitalization.'' While the States are supportive of the spirit of this
    proposal and have in fact designed many projects around these types of
    purposes using local contractors whenever the opportunities and
    partnerships exist, we cannot support a programmatic change of this
    magnitude without a better understanding of the specifics of how it
    will be implemented. The success of such an endeavor, as well as the
    States' support for it, is highly dependent on robust consultation
    between OSM and State AML program managers. At this juncture, the
    States are concerned that the proposal could have negative
    ramifications for the overall remediation of AML hazards and thus
    public health and safety. Additionally, such projects rely on a
    combination of partnerships, infrastructure and other factors to
    sustain them into the future once the AML reclamation is completed.
    Depending on how the proposal is implemented, the addition of
    ``economic eligibility factors'' to existing site selection criteria
    could potentially divert some amount of funding away from the highest
    priority AML sites. In this regard, it should be kept in mind that the
    $1 billion of AML Fund money which would be repurposed by the proposal
    is already slated for dispersal to the States under the allocation
    system and site prioritization method ordained by Congress in the 2006
    amendments to SMCRA--and primarily for remaining high priority AML
    projects.
        With respect to this legislative proposal and as a further
    expansion of it, OSM has proposed a new discretionary funding amount of
    $2 million to support ``OSM technical assistance to States and
    communities to plan coordinated reclamation projects of abandoned coal
    mines and mine drainage, as well as area-wide planning to help target
    reclamation projects that facilitate beneficial post-reclamation land
    use and sustainable revitalization in economically depressed coalfield
    communities''. While this funding justification gives us a bit more of
    the picture about the $1 billion Power Plus proposal, it still leaves
    many of our questions unanswered and as such we are uncertain of
    exactly how OSM intends to actually spend this money. To the extent
    that it can used to accelerate the completion of priority projects on
    AMLIS and create jobs, we believe we can work cooperatively with OSM to
    make that happen given the current structure of the AML program under
    Title IV. To the extent it expands into untested waters that require
    adjustments to the current statutory mandates, we must be more
    circumspect in our support, as noted above. Until we learn more about
    how AML moneys can appropriately be spent to ``help diversify the
    economy of coal country'' without impinging on mandated high priority
    reclamation, the jury is still out on the proposal's feasibility and
    legality.
        OSM's budget proposal also includes a legislative proposal that
    would require a massive transfer of $363.4 million from the Treasury to
    various components of the UMWA Health and Retirement Funds. The States
    recognize the importance of this issue and are supportive of efforts to
    ensure the long-term solvency of the UMWA Pension Funds. However, the
    States believe that this issue should be pursued as part of a more
    comprehensive AML reauthorization package given the overall
    implications for the AML program. In this regard, the States are
    concerned that this significant dispersal of Treasury funds would
    trigger the application of the $490 million cap on transfers from the
    Treasury vis-a-vis mandatory Treasury payments to the States for AML
    work. An analysis of OSM's proposed budget demonstrates that the
    combination of this transfer to the UMWA Funds along with the mandatory
    AML program transfers to States, including funding for certified States
    and tribes that we request be continued, would exceed the $490 million
    cap.
        With regard to the proposal contained in OSM's budget to establish
    a hardrock AML program, the States and tribes are well aware of the
    need to address historic hardrock AML problem areas, which initially
    began with the inclusion of Section 409 of SMCRA in 1977. There is
    clearly a need to establish both the funding mechanism and the
    administrative program to address these legacy sites. We believe that
    OSM is in the best position to administer this program, given its 35
    years of experience in operating the Title IV program under SMCRA. Our
    only concern is that, while on the one hand OSM is advocating for the
    establishment of a hardrock AML program, it is also pushing for the
    elimination of funding for certified States and tribes to accomplish
    this very same type of work. Granted, OSM's position is based on its
    belief that SMCRA funding should be restricted to high priority coal
    problems only. However, Congress clearly felt differently from the
    outset of SMCRA's formation and, while there have been many recent
    opportunities to adjust its views and amend SMCRA accordingly, Congress
    has chosen not to do so. To the contrary, Congress has adopted
    legislation that would clarify the use of SMCRA AML funds to address
    noncoal problems. Nonetheless, we would welcome an opportunity to work
    closely with OSM if such a program is developed in examining the
    potential for a hardrock AML program, wherever it may reside and
    however it may be constituted.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement regarding
    OSM's proposed budget for fiscal year 2016.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
        On behalf of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
    (NACAA), thank you for this opportunity to testify on the fiscal year
    2016 proposed budget for the United States Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA), particularly grants to State and local air pollution
    control agencies under sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act, which
    are part of the State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) program.
    Specifically, NACAA supports the President's request for an increase of
    $40 million over fiscal year 2015 levels, for a total of $268.2 million
    for State and local air quality grants; recommends that State and local
    air pollution control agencies be provided with the flexibility to
    determine how best to use any additional resources, including the $40
    million; and requests that grant funds for fine particulate matter
    monitoring remain under section 103 authority, rather than being
    shifted to section 105 authority, as EPA is proposing.
        NACAA is a national, non-partisan, non-profit association of air
    pollution control agencies in 41 States, the District of Columbia, four
    territories and 116 metropolitan areas. The members of NACAA have the
    primary responsibility under the Clean Air Act for implementing our
    Nation's clean air program. The air quality professionals in our member
    agencies have vast experience dedicated to improving air quality in the
    United States. These observations and recommendations are based upon
    that experience. The views expressed in this testimony do not
    necessarily represent the positions of every State and local air
    pollution control agency in the country.
           air pollution remains a significant threat to human health
        While great strides have been made in addressing air pollution, and
    the Clean Air Act's programs have been extremely successful in
    providing significant health and welfare benefits throughout our
    country, there is still a lot of work to be done. According to EPA,
    ``[e]ven with this progress, in 2012 approximately 45 percent of the
    U.S. population lived in counties with air that did not meet health-
    based standards for at least one pollutant.'' \1\ Additionally, EPA's
    latest National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) data showed that everyone
    living in the United States had an increased cancer risk of over 10 in
    one million (one in one million is generally considered ``acceptable'')
    in 2005, due to exposure to the hazardous air pollutants included in
    EPA's analysis.\2\ Finally, global warming and climate change are
    expected to cause a host of problems, including rising sea levels,
    changing weather patterns and increases in diseases and other problems
    that threaten human health and the environment.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Fiscal Year 2016 EPA Budget in Brief (February 2015), page 14.
        \2\ National Air Toxics Assessment for 2005--Fact Sheet (February
    17, 2011), http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
        \3\ Fiscal Year 2016 EPA Budget in Brief (February 2015), page 13.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While this subcommittee addresses many critically important
    problems, it is unlikely that any pose more of a threat to public
    health than air pollution. In fact, tens of thousands of people die
    prematurely each year \4\ and many others suffer serious health
    problems as a result of exposure to air pollution. These include, among
    other things, premature mortality; cancer; and cardiovascular,
    respiratory, neurological and reproductive damage.\5\ This subcommittee
    has the opportunity to help address these serious public health and
    welfare problems by providing additional Federal funding to assist
    State and local air agencies in their efforts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ http://epa.gov/ncer/science/pm/.
        \5\ Fiscal Year 2014-2018 EPA Strategic Plan (April 10, 2014), page
    8.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    state and local programs need significant increases for continuing and
                                  new programs
        For many years, State and local air pollution control agencies have
    struggled with insufficient resources. A NACAA study revealed an annual
    shortfall of $550 million in Federal grants for State and local air
    programs,\6\ which has caused our agencies to make difficult choices to
    cut air pollution programs that are important for public health and/or
    eliminate staff. Due to these economic hardships, States and localities
    increasingly rely on Federal grants provided by the Clean Air Act.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Investing in Clean Air and Public Health: A Needs Survey of
    State and Local Air Pollution Control Agencies, (April 2009), NACAA,
    www.4cleanair.org/Documents/reportneedssurvey042709.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While section 105 of the Clean Air Act authorizes the Federal
    Government to provide grants for up to 60 percent of the cost of State
    and local air programs and calls for States and localities to provide a
    40-percent match, in reality, State and local air agencies provide over
    three-fourths of their budgets (not including permit fees under the
    Federal title V program). To make matters worse, the purchasing power
    of Federal grants has decreased by nearly 16 percent over the past 14
    years due to inflation, during which time State and local
    responsibilities have expanded almost exponentially.
        We recognize that Congress must support many programs and that
    providing full funding for any one effort is probably impossible.
    Therefore, although it is not enough to fund all of our
    responsibilities, NACAA appreciates and supports the administration's
    proposed $40-million increase and hopes that Congress will provide that
    level of funding. Federal funding for State and local air programs--
    both continuing grants and the requested increase--would provide
    resources for a host of essential activities, such as our ongoing core
    programs and new efforts, including obligations under the Clean Power
    Plan.
    Core Program Funding
        State and local air quality agencies are continuously required to
    implement many essential programmatic responsibilities to obtain and
    maintain healthful air quality. These include not only new efforts, but
    also ongoing activities that constitute the ``core'' of our clean air
    activities and the day-to-day responsibilities that are the foundation
    of our programs. Just to list a few examples, in fiscal year 2016,
    States must: develop and/or make revisions to their State
    Implementation Plans (SIPs) for each of the health-based national
    ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)--especially the ozone and
    PM2.5 (fine particles) standards; continue implementing new
    and updated Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) air toxics
    standards; address regional haze problems; implement motor vehicle and
    related fuels programs; etc. All of these tasks call for a variety of
    activities that are resource- and labor-intensive. These include, among
    other things, planning; compiling comprehensive emission inventories;
    carrying out complex modeling; analyzing extensive data; expanding and
    operating monitoring networks; adopting regulations; inspecting
    facilities and enforcing regulations, as necessary; addressing
    complicated transport issues; issuing minor source permits; and
    informing and involving the public in air quality decisions and issues.
    Clean Power Plan Funding
        In June 2014, EPA proposed the Clean Power Plan, which is a
    regulation under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act designed to reduce
    emissions of greenhouse gas emissions from existing electric utility
    power plants. It is expected to be issued as a final regulation this
    summer. Regardless of one's opinions about the need for climate change
    measures, the fact is that State and local air quality agencies are now
    expected to begin developing State plans and carrying out other
    activities to comply with the requirements that will shortly be in
    place. Likewise, even though these regulations will be litigated, in
    the meantime the requirements for State and local air agencies to move
    ahead with the program will remain in force and require significant
    resources.
        Among the many activities State and local air agencies must
    undertake to comply with these regulations are the development and
    submission of State plans to meet the section 111(d) requirements.
    According to EPA, these tasks include: ``compile and assess information
    about energy and emissions; establish approaches to evaluating,
    measuring, and verifying plans for energy savings across environmental
    agencies and energy regulators, hold public meetings and conduct
    outreach with interested parties, and prepare and submit State plans.''
    \7\ Additionally, agencies will need to conduct modeling, technical
    analysis and training. The activities will be in addition to the tasks
    State and local air agencies are already performing to comply with
    other requirements of the Clean Air Act and will call for additional
    resources.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Draft OAR National Program Manager Guidance, fiscal years 2016-
    2017 (February 23, 2015).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           nacaa recommends flexibility in the use of grant increases
        As stated above, the proposed budget calls for an increase of $40
    million in State and local air pollution control grants. The proposed
    budget would divide the increase into $25 million to implement the
    Clean Power Plan under section 111(d) and $15 million for other
    continuing State and local air quality activities. While State and
    local air agencies do need additional funds to implement the Clean
    Power Plan, we are also in need of significant increases to operate our
    essential core programs. In fact, State and local air pollution control
    agencies would need amounts far greater than the $40-million proposed
    increase whether or not the Clean Power Plan were in effect in fiscal
    year 2016. Accordingly, we request that Congress provide the $40-
    million increase but also allow full flexibility for State and local
    air agencies to use the additional funds for the highest priority
    activities in their areas. This could include the Clean Power Plan and/
    or other essential elements of State and local air quality programs,
    such as the core program activities noted above.
      nacaa recommends that authority for monitoring grants remain under
                                  section 103
        EPA has proposed again this year to begin shifting funds for
    PM2.5 monitoring from section 103 authority, where no State
    or local matching funds are needed, to section 105, which would require
    additional matching funds. We recommend that the funds remain under
    section 103 authority. For individual agencies that have concerns about
    the matching requirements, this will ensure that they do not have to
    refuse essential monitoring funds because they do not have the
    resources to provide the required match. In past years, Congress has
    been very responsive to our requests on this issue, for which we are
    very grateful, and we recommend that Congress again call for these
    grants to be provided under section 103 authority.
           nacaa supports diesel emission reduction act (dera) funds
        NACAA is pleased that the proposed budget includes funding for the
    Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) program ($10 million). This is an
    important program to address emissions from the large legacy fleet of
    diesel engines. We appreciate that the budget request did not fund DERA
    at the expense of the section 103/105 grants and we strongly urge that
    any future funding for DERA not be in lieu of increases to State and
    local air grants. Additionally, since many of the DERA funds are not
    provided to State and local governments, we recommend that future DERA
    activities not be funded through the STAG account. Instead, we suggest
    that the grants be provided through one of EPA's other accounts.
      nacaa supports resources for additional state and local clean power
                                   activities
        NACAA supports the recommended $4-billion Clean Power State
    Incentive Fund contained in the request because it will provide
    significant support for States and localities to achieve reductions in
    greenhouse gas emissions related to the Clean Power Plan.
                                   conclusion
        NACAA supports the administration's proposed increase of $40
    million for grants to State and local air pollution control agencies
    under sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act for fiscal year 2016,
    for a total of $268.2 million. We recommend that these increases be
    provided to State and local air agencies with full flexibility to be
    used for the programs that are the highest clean air priorities in each
    area, rather than being earmarked for specific programs, such as EPA's
    Clean Power Plan. We further request that grants for PM2.5
    monitoring remain under section 103 authority, rather than being
    shifted to section 105 authority.
        Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this important issue
    and for your consideration of the funding needs of State and local air
    quality programs.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
                                   Officials
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the
    subcommittee, I am David Terry, Executive Director of the National
    Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO), which represents the 56
    State and Territory Energy Offices. NASEO is submitting this testimony
    in support of funding for the ENERGY STAR program (within the Climate
    Protection Partnership Division of the Office of Air and Radiation) at
    the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NASEO supports funding
    of at least $55 million, including specific report language directing
    that the funds be utilized only for the ENERGY STAR program. The ENERGY
    STAR program is successful, voluntary, and cost-effective. With
    increasing electricity prices and volatile natural gas markets, ENERGY
    STAR helps consumers and businesses control expenditures over the long
    term. The program is strongly supported by product manufacturers, and
    ENERGY STAR leverages the States' efficiency actions. Voluntary ENERGY
    STAR activities are occurring, in conjunction with many States
    including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
    Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,
    Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
    Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
    Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
    Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
    Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
        The ENERGY STAR program is focused on voluntary efforts that reduce
    the use of energy, promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy, and
    works with States, local governments, and business to achieve these
    goals in a cooperative, public-private manner. NASEO has worked very
    closely with EPA and approximately 40 States are ENERGY STAR Partners.
    With very limited funding, EPA's ENERGY STAR program works closely with
    the State Energy Offices to give consumers and businesses the
    opportunity to make better energy decisions and catalyzes product
    efficiency improvements by manufacturers without regulation or
    mandates.
        ENERGY STAR focuses on energy efficient products as well as
    buildings (e.g., residential, commercial, and industrial). In 2013,
    nearly 300 million ENERGY STAR products were purchased across more than
    70 product categories. The ENERGY STAR label is recognized across the
    United States. It makes the work of the State Energy Offices much
    easier, by working with the public on easily recognized products,
    services, and targets. In order to obtain the ENERGY STAR label a
    product has to meet established guidelines. ENERGY STAR's voluntary
    partnership programs include ENERGY STAR Buildings, ENERGY STAR Homes,
    ENERGY STAR Small Business, and ENERGY STAR Labeled Products. The
    program operates by encouraging consumers and working closely with
    State and local governments to purchase these products and services.
    Marketplace barriers are also eradicated through education. State
    Energy Offices are working with EPA to promote ENERGY STAR products,
    ENERGY STAR for new construction, ENERGY STAR for public housing, etc.
    A successful example of how State Energy Offices are leveraging this
    key national program is the Nebraska Energy Office, which since 2005,
    has utilized ENERGY STAR as the standard for certifying home and office
    electronics that are eligible under the State's successful and long-
    running Dollar and Energy Savings Loan program.
        In addition to the State partners, the program has over 16,000
    voluntary partners including over 2,000 manufacturers using the label,
    more than 1,000 retail partners, more than 5,000 builder partners,
    4,500 businesses, 550 utilities and thousands of energy service
    providers. The Home Performance with ENERGY STAR activity allows us to
    focus on whole-house improvements, not simply a single product or
    service. This is extremely beneficial to homeowners. Over 30 States,
    including Alabama, California, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada, and New
    Jersey, operate or support the Home Performance with ENERGY STAR
    programs. The New York and Illinois energy offices were recently
    honored with Partner of the Year awards by the program. We are also
    working closely with EPA to support the ENERGY STAR Challenge, which
    encourages commercial and industrial building owners to voluntarily
    reduce energy use by 10 percent or more within 5 years or less, usually
    through very simple actions.
        The State Energy Offices are very encouraged with progress made at
    EPA and in our States to promote programs to make schools more energy
    efficient, in addition to an expanding ENERGY STAR Business Partners
    program. In Kentucky, the State has partnered with school districts and
    engineering firms to advance ENERGY STAR rated schools, resulting in
    more than 250 ENERGY STAR rated schools in the State, a 400 percent
    increase since 2010. Over the past few years, Kentucky has moved
    aggressively to promote zero-net energy schools. Other States that have
    over 100 ENERGY STAR rated schools include Alabama, Arizona,
    California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
    Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
    Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.
        EPA has been increasing the technical assistance work with the
    State Energy Offices in such areas as ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager
    (how to rate the performance of buildings), setting an energy target,
    and financing options for building improvements and building upgrade
    strategies. ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager is used extensively by State
    Energy Offices to benchmark performance of State and municipal
    buildings, saving taxpayer dollars. Nearly 40 percent of the country's
    commercial building space uses Portfolio Manager to measure, track,
    assess, and report energy and water consumption.
        The State Energy Offices are working cooperatively with our peers
    in the State environmental agencies and State public utilities
    commissions to ensure that programs, regulations, projects and policies
    are developed recognizing both energy and environmental concerns. We
    have worked closely with this program at EPA to address these issues.
    We encourage these continued efforts.
                                   conclusion
        The ENERGY STAR program saves consumers billions of dollars every
    year. The payback is enormous. NASEO supports robust program funding in
    fiscal year 2016. Funding for the ENERGY STAR program is justified.
    NASEO endorses these activities and the State Energy Offices are
    working very closely with EPA to cooperatively implement a variety of
    critical national programs without mandates.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Foresters
        The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) appreciates the
    opportunity to submit written public testimony to the Senate Committee
    on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies regarding our fiscal year 2016 appropriations recommendations.
    Our priorities focus primarily on appropriations for the USDA Forest
    Service (Forest Service) State and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs.
        State foresters deliver technical and financial assistance, along
    with forest health, water and wildfire protection for more than two-
    thirds of the Nation's 751 million acres of forests. The Forest Service
    S&PF mission area provides vital support to deliver these services,
    which contribute to the socioeconomic and environmental health of rural
    and urban areas. The comprehensive process for delivering these
    services is articulated in each State's Forest Resource Assessment and
    Strategy (Forest Action Plan), authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill and
    continued in the Agriculture Act of 2014. S&PF programs provide a
    significant return on the Federal investment by leveraging the boots-
    on-the-ground and financial resources of State agencies to deliver
    assistance to forest landowners, tribes, and communities. As Federal
    and State governments continue to face financial challenges, State
    foresters, in partnership with the S&PF mission area of the Forest
    Service, are best positioned to maximize effectiveness of available
    resources by focusing work on priority forest issues where resources
    are needed most.
        Your support of the following programs is critical to helping
    States address the many and varied challenges outlined in Forest Action
    Plans.
                         wildland fire and forest fuels
        Wildland Fire Funding.--A relatively light fire season in several
    geographic areas meant that no transfers from non-fire programs to fire
    suppression were required in fiscal year 2014 at the Forest Service or
    the Department of the Interior. Nonetheless, the Forest Service was
    still forced to prepare for transfers, which meant stopping ongoing
    work in the field and halting new contracts. These actions frustrate
    and delay on-the-ground management that is critical to the prevention
    and mitigation of future wildfire. We ask for your continued support of
    the long-term solution to stop future transfers through the bi-partisan
    Wildfire Disaster Funding Act.
        State Fire Assistance.--More people living in fire-prone
    landscapes, high fuel loads, drought, and unhealthy landscapes are
    among the factors that led most State foresters to identify wildland
    fire as a priority issue in their Forest Action Plans. We now grapple
    with increasingly expensive and complex wildland fires--fires that
    frequently threaten human life and property. In 2014, more than 63,600
    wildland fires burned nearly 3.6 million acres.\1\ State and local
    agencies respond to the majority of wildfires across the country; in
    2014 State and local agencies were responsible for responding to 50,799
    (80 percent) of 63,612 reported wildfires across all jurisdictions.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ National Interagency Fire Center, Historical Wildland Fire
    Summaries, pg. 9. Last accessed Feb. 24, 2015 at http://
    www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2014_Statssumm/
    2014Stats&Summ.html.
        \2\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State Fire Assistance (SFA) is the fundamental Federal mechanism
    for assisting States and local fire departments in responding to
    wildland fires and in conducting management activities that mitigate
    fire risk on non-Federal lands. SFA also helps train and equip local
    first responders who are often first to arrive at a wildland fire
    incident and who play a crucial role in keeping fires and their costs
    as small as possible. A small investment of SFA funds supports State
    forestry agencies in accessing and repurposing equipment from the
    Federal Excess Personal Property and the Firefighter Property programs.
    Between 2008 and 2012 these two programs have delivered more than $150
    million annually in equipment for use by State and local first
    responders.
        The Fiscal Year 2016 Forest Service Budget Justification highlights
    a successful wildfire mitigation project in Colorado where a $300,000
    investment before the Waldo Canyon fire helped protect the community
    and avoid more than $77 million in additional losses from that
    destructive wildfire. By directing resources to actions that help
    reduce the number of large wildland fires--including prevention
    education, preparedness activities, and fuels mitigation--the SFA
    program directly addresses concerns over rising wildland fire
    suppression costs while also reducing wildland fire risk to
    communities.
        In fiscal year 2014, SFA directly funded hazardous fuel treatments
    on 111,002 acres (with another 120,241 acres treated with leveraged
    funding) and provided assistance to communities around the country,
    supporting 3,117 risk assessment and fire management planning projects
    and 9,972 prevention and education programs.\3\ NASF supports funding
    the State Fire Assistance program at $86 million in fiscal year 2016.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ USDA Forest Service Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Justification at
    pg. 270.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        forest pests and invasive plants
        Also among the greatest threats identified in the Forest Action
    Plans are native and non-native pests and diseases. These pests and
    diseases have the potential to displace native trees, shrubs and other
    vegetation types in forests; the Forest Service estimates that hundreds
    of native and nonnative insects and diseases damage the Nation's
    forests each year. The growing number of damaging pests and diseases
    are often introduced and spread by way of wooden shipping materials,
    movement of firewood, and through various types of recreation. In 2010,
    approximately 6.4 million acres suffered mortality from insects and
    diseases \4\ and there is an estimated 81.3 million acres at risk of
    attack by insects and disease over the next 15 years.\5\ These losses
    threaten clean and abundant water availability, wildlife habitat, clean
    air, and other environmental services. Further, extensive areas of high
    insect or disease mortality can set the stage for large-scale,
    catastrophic wildfire.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Man, Gary. 2011. Major Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in
    the United States: 2010 Update. Last accessed on March, 5, 2015 at:
    http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/
    ConditionsReport_2011.pdf.
        \5\ Tkacz, Bory, et al. 2014. NIDRM 2012 Report Files: Executive
    Summary. Last accessed on March, 5, 2015 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/
    foresthealth/technology/pdfs/2012_RiskMap_
    Exec_summary.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Cooperative Forest Health Management program supports
    activities related to prevention, monitoring, suppression, and
    eradication of insects, diseases, and plants through provision of
    technical and financial assistance to States and territories to
    maintain healthy, productive forest ecosystems on non-Federal forest
    lands. The Cooperative Forest Health Management program plays a
    critical part in protecting communities already facing outbreaks and in
    preventing exposure of more forests and trees to the devastating and
    costly effects of exotic and invasive pests and pathogens. NASF
    supports funding the Forest Health--Cooperative Lands Program at $48
    million in fiscal year 2016.
    assisting landowners and maintaining working forest landscapes--forest
                              stewardship program
        Working forest landscapes are a key part of the rural landscape,
    providing an estimated 900,000 jobs, clean water, wood products, and
    other essential services to millions of Americans. Private forests make
    up two-thirds of all the forestland in the United States and support an
    average of eight jobs per 1,000 acres.\6\ However, The Forest Service
    estimates that 57 million acres of private forests in the U.S. are at
    risk of conversion to urban development over the next two decades.
    Programs like the Forest Stewardship Program and Forest Legacy Program
    are key tools identified in the Forest Action Plans for keeping working
    forests intact and for providing a full suite of benefits to society.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Forest2Market. The Economic Impact of Privately-Owned Forests.
    2009.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) is the most extensive family
    forest-owner assistance program in the country. Management assistance
    is delivered in cooperation with State forestry agencies through
    technical assistance services and the development and implementation of
    Forest Stewardship Plans. The program works to ensure that private
    landowners have the best information to help them manage their land for
    wildlife, recreation, aesthetics, timber production, and many other
    goals. In fiscal year 2014, nearly 26 million acres of private forest
    lands across the Nation were managed under Forest Stewardship Plans,
    and FSP supported direct outreach to roughly 424,000 landowners.\7\ The
    technical assistance provided through FSP is a gateway to other
    effective USDA, State, and private sector programs designed to help
    keep working forests intact. For instance, the FSP enables landowners
    to participate in USDA programs including the Forest Legacy Program and
    Environmental Quality Incentives Program. NASF supports funding the
    Forest Stewardship Program at $29 million in fiscal year 2016.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ USDA Forest Service Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Justification at
    pg. 103.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                urban and community forest management challenges
        Urban forests are important to achieving energy savings, improved
    air quality, neighborhood stability, aesthetic value, reduced noise,
    and improved quality of life in municipalities and communities around
    the country. Urban trees and forests provide a wide array of social,
    economic, and environmental benefits to people living in urban areas;
    today, more than 83 percent of the Nation's population lives in urban
    areas.\8\ Yet, urban and community forests face serious threats, such
    as development and urbanization, invasive pests and diseases, and fire
    in the wildland urban interface (WUI).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Id. At 119.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Since its expansion under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act
    of 1990 (CFAA), the Forest Service's Urban and Community Forestry
    (U&CF) program has provided technical and financial assistance to
    promote stewardship of urban forests in communities of all sizes across
    the country. The program is delivered in close partnership with State
    foresters and leverages existing local efforts that have helped
    thousands of communities and towns manage, maintain, and improve their
    tree cover and green spaces. In fiscal year 2014, the U&CF program
    delivered technical, financial, educational, and research assistance to
    7,100 communities across all 50 States, the District of Columbia, U.S.
    territories and affiliated Pacific Island nations. NASF supports
    funding the Urban and Community Forestry program at $31 million in
    fiscal year 2016.
        importance of forest inventory data in monitoring forest issues
        The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program, managed by Forest
    Service, Forest and Rangeland Research, is the only comprehensive
    inventory system in the United States for assessing the health and
    sustainability of the Nation's forests across all ownerships. FIA
    provides essential data related to forest species composition, forest
    growth rates, and forest health data, and it delivers baseline
    inventory estimates used in Forest Action Plans. Further, this data is
    used by academics, researchers, industry, and others to understand
    forest trends and support investments in forest products facilities
    that provide jobs and products to society. The program provides
    unbiased information used in monitoring of wildlife habitat, wildfire
    risk, insect and disease threats, invasive species spread, and response
    to priorities identified in the Forest Action Plans.
        As the key partner in FIA program delivery via State contribution
    of matching funds, State foresters look forward to carefully reviewing
    the FIA Strategic Plan--called for in the 2014 Farm Bill--and to
    working with the Forest Service to improve efficiency in delivery of
    the program to meet the needs of the diverse user groups for FIA data.
    NASF supports funding the Forest Inventory and Analysis program at $83
    million in fiscal year 2016 and $220 million for other Research and
    Development programs. NASF supports an increased investment in FIA with
    the understanding that it will, at minimum, return to pre-fiscal year
    2014 re-measurement cycles.
                          landscape scale restoration
        State foresters look forward to working with members of the
    subcommittee and the Forest Service to make sure that, through the
    Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) program, we prioritize funds and
    resources to maximize return on investments to conserve, protect, and
    enhance our Nation's forests. The LSR line item codifies the
    competitive allocation of Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act (CFAA)
    funds which began under direction from the 2008 Farm Bill--but State
    foresters believe that LSR can and should do more.
        In the Fiscal Year 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act Conference
    Report, the subcommittee directed the Forest Service to develop a
    process allowing State foresters flexibility, with appropriate
    accountability, to reallocate a percentage of authorizations for CFAA
    programs to address State priorities consistent with Forest Action
    Plans. NASF has worked closely with the Forest Service to explore how
    States could utilize funding flexibility to meet their own unique and
    changing needs; however issues around the need to request reprogramming
    of funds has been a barrier to implementing funding flexibility. State
    foresters believe that LSR provides an opportunity to demonstrate the
    value of providing States flexibility to meet unique needs through the
    allocation of their CFAA funds. Such a model would include continued
    funding for the competitive allocation of CFAA funds with the addition
    of an allocation to States to enhance implementation of each Forest
    Action Plan.
        NASF supports funding the Landscape Scale Restoration program at
    $23.5 million in fiscal year 2016. NASF would also like to work with
    the subcommittee to direct that a portion of LSR funds be made
    available to State forestry agencies, based on overall percentage of
    CFAA funds received, to further implement State Forest Action Plans.
        NASF appreciates the opportunity to share our fiscal year 2016
    appropriations recommendations for the USDA Forest Service with the
    subcommittee.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Outdoor
                          Recreation Liaison Officers
        Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:

        The National Association of State Outdoor Recreation Liaison
    Officers (NASORLO) members are gubernatorial appointed officials and
    the primary administrators of the State Assistance Program of the LWCF
    in each of the 56 States and Territories that receive LWCF
    appropriations. We are writing to you to ask your support for the
    fiscal year 2016 funding of LWCF and for restoration of fair and
    equitable funding between the State and Federal uses of this program.
        In the 50 year history of this program, the portion of LWCF funds
    dedicated for State and local grants, when matched as required by the
    LWCF Act, have resulted in parks and outdoor recreation facilities in
    every State and nearly every city or town in America. We are concerned
    that the intent of LWCF to provide close to home outdoor recreation
    opportunities for our citizens has been hampered in recent years. The
    original act dedicated 60 percent of the program for State Assistance
    grants. Over the years various changes have been made to the Act and in
    the appropriations process which have reduced the percentage for State
    grants. In this year's Executive Budget only 13.1 percent is proposed
    for State Assistance grants. We request that in this year's
    appropriation process you seek to return the State share of the program
    back to a more equitable split between State and Federal uses.
        Even though State agencies and communities have been trying to
    address infrastructure upgrades, meet new health and safety
    requirements and address changing population trends, we still have
    significant needs for a restoration of LWCF grants to previous levels.
    In addition to addressing these issues and providing outdoor recreation
    benefits to our residents, the economic impact of the construction,
    development, attendance and sales of equipment generated by these local
    projects is a significant incentive for local jobs creation. These
    impacts are especially significant, when you double the value of the
    project due to the matching requirement of LWCF.
        NASORLO respectfully requests your support for adequate and
    equitable funding for the State Assistance Program of the LWCF in
    fiscal year 2016. Any action you can take in this regard would
    certainly be appreciated.
        NASORLO is an organization of appointed State and Territorial
    officials working to provide outdoor recreation by investing proceeds
    from the LWCF State assistance program in State and local projects.

        [This statement was submitted by Tim Hogsett, President.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association
        Dear Chairman Murkowski:

        The Public Lands Council (PLC) represents an industry consisting of
    more than 22,000 public lands ranchers across the West, many of whom
    are members of PLC affiliates at both the State and national level. Our
    national affiliates include the National Cattlemen's Beef Association
    (NCBA), the American Sheep Industry Association and the Association of
    National Grasslands.
        Initiated in 1898, NCBA is the marketing organization and trade
    association for America's cattle farmers and ranchers. NCBA is a
    consumer-focused, producer-directed organization representing the
    largest segment of the Nation's food and fiber industry. NCBA
    represents 170,000 of America's farmers, ranchers and cattlemen who
    provide much of the Nation's supply of food and are proud of their
    tradition as stewards and conservators of America's land.
        On behalf of our affiliates and members, we request that the Senate
    Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies make funds available for the accounts indicated below and
    provide regulatory relief and efficiencies through the fiscal year 2016
    appropriations bill. There are many important provisions that have been
    included in past Interior and Environment appropriations bills which
    our industry strongly supports and request the following provisions be
    continued and/or included in the fiscal year 2016 bill. Please find,
    listed in the appendix, a comprehensive summary of our requests.
        We would like to start off by thanking the subcommittee for your
    recognition, through level funding of the range management programs in
    the Fiscal Year 2015 Omnibus Appropriations Act, of the importance of
    livestock grazing both to the management of our Nation's Federal lands
    and to rural economies in the West. Additionally, thank you for
    recognizing the importance of reducing the regulatory burdens stemming
    from Federal agencies that continue to hamper the productivity and
    stability of our Nation's ranchers. Moving in to the final years of a
    two-term administration is proving to show the negative impacts of
    unchecked regulation and continued abuse of the legal system for
    driving anti-multiple use agendas through the courts via outdated
    environmental laws--we urge Congress to provide relief to the livestock
    industry through the following requests.
    Land Management BLM and USFS
        PLC and NCBA support a stable business climate in which our members
    can run economically viable and sustainable livestock businesses,
    operating on a combination of private and public lands across the west.
    Central to this goal is ensuring the land management agencies have
    sufficient funding to administer their range programs, so that public
    land ranchers may continue assisting them in managing the land and its
    resources. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service
    (USFS) continue to suffer significant setbacks in court because they
    lack the personnel to collect the data needed to support the
    conclusions of their environmental documentation. Without adequate
    funding, the agencies are unable to keep up with their workload, and
    producers face the severe disruption of having their permitted stocking
    rates reduced due to lack of monitoring data. The funding is imperative
    to enable the agencies to carry out a systematic program of range
    monitoring, land health assessments, development and implementation of
    allotment management plans, and adaptive management--including range
    improvements, upon all of which sound stewardship of the public lands
    depends.
        We sincerely appreciate the support Congress has provided to the
    BLM and USFS range programs in the past 3 fiscal years. In the fiscal
    year 2016 discussions we ask that you consider increasing these funding
    levels while also reviewing the line-items to decide whether changes
    can be made to enhance the management of Federal grazing programs. The
    additional resources would continue helping to stem the growing costs
    of administering the grazing programs by preventing the process-based
    lawsuits constantly being brought by special interest groups to achieve
    their goal of ending grazing on public lands.
    Bureau of Land Management
        In recent history, BLM has eliminated hundreds of rangeland
    management specialist positions, contributing to backlogs of
    environmental documentation and monitoring--and the resulting
    environmental litigation. We request that you appropriate funding to
    the BLM Rangeland Management Program above the fiscal year 2015 levels
    and reject the administration's proposal to cut the program by $2.55
    million so that the agency can continue to make longer-term decisions
    regarding staffing in order to break the cycle of backlogged
    documentation and litigation.
    Forest Service
        The agency strives to fully implement National Environmental Policy
    Act (NEPA) decisions on all allotments, which is required by regulation
    and to an extent court precedent. To meet this objective, we
    respectfully request that the grazing program (NFRG) be allocated funds
    similar to the fiscal year 2015 amount and reject the administration's
    proposal to cut the program by $5.65 million. Administering these acres
    for grazing requires both permit administration and land management
    through short and long-term monitoring, as well as compliance with a
    variety of regulatory documents issued under the Endangered Species
    Act, the National Forest Management Act, and other authorities. We
    welcome a discussion on how to better arrange the line-items provided
    in the appropriations bill with regard to forest system land
    management. We remain concerned with the continued proposal by the
    Forest Service to combine many line-items into an ``Integrated Resource
    Restoration'' line-item --to date our industry has not seen results
    from the initial pilot project authorized by Congress. Further,
    including many programs in one vast spending account removes necessary
    congressional oversight of how the USFS is expending tax dollars. There
    continues to be increased costs for NEPA analysis for all uses taking
    place on forest system lands, spread across many accounts--we support
    the creation of a line-item that speaks directly to costs associated
    with NEPA compliance.
        Additionally, we support creation of a range management account and
    an added line-item representing management costs for wild horses and
    burros. Finally it remains imperative that the USFS continues the
    statutory requirements to monitor range and forest conditions in order
    to justify management decisions based on real and current data.
    Grazing Permits and NEPA
        The backlog in processing permits is projected to remain on the
    books for both the BLM and the USFS; we request Congress continue to
    support and make policies available that will help the agencies work
    through this process so that family ranchers are not negatively
    impacted.
        We thank you for extending the statutory language on timing of
    completion of NEPA through fiscal year 2016 to ensure that grazing
    permits remain intact, without disruption, while the agencies work
    through the backlog of grazing permits requiring renewal. Last session
    Congress passed permanent language to require that permits are renewed
    in spite of regulatory backlogs--we commend the appropriators that
    supported this language throughout the years leading up to its
    codification. This language is vital to the agencies in that it allows
    them the flexibility they need to continue managing the resource and
    processing permits.
        We support efforts by Congress to ensure that the agencies are
    making adequate progress on working through the permit processing
    backlog, and that the agencies are using existing statutory authorities
    to complete NEPA on expired grazing permits in both a timely and
    legally appropriate manner.
    Federal Grazing Fee
        Our industry supports the Federal grazing fee put in place by the
    1986 Executive Order requiring adherence to the Public Rangelands
    Improvement Act (PRIA) formula. The formula is based on market criteria
    and accurately reflects the cost of operating on public lands. The fee
    is calculated according to three factors: current private grazing land
    lease rates, beef cattle prices, and the cost of livestock production.
    In effect, the fee rises, falls, or stays the same based on market
    conditions, with livestock operators paying more when conditions are
    better and less when conditions have declined. In order to provide
    stability to the industry, increases and decreases are limited to 25
    percent in a given year. Further the Federal fee is in addition to
    costs associated with operating under extensive Federal regulation and
    red-tape, not something found on State and private land. The fee was
    put in place by Congress to stabilize and benefit the western livestock
    industry through reinvestment in the land and management and was never
    intended to cover administration of the programs which continue to
    divert increasing amounts toward administrative and legal challenges
    brought by radical special interest groups. We strongly urge that you
    reject and block any attempts, including the President's fiscal year
    2016 proposed 148 percent increase, to arbitrarily change the Federal
    grazing fee formula or do so effectively via taxes.
    Sage-Grouse
        Due to a closed-door settlement agreement between the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (USFWS) and radical environmental groups, arbitrary
    deadlines have been set for making hundreds of decisions on species to
    be listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). One of those species
    is the Greater Sage-Grouse, whose habitat covers 11 western States, an
    area where ranchers are currently providing open space and improving
    the bird's habitat. However, rather than embracing the research-backed
    benefits of grazing, the agencies are continuing to make arbitrary
    decisions to cut and reduce livestock grazing on public lands. We
    applaud action by the appropriations committee to include language
    blocking a final decision by the USFWS in fiscal year 2015 and request
    that this language be continued through fiscal year 2016:
                                  sage-grouse
              Sec. 122. None of the funds made available by this or any
            other Act may be used by the Secretary of the Interior to write
            or issue pursuant to section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of
            1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533)--
                      (1) a proposed rule for Greater Sage-Grouse
                    (Centrocerrus urophasianus);
                      (2) a proposed rule for the Columbia basin distinct
                    population segment of Greater Sage-Grouse;
                      (3) a final rule for the bi-State distinct population
                    segment of Greater Sage-Grouse; or
                      (4) a final rule for Gunnison Sage-Grouse
                    (Centrocercia minimus).

        Further, we encourage Congress to provide direction to the agencies
    to defer to State sage-grouse management plans, so that land management
    agencies cannot continue to make decisions negatively impacting
    livestock grazing for an unlisted species. Through regulation the BLM
    and USFS consider sage-grouse a ``sensitive species'' or a species of
    ``conservation concern'' respectively, effectively allowing them to
    manage for a species that is not federally protected as if it were. The
    livestock industry remains very concerned these agencies will
    drastically reduce livestock grazing based on faulty science when
    reputable research shows livestock grazing is one of the only tools
    available to effectively manage for the benefit of sage-grouse.
    Antiquities Act
        Monument designations continue to have deleterious impacts on
    ranchers where grazing is preserved on the areas designated but only if
    other protections are first met. Monument designations overtime reduce
    and remove livestock grazing from the landscape, when often times, the
    very reason a landscape is in a condition that merits consideration for
    designation is due to the management by ranchers. We request inclusion
    of the following in the fiscal year 2016 bill:
                        protecting ranchers on monuments
              The following shall be included in the purpose and as part of
            the protections in any proclamation and/or designation of a
            National Monument made under the Antiquities Act of 1906,
            chapter 3203 of title 54, United States Code, on lands where
            livestock grazing exists--``livestock grazing is compatible
            with the purposes of the designation under this proclamation
            and shall continue, Provided further, That livestock grazing
            shall not be considered secondary to any other listed
            protections.''
    Water Rights
        Our members remain concerned over actions by both the BLM and USFS
    in the recent past regarding attempts to take control of private water
    rights. The agency's, while publically distancing themselves recently,
    in the past have attempted to require the forfeiture of water rights in
    exchange for land use permits on Federal lands something we strongly
    oppose. We request the following language be included in the fiscal
    year 2016 bill:
                           protection of water rights
              None of the funds made available in this or any other Act may
            be used to require or request, as a condition of the issuance,
            renewal, or extension of any Forest Service or Bureau of Land
            Management permit, lease, allotment, easement, or other land
            use and occupancy arrangement, the transfer or relinquishment
            of any water right, in whole or in part, granted under State
            law.
    Department of the Interior Wildlands Order
        We ask that you continue to block funding for implementation of
    Secretarial Order No. 3310, the ``wild lands'' order, which creates de
    facto wilderness and poses a threat to the continued multiple use of
    BLM lands. Language blocking this Order has been in place since it was
    signed by the Secretary and while we support the rider, we request it
    be expanded to block inventory and planning for wilderness character
    under sections 201 and 202 of FLPMA. The administration is using these
    provisions to implement the ``wildiands'' idea in direct conflict with
    the congressional rider. We request the following language be included:
                         wild lands funding prohibition
              None of the funds made available in this Act or any other Act
            may be used to implement, administer, or enforce Secretarial
            Order No. 3310 issued by the Secretary of the Interior on
            December 22, 2010, nor for inventory or planning for wilderness
            character or wilderness characteristics under sections 201 and
            202 of the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act.

    Department of the Interior Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
            Secretarial Order
        On September 14, 2009, Department of the Interior Secretary Ken
    Salazar issued Secretarial Order 3289 establishing a system of 21
    ``Landscape Conservation Cooperatives'' or LCCs. While creation of the
    LCCs under the guise of creating ``applied science and management
    partnerships between the Department of the Interior (DOI) bureaus and
    other involved in natural resource management and conservation'' sounds
    laudable, the livestock industry has become concerned with the
    potential for extra-governmental entities driving climate change
    agendas. It appears more and more likely that these LCCs will develop
    position papers and ``science'' to fit pre-determined conclusions that
    humans are causing climate change--ultimately heaping this ``science''
    onto all land management decisions made by land management agencies.
        While it is difficult to ascertain the cost to taxpayers for these
    LCCs, some estimates suggest the Federal Government across many bureaus
    within DOI is spending a minimum of tens if not a hundred million
    dollars annually or more on this operation with little to show for it
    (the President's budget request is for $18 million however we don't
    believe this accounts for agency personnel time and travel across many
    bureaus). We encourage Congress to consider blocking funds from being
    expended on Secretarial Order 3289 and provide the following language
    as a suggestion:
            landscape conservation cooperatives funding prohibition
              None of the funds made available in this Act or any other Act
            may be used to implement, administer, or enforce Secretarial
            Order No. 3289 issued by the Secretary of the Interior on
            September 14, 2009.
    Land Acquisition
        We are strongly opposed to the use and funding of the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for the acquisition of land. During a
    time of strained budgets and already-inadequate Federal land
    management, we find imprudent any proposal to expand the Federal
    estate. Should the committee elect to appropriate funds for LWCF we
    request those funds not be available for land acquisition. As LWCF is
    due for reauthorization during fiscal year 2015, we encourage the
    appropriations committee to work with the authorizing committee to
    amend the structure to prohibit the use of funds for purchase of land.
    Forest Service Annual Operating Instruction Appeals
        In June 2014 the Forest Service issued new regulation concerning
    livestock grazing, specifically dealing with the administrative appeal
    process for Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs). The new regulation 36
    C.F.R 214 replaced 36 C.F.R. 251 barring the appeal of AOIs for grazing
    on forest system lands. While we understand and agree that AOIs cannot
    include decisions which impact or change the terms of grazing permits,
    in practice AOls have done just that and with the new regulations there
    are no options for ranchers to appeal. We urge Congress to exempt
    directly affected parties to AOls from this new regulation in order to
    provide essential due process for ranchers that operate on forest
    system lands.
                      grazing permittees ability to appeal
              Ranchers holding permits or leases to graze livestock on
            national forest system lands and national grasslands and those
            organizations directly representing them shall be exempt from
            36 C.F.R 214, provided further ranchers and organizations
            directly representing them shall have the ability to appeal
            Annual Operating Instructions.
    Wild Horse and Burro Program
        The Department of Interior's Wild Horse and Burro Program is broken
    and unsustainable on its current path. There are more than 50,000
    ``excess'' horses in long-term holding pastures in the mid-west along
    with more than 10,000 excess horses roaming across public, private and
    State lands in the west. At a cost of nearly $80 million annually,
    Congress cannot afford to stand by and do nothing. We encourage the
    committee to introduce a draft fiscal year 2016 bill without language
    limiting the title on the conveyance of excess horses from the BLM to
    private entities. Without direction and solutions from Congress we will
    soon see irreversible rangeland damage and potentially mass die offs
    from starvation and dehydration take place. We request the fiscal year
    2016 bill not contain the following provision as has been included for
    multiple years nor anything similar:

              Appropriations herein made shall not be available for the
            destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in
            the care of the Bureau or its contractors or for the sale of
            wild horses and burros that results in their destruction for
            processing into commercial products.
    Alternative Grazing Allotments--Wildfire, Drought, Wildlife Conflicts
        Over the past few years we have seen larger and more intense
    wildfires and drought across the West, impacting communities and
    livestock operations that rely on access to forage on public lands.
    Additionally, we have seen drastic cuts to sheep permits due to
    misguided management decisions by the USFS and potentially the BLM with
    respect to wildlife conflicts. Due to extreme and redundant
    environmental analysis requirements for offering alternative allotments
    to ranchers when wildfire or drought impacts their operations, it is
    necessary to provide flexibility in statute to allow access to
    alternative forage. We thank you for inclusion of report language in
    the fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015 bill and request that the
    committee include the language in the fiscal year 2016 bill as follows:
                   availability of vacant grazing allotments
              The Secretary of the Interior, with respect to public lands
            administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and the
            Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to National Forest
            System lands, shall make vacant grazing allotments available to
            a holder of a grazing permit or lease issued by either
            Secretary if the lands covered by the permit or lease or other
            grazing lands used by the holder of the permit or lease are
            deemed unusable, in full or in part, by the Secretary concerned
            because of drought, wildfire, or any reduction or elimination
            of a domestic livestock permit or lease as a result of
            determination of a potential conflict with bighorn sheep.
            Provided, That the terms and conditions contained in a permit
            or lease made available pursuant to this section shall be under
            terms and conditions no less favorable to the permittee than
            those applicable to the permittee on the allotment being
            vacated. Provided further, That Section 102 of the National
            Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) shall not
            apply with respect to any Federal agency action under this
            section. Provided further, That the Secretaries of Agriculture
            and Interior shall engage the respective States' wildlife
            agencies, departments of agriculture, animal health
            professionals, and the Agricultural Research Service prior to
            any decision, based partially or in its entirety on the
            determination of a potential conflict with bighorn sheep,
            resulting in the reduction or elimination of a domestic
            livestock permit or lease.
    Bighorn Sheep Report Language
        The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are basing
    domestic sheep management decisions on flawed science and risk models
    that do not accurately reflect reality, leading to drastic cuts in
    sheep grazing in the west. We urge the committee to consider including
    the following report language in the fiscal year 2016 funding bill to
    provide direction to the agencies, specifically the USFS to work with
    USDA's research entity ARS when studying domestic/bighorn sheep
    interactions:

              Bighorn Sheep Conservation.--The Committee directs the Forest
            Service to take prompt action to seek and enact multiple use
            solutions to ensure our Nation does not continue to lose
            substantial portions of either our domestic sheep industry or
            our bighorn sheep conservation legacy. The Service is further
            directed to promptly complete Risk of Contact analyses using
            the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies' occupied
            bighorn habitat maps, telemetry data, and recent bighorn
            observations. The Service is further directed to transparently
            and promptly share findings with other Federal land management
            agencies, State and local governments, State wildlife agencies,
            the and State and Federal animal health professionals,
            including the Agricultural Research Service, permittees, and
            stakeholders. The Committee directs the Forest Service to
            specifically engage the Agricultural Research Service and the
            aforementioned cooperating agencies and participants to ensure
            the best professional scientific understanding of where risk of
            disease transmission occurs, and the degree of that risk. The
            Forest Service is further directed to use this base of
            information to swiftly identify and implement actions to
            resolve high-risk of disease transmission allotments, including
            if agreeable to the permittee, the relocation of domestic sheep
            to lower-risk allotments, with minimal disruption and
            displacement of permittees. The Committee believes such
            solutions will not be possible without genuine collaboration
            among the most directly-affected stakeholders, all of whom are
            committed to multiple-use solutions. The Forest Service is
            directed to provide quarterly briefings to the House and Senate
            Committees on Appropriations, both in writing and in person, on
            its progress and adherence to the directives contained herein.
    Block Use of ``Viability'' by Agencies
        In 2010, the USFS prohibited 13,000 sheep from grazing on their
    historic grazing allotments within the Payette National Forest in
    Idaho, driving one ranch out of business entirely and drastically
    reducing the operations of three others. The supposed reason for this
    reduction was an obscure regulation written in excess of the text found
    in the National Forest Management Act allegedly requiring each national
    forest to maintain ``minimum viable'' populations of all vertebrate
    species found there. In 2012 the USFS doubled down, expanding the
    viability of species regulation to all species (vertebrate and
    invertebrate) through their new planning rule, effectively federalizing
    all wildlife management on national forest system lands. The livestock
    industry is extremely concerned that given the application of extra-
    statutory regulation in the example provided above, it is only a matter
    of time before all multiple uses are litigated off forest system lands
    in deference to ``viable'' populations of wildlife. We urge Congress to
    block the use of ``viability'' in managing national forest system lands
    and restate that States have the sole authority over management of non-
    federally listed wildlife under the ESA.
    Range Improvement/Betterment Funds
        We appreciate your continued support for BLM range improvement
    funds and USFS Range Betterment funds (RBRB), which are critical to our
    members' ability to implement practices that improve forage condition
    and wildlife habitat. These funds represent the kind of investment the
    public must make in order for multiple-use management of the public
    lands to work. Without these improvements and their maintenance,
    ranchers face challenges that threaten their ability to continue
    operating, and livestock and wildlife alike suffer from lack of access
    to water sources. We are concerned that the buying power of these funds
    coupled with sequestration have diminished these important resources
    and encourage the committee to look for ways to increase the amount of
    funds for on-the-ground projects.
    NEPA Climate Change Proposed Guidance
        We adamantly oppose inclusion of climate change considerations in
    NEPA analysis; we encourage you to block the abuse of this taw to push
    an economically damaging agenda not supported by the general public.
    The administration is continuing to advance an agenda not supported by
    facts and science. Inclusion of climate change in NEPA analysis will
    only further expand a process that is nearly impossible for agencies to
    accomplish currently.
    Economic Analysis of Grazing on Public Lands
        There continues to be a gap in the analysis regarding the true
    economic contributions, both direct and indirect, of livestock grazing
    on public lands. We believe the figures currently being used by the BLM
    and USFS greatly underestimate the actual jobs supported by and
    economic impacts generated from public lands grazing. We request that
    Congress provide the funding and resources necessary to adequately
    analyze the full economic benefits provided by public land ranching.
    Cheatgrass Research
        As many as 60 million acres are either infested or susceptible to
    take-over by highly-invasive Cheatgrass, which increases wildfire
    frequency and intensity, adding millions to Federal emergency spending
    in firefighting costs every year. Encouraging and promising research is
    underway to study the use of livestock grazing to remove this invasive
    species through fall grazing, an often useful forage source. We support
    an increase in funding in the fiscal year 2016 appropriations bill to
    continue this important research.
    EPA Overreach
        Our industry supports language that prevents the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) from endangering our Nation's food supply and
    over-burdening our Nation's farmers and ranchers.
        We appreciate your continued support of provisions that prevent the
    EPA from requiring reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from manure
    management systems, and we request that the committee continue to
    support the language in the fiscal year 2015 bill, which follows below:
                     greenhouse gas reporting restrictions
              Sec. 420. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of
            the funds made available in this or any other Act may be used
            to implement any provision in a rule, if that provision
            requires mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from
            manure management systems.

        We support efforts to prevent EPA from requiring permits from
    livestock operations for greenhouse gas emissions. We request that the
    subcommittee continue to support the language in the fiscal year 2015
    bill, which follows below:
                          prohibition on use of funds
              Sec. 419. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of
            the funds made available in this Act or any other Act may be
            used to promulgate or implement any regulation requiring the
            issuance of permits under title V of the Clean Air Act (42
            U.S.C. 7661 et seq.) for carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, water
            vapor, or methane emissions resulting from biological processes
            associated with livestock production.

        We also support preventing the EPA from unilaterally expanding its
    authority under the Clean Water Act through regulatory fiat, and we
    support maintaining the Federal/State partnership in the regulatory
    process of the Clean Water Act. To that end, we request inclusion of
    the following language from the draft fiscal year 2014 bill:
                          waters of the united states
              Sec. 435. None of the funds made available in this Act or any
            other Act making appropriations for the Environmental
            Protection Agency may be used by the Environmental Protection
            Agency to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce any
            change to the regulations and guidance in effect on October 1,
            2012, pertaining to the definition of waters under the
            jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
            U.S.C. Sec. 1251, et seq.), including the provisions of the
            rules dated November 13, 1986 and August 25, 1993, relating to
            said jurisdiction, and the guidance documents dated January 15,
            2003 and December 2, 2008, relating to said jurisdiction.

        We support providing privacy protections for personal information
    of our Nation's farmers and ranchers that is collected by the Federal
    agencies. We recommend the subcommittee include language in the bill
    that prevents use of funding by the EPA, and other Federal agencies, to
    develop a clearinghouse of farm information including individual names,
    phone numbers, email addresses. and GPS coordinates which could then be
    released by the EPA, and other Federal agencies, in response to Freedom
    of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
        We hope that you will consider these priorities for the stability
    of public land management and the livestock industry for fiscal year
    2016 appropriations. An attached appendix lists these priorities for
    convenience.

                Sincerely,

    Dustin Van Liew                             Scott Yager
    Executive Director,                         Environmental Counsel
    Public Lands Council &                      National Cattlemen's Beef
    National Cattlemen's Beef Association        Association

                         APPENDIX--PLC/NCBA PRIORITIES

    INTERIOR
         (1)  Range Program Funding.--We request the committee provide
    funding similar to the fiscal year 2015 levels for the BLM and USFS
    grazing programs.
         (2)  Support Current Market Based Grazing Fee.--We request the
    committee oppose any attempt to change and/or assess an arbitrary tax
    on top of the grazing fee.
         (3)  Sage-Grouse.--We request the subcommittee provide direction
    to the agencies to defer to State management plans and further request
    the subcommittee extend through September 2016 the ESA listing decision
    timeline for USFWS's decision on the Greater Sage-Grouse.
         (4)  Antiquities Act.--We request that livestock ranchers are
    protected from negative impacts brought about by monument designations.
         (5)  Protection of Water Rights.--Block the BLM and USFS from
    taking water rights from ranchers.
         (6)  Block Wildlands Order.--We request the subcommittee continue
    blocking funds to implement Secretarial Order No. 3310, the ``wild
    lands'' order issued by Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar on December
    23, 2010. The order creates de facto wilderness and poses a threat to
    the continued multiple use of BLM lands.
         (7)  Block LCC Order.--The Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
    created through Secretarial Order 3289 will not serve the West well and
    will likely negatively impact ranching and other multiple uses on
    public lands.
         (8)  Defund LWCF.--With the exception of an amount necessary to
    complete current transactions, we request the subcommittee defund the
    LWCF--at a minimum block its use for land acquisition.
         (9)  AOI Appeals.--We request the subcommittee exempt ranchers
    from the ban on appealing Annual Operating Instructions for Forest
    Service grazing administration.
        (10)  Remove Limits on Title of Excess Wild Horse Sales.--We
    request that damaging language be removed from future appropriations
    bills which blocks excess horses from being sold or adopted without
    full title.
        (11)  Alternative Grazing Allotments.--We request the subcommittee
    direct BLM and the Forest Service to provide alternative grazing
    allotments to ranchers that are impacted by wildfire and drought.
        (12)  Direction on Bighorn Sheep Management.--We request Congress
    to direct the USFS to work with ARS on development of accurate science
    on the issue of potential disease transfer.
        (13)  Block the Use of Viability.--We urge Congress to block the
    extra-legal use of viability to effectively make all wildlife Federal
    species by the USFS.
        (14)  Funding Range Improvements.--We appreciate your continued
    support for range improvement and betterment funds, which have been
    critical to our members' ability to implement practices that improve
    forage condition and wildlife habitat.
        (15)  Block Climate Change in NEPA.--We request that Congress block
    all attempts to insert climate change into an already burdensome NEPA
    process.
        (16)  Support Economic Research.--We encourage Congress to support
    funding for economic impacts research for grazing on public lands.
        (17)  Support Cheatgrass Research.--We encourage Congress to
    support funds for continuing promising research on using livestock
    grazing as tool against invasive species.
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        (1)  Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting for Manure Management
    Systems.--We request the committee continue to include language
    preventing EPA from requiring livestock operations to report their
    emissions of greenhouse gases.
        (2)  Greenhouse Gas Regulations (Title V) for Livestock
    Operations.--We request the subcommittee continue to include language
    preventing EPA from requiring Clean Air Act permits from livestock
    operations based on greenhouse gas emissions.
        (3)  Joint Rulemaking Identifying ``Waters of the U.S.''.--We
    request the committee include language preventing EPA and the Army
    Corps of Engineers from expanding their authority under the Clean Water
    Act.
        (4)  Protection of Farm Information.--We recommend the subcommittee
    include language in the bill to prevent use of funding by the EPA, and
    other Federal agencies, to develop a clearinghouse of farm information
    including individual names, phone numbers, email addresses, and GPS
    coordinates of farms.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Conference of State Historic
                             Preservation Officers
        Fiscal Year 2016 Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) Total Request:
      --$60 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs),
            including $10 million for a competitive grant program for
            finding and documenting America's historic places.
      --$15 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs).
      --$32.5 million for competitive grant programs related to Civil
            Rights.
      --$10 million for a bricks & mortar competitive rehabilitation grant
            program.

        Funded through withdrawals from the Historic Preservation Fund (16
    U.S.C. 470h) U. S. Department of the Interior's National Park Service.
                unique and successful federal-state partnership
        Congress, recognizing the importance of our heritage, enacted the
    National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA 16 U.S.C. 470) in 1966 which
    established historic preservation as a priority of the Federal
    Government. Recognizing that States are the experts of their own
    history, the Act's authors directed the Federal entities charged with
    its implementation--the Department of the Interior and the Advisory
    Council on Historic Preservation--to partner with the States. Duties
    delegated to the SHPOs include: (1) locating and recording historic
    resources; (2) nominating significant historic resources to the
    National Register of Historic Places; (3) cultivating historic
    preservation programs at the local government level; (4) providing
    funds for preservation activities; (5) commenting on Federal
    rehabilitation tax credit projects; (6) review of all Federal projects
    for their impact on historic properties; and (7) providing technical
    assistance to Federal agencies, State and local governments and the
    private sector. HPF grant awards help States carry out these duties and
    require a 40 percent minimum match to the Federal appropriation.
            jobs, economic development and community revitalization
        Nationwide, communities have experienced how historic preservation
    stimulates economic growth, promotes community education and pride, and
    rescues and rehabilitates significant historic resources. In many
    cases, historic preservation combats the effects of blight and vacancy
    by using the historic built environment as a catalyst for community
    change. These changes result in historic downtown districts and
    neighborhoods that are dynamic destinations for visitors and residents
    alike.
        The Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC) program, administered
    by the State Historic Preservation Offices in cooperation with the
    National Park Service, is an important driver for economic development.
    Since inception, the HTC has rehabilitated over 40,000 buildings,
    created nearly 2.5 million jobs and leveraged $117 billion in private
    investment nationwide. On average, the HTC leverages $5 dollars in
    private investment for every $1 dollar in Federal funding creating
    highly effective public-private partnerships.
        One of the beneficiaries of the HTC in New Mexico was the town of
    Las Vegas and the Charles Ilfeld Building. The Ilfeld Building,
    completed in 1890, is a three-story sandstone faced building considered
    one of the finest Italianate styled buildings in the southwest. The
    building served as the headquarters and flagship store for the Charles
    Ilfeld Company, which was one of the largest mercantile companies in
    the southwest. After undergoing a nearly $7 million renovation using
    the HTC, the building is now incorporated into the adjacent Plaza Hotel
    where it provides much needed ballroom and conference space.
        Historic preservation also stimulates economic development through
    heritage tourism. Cultural and heritage travelers spend an average of
    $994 per trip and contribute more than $192 billion annually to the
    U.S. economy.\1\ SHPOs are essential, ground level partners in
    identifying and interpreting the historic places that attracts these
    visitors. A minimal $3 million increase in SHPO funding would allow
    SHPOs to expand their public outreach and assistance efforts, enabling
    communities to take greater advantage of heritage tourism opportunities
    which lead to job creation, new business development and enhanced
    community pride.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ U.S. Cultural and Heritage Tourism Study (October 2009)
    conducted by Mandala Research, LLC for U.S. Cultural & Heritage Tourism
    Marketing Council, U.S. Department of Commerce, and Gozaic/Heritage
    Travel Inc., a subsidiary of the National Trust for Historic
    Preservation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The City of Nome, Alaska benefits from heritage tourism as annually
    a thousand travelers flock to Nome to watch the finish of the Iditarod
    Trail Sled Dog Race and take in the area's Gold Rush history, culture,
    and heritage. The Discovery Saloon in Nome, the oldest surviving
    building from the Alaska Gold Rush received help from the HPF. The
    building owners had invested time, talent and money into rehabilitating
    the property and the Alaska SHPO rewarded their efforts by assisting
    with each phase of the rehabilitation. The SHPO awarded small HPF
    grants to repair the walls, porch, windows, doors, and roof, bringing
    the oldest continuously occupied building in Nome back to its original
    glory.
                     finding and saving america's heritage
        Historic preservation not only generates economic development and
    community revitalization, it also saves historic buildings and
    significant places. These sites represent the many people, places, and
    events that have shaped our national identity. The first step in
    preserving and protecting America's heritage is identifying it--which
    requires survey, documentation and stewardship and sharing of digital
    historic site data. Historic site survey data is the fundamental
    building block of our Nation's historic preservation program; yet this
    key program area is sorely lacking at the current level of
    appropriation. The NCSHPO recently surveyed its membership and found
    the following results to be very alarming:
      --Only 55 percent of surveyed historic resources have been digitized.
      --29.4 percent--Average percentage of each State surveyed for
            historic buildings.
      --5.8 percent--Average percentage of each State surveyed for historic
            landscapes.
      --9.9 percent--Average percentage of each State surveyed for
            archaeological resources.
      --71 percent of States have more than 10,000 legacy resources in need
            of re-survey.
      --66 percent of States report it would take 3+ years to complete
            survey and digitization.
      --76 percent of States report that their survey and digitization
            programs are piecemealed.
      --95 percent of States report lack of digital records hampers their
            ability to conduct project reviews.

        The NCSHPO requests a minimum of $10 million a year for the next 10
    years for a competitive grant program for SHPOs to conduct historic
    resource identification, documentation and digitization activities.
    Having accurate, up-to-date, digitally accessible information on our
    Nation's historic resources would dramatically increase the efficiency
    and effectiveness of all local, State, and Federal projects. From
    deciding on the design of local in-fill development, to State
    transportation planning projects, to Federal large-scale energy
    projects and disaster recovery efforts--every single project, and the
    American people would benefit.
        Once identified and documented, America's historic resources are
    primarily recognized at the local, State, and national levels by
    listing on National and State Historic Registers. State Historic
    Preservation Officers, through the authority of the National Historic
    Preservation Act assist, support and encourage communities with their
    efforts. National Register recognition by the Secretary confirms
    citizens' belief in the significance of their community.
        The National Historic Preservation program is primarily one of
    assistance, not acquisition. The Federal Government does not own,
    manage, or maintain responsibility for most of the historic assets in
    the National Historic Preservation program. Instead, the program,
    through the SHPOs, provides individuals, communities, and local, State,
    and Federal Government with the tools they need to identify, preserve,
    and utilize the historic assets of importance to them.
        In addition to the SHPO funding, the NCSHPO supports the Tribal
    Historic Preservation Offices (THPO) request of $15 million. THPOs
    assume the Federal compliance role of the SHPO on their respective
    Tribal lands. In fiscal year 2013, 136 tribes received an average of
    $60,000--more than $20,000 less than when the program first started.
    With no funding increase and the continued growth of the program, the
    average THPO grant will continue to decrease.
        The NCSHPO also requests $3 million for grants to State and Tribal
    Historic Preservation Offices for the survey and nomination of
    properties associated with communities currently underrepresented in
    the National Register and as National Historic Landmarks, as well as
    $10 million for a nationally competitive rehabilitation grant program.
    The NCSHPO also supports the administration's request of $30 million
    for competitive grants to preserve the sites and stories related to the
    Civil Rights movement and $2.5 million for a similar program for
    Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
                historic preservation fund (hpf) reauthorization
        The current authorization of the HPF expires on September 30, 2015.
    This testimony only touches on the invaluable economic and social value
    that historic preservation stimulates throughout our Nation, all of
    which would not be accomplished but for the HPF. The NCSHPO requests
    that the subcommittee support a reauthorization of the HPF that
    includes full and permanent funding, as intended at $150 million per
    year.
           2014 state historic preservation offices' accomplishments
        SHPOs used their HPF allocations well in 2014. While virtually
    every State continues to experience staffing and operational
    reductions, SHPOs are still charged with implementing the requirements
    of the NHPA to the fullest extent. Highlights of 2014 historic
    preservation accomplishments include:
      --Reviewing nearly 103,000 Federal undertakings within a 30-day
            review period.
      --Leveraging over $4.32 billion of private investment in the
            rehabilitation of commercial historic properties under the HTC
            program.
      --An estimated 77,750 jobs created by the HTC program in 2014.
      --Creating over 6,600 low and moderate income housing units through
            the HTC.
      --Surveying approximately 16.5 million acres for the presence or
            absence of cultural resources.
      --Adding 1,030 new listings to the National Register of Historic
            Places.
      --Issuing 82,200 National Register eligibility opinions.
      --Assisting 39 new communities to become Certified Local Governments
            (CLGs).
                                   conclusion
        On behalf of all 59 SHPOs, I'd like to thank you Chairman
    Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the Senate and House
    Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related
    Agencies for the opportunity to submit testimony.
        Historic preservation recognizes that what was common and ordinary
    in the past is often rare and precious today, and what is common and
    ordinary today may be extraordinary--50, 100 or 500 years from now. I
    would like to thank the subcommittee for their commitment to historic
    preservation. The Federal Government plays an invaluable role in
    preserving our Nation's history and our collective sense of place.
    Through our partnership, SHPOs remain committed to working together to
    identify, protect, and maintain our Nation's heritage. Thank you.

        [This statement was submitted by Elizabeth Hughes, President.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians
        On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), we
    thank you for considering NCAI's testimony on Native American programs
    in this subcommittee's jurisdiction. As the most representative
    organization of American Indian and Alaska Native tribes, NCAI serves
    the broad interests of tribal governments across the Nation. This
    testimony addresses tribal funding in the Department of the Interior,
    Indian Health Service, and Environmental Protection Agency.
        Effective tribal government, with all the necessary tools and
    resources to address the public service needs of their people,
    represents a key component for any balanced tribal nation. The leaders
    and citizens in Indian Country carry the potential and insights to
    address the reverberations of historical trauma, the lingering effects
    of relocation, forced assimilation, broken treaties, and economic and
    political injustices generally. The trust relationship in the 21st
    Century must maintain the nation-to-nation treaty obligations, such as
    the provision of education, public safety, healthcare and more, while
    promoting tribal capacity and governance.
        NCAI includes recommendations for Interior and Indian Health
    Service, but the fiscal year 2016 Indian Country Budget Request
    includes many more details of these recommendations.\1\ NCAI also
    supports the testimony of the National Indian Health Board, National
    Indian Child Welfare Association, National Indian Education
    Association, and American Indian Higher Education Consortium.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ National Congress of American Indians. (January 2015). Fiscal
    year 2016 Indian Country Budget Requests: Promoting Self-Determination,
    Modernizing the Trust Relationship. Washington, DC: Author.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           department of the interior
        In preparation for the President's budget, the Interior Department
    consulted with tribes about programs in the budget, and some
    recommendations from Indian Country are included in the fiscal year
    2016 proposal. The budget proposes an overall increase of 12 percent
    for BIA over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level, the largest increase
    in more than a decade (excluding Recovery Act funding). The fiscal year
    2016 budget for the Operation of Indian Programs (OIP) account is $2.7
    billion, an increase of $231.4 million above the fiscal year 2015
    level, an increase of about 9 percent. The fiscal year 2016 budget
    request for Construction is $189.0 million, an increase of $60.1
    million (or about 46.6 percent) above the fiscal year 2015 level. These
    increases are desperately needed throughout Indian Country and NCAI
    urges Congress to keep them in the fiscal year 2016 appropriations
    bill.
        Tribes at NCAI conferences continue to call the Federal funding of
    treaty and trust obligations a Quiet Crisis.\2\ The increase of 12
    percent in BIA overall is higher than the overall percentage increase
    for the entire Interior budget, which would be nearly 8 percent over
    the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2003). A quiet crisis:
    Federal funding and unmet needs in Indian Country.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This request is very encouraging to tribal leaders who have been
    struggling to meet urgent demands in their communities but with
    inadequate resources to do so.
        Mandatory Contract Support Costs.--The fiscal year 2016 budget
    includes a proposal to reclassify contract support costs as permanent
    funding beginning in fiscal year 2017. NCAI and tribes have called for
    moving contract support costs to mandatory funding in resolutions
    across Indian Country and in NCAI's tribal budget requests. The fiscal
    year 2016 request also will fully fund contract support costs, based on
    the most recent BIA and IHS analysis. If enacted, permanent funding for
    Contract Support Costs (CSC) will help stabilize this vital funding as
    called for in tribal consultation over many years. Consultation will be
    held on the proposal, but tribes are looking forward to the
    reclassification, if possible even in fiscal year 2016. Although NCAI
    would prefer that all treaty obligations in the Federal budget were
    classified as mandatory, the CSC proposal is a very strong expression
    of support for Indian Self-Determination and we hope Congress will
    support it.
        One-Stop Tribal Support Center.--The budget request acknowledges
    BIA's important role as a central Federal services provider and
    coordinator in proposing $4 million to establish a One-Stop Tribal
    Support Center. The proposal would support tribes in accessing services
    across the Federal Government. NCAI considers this an important
    proposal that could provide much needed technical support for tribal
    governments. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has released a
    Native American cross cut, which shows a large range of Federal funds
    that are available to tribes. Tribal leaders have requested details on
    the type of Federal resources, such as whether the funds are baseline
    recurring funding streams, competitive grants, tribal set-asides, or
    State pass through funds. While anticipating the outcome of the
    Department of the Interior's (DOI) tribal consultation and work through
    the White House Council on Native American Affairs to develop the
    center, NCAI considers the concept overall beneficial for Indian
    Country. While the goal of the center is to facilitate streamlined
    communication and information exchange to help tribes easily access
    Federal programs and opportunities, emphasis should be made on stable
    base funding for tribal governments.
        BIA Data Initiative.--The President's budget includes $12 million
    to improve Evidence and Evaluation to Support Indian Affairs
    Activities. The proposed funding will be used to improve Federal data
    quality and availability, to work with the U.S. Census Bureau to
    address data gaps for Indian Country, and create a capability within
    DOI's Office of Policy Analysis to support effective, data-driven,
    tribal policy making and program implementation. The goals include
    improving program performance, delivering more effective services, and
    helping deliver results to Indian Country. NCAI agrees that tribal
    leaders and communities need access to quality data and information as
    they make decisions, and has supported tribally driven efforts in the
    past, such as the Tribal Data Exchange. The proposal includes $2
    million for internal capacity building to study Indian Affairs policy,
    evaluate programs, and develop tribal datasets to support tribal
    decisionmaking. The proposal would offer staff to address statistical,
    economic, and evaluation issues. A second element of the proposal is $9
    million for agreements with the Census Bureau to improve tribal data
    and address data gaps. The work would be to develop, test, and
    implement additional tribal data collection, increase the sample sizes
    for data collections on Indian lands, and develop protocols and
    datasets to allow Federal agencies to present a more accurate
    socioeconomic statistics for Indian Country. The third element is $1
    million for outreach and consultation on data collection to address
    data and evidence gaps. Tribal leaders and decision-makers need the
    tools to define the contours of the modern Indian Country economy and
    whether the Federal Government is meeting its trust responsibility.
        The data initiative could help BIA address NCAI's resolution ATL-
    14-084, ``Recommendations for Addressing the State of Emergency in
    Federal Underfunding of the Trust Responsibility.'' Recommendations
    include: (1) all agencies must be required to regularly assess unmet
    obligations to tribes, comparing needs with available resources and
    identifying gaps in service delivery; (2) an assessment similar to the
    Indian Health Service's Federal Disparity Index should be replicated by
    other agencies, with the results used to prioritize spending and assess
    the status of programs; (3) a full-scale evaluation must analyze the
    spending patterns of every Federal agency's funding of trust
    responsibilities; (4) OMB must develop government-wide standards for
    tracking spending on tribal programs.
        Tiwahe.--The fiscal year 2016 budget would provide $15 million to
    expand the Tiwahe Initiative, $6 million more for Social Services
    (under BIA Human Services), $4 million more for law enforcement for
    alternatives to incarceration and $5 million more for aid to tribal
    family courts. NCAI strongly supported this initiative last year and
    urges Congress to continue funding for this initiative.
        The Social Services Program provides a wide array of family support
    services filling many funding gaps for tribal programs and ensuring
    Federal support for these programs. Importantly, the Social Services
    Program provides the only BIA and tribal-specific funding available for
    child protective services in Indian Country. It also funds BIA social
    workers at regional and agency offices and technical assistance to
    tribal social service programs. These funds are desperately needed. A
    recent assessment of BIA social services found that, in large part due
    to inadequate funding, tribes report frequent vacancies and staff
    turnover.\3\ Tribes commend the $5 million fiscal year 2015 increase
    and urge that the momentum be continued. Another $6 million must be
    appropriated for this program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General.
    (2012). Management of social services in BIA: Opportunity for action
    (Report No. WR-EV-BIA-0001-2012). (pp. 5-6).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NCAI also supports funding under the Indian Child Protection and
    Family Violence Prevention Act: $10 million for the Indian Child Abuse
    Treatment Grant Program, $30 million for the Indian Child Protection
    and Family Violence Prevention Grant Program, and $3 million for the
    Indian Child Resource and Family Service Centers Program. Increased
    investments in ICWA funds and Welfare Assistance should also be
    included.
        The $5 million increase for tribal courts is also critical, which
    will complement the additional resources in Law Enforcement Special
    Initiatives, ensuring that the judicial branch of tribal public safety
    systems can effectively meet family and community needs under the
    Tiwahe initiative.
        Education would see an increase of $138.4 million for BIE
    activities and construction. Increases include: $45.5 million for
    Elementary and Secondary Education; $12.9 million to fully fund Tribal
    Grant Support Costs; $10 million for the Education Program Enhancement
    program for incentive funding; $20 million for BIE maintenance and
    operations; $34.2 million for education information technology to
    enhance broadband and digital access; $4.6 million for scholarship and
    adult education and an increase of $250,000 for Special Higher
    Education Scholarships; $2.6 million for Johnson O'Malley. Education
    Construction would receive a $58.7 million increase, for a total of
    $133.2 million. The increase includes $25.3 million for replacement
    school construction to complete construction on the final two schools
    on the 2004 replacement school priority list. Tribal leaders have
    strongly supported education in Indian Country, specifically
    scholarships and adult education as well as Johnson O'Malley.
        BIA Natural Resources would receive an important increase of $48
    million over fiscal year 2015 for sustainable resource management and
    preparing and responding to the impacts of climate change, such as
    drought, wildfires, changes to plants and animals important to
    subsistence and culture, rights protection, coastal erosion and rising
    sea levels.
                             indian health service
        The Indian Health Service budget (IHS) request for fiscal year 2016
    of $5.1 billion in budget authority is an increase of $460.6 million
    (9.9 percent) above the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. Tribes have
    requested $5.4 billion for the agency in budget formulation. While the
    IHS budget has made gains in the last several years, many of the
    increases funded contract support costs obligations, inflation and
    population growth.
                     environmental protection agency (epa)
        NCAI supports EPA's requested an increase of $31 million for the
    Tribal General Assistance Program. This increase in base funding will
    increase the average size of grants made to eligible tribes and further
    EPA's partnership with tribes to address a wider set of program
    responsibilities. EPA acknowledges that tribal communities need
    assistance to address sanitation and drinking water infrastructure. To
    help address this situation, EPA is requesting a tribal funding floor
    of 2 percent, or $30 million for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
    (SRF) or $20 million for the Drinking Water SRF, whichever is greater,
    of the funds appropriated in fiscal year 2016. NCAI supports the
    efforts to address sanitation and drinking water infrastructure in
    Indian Country.
                                   conclusion
        Many factors contribute to restoring wellness to Indian Country:
    developing sanitation systems,\4\ increasing tribal self-determination
    and accountability, easing housing overcrowding,\5\ addressing
    transportation needs, lowering poverty rates, eliminating food
    insecurity,\6\ and strengthened tribal child welfare programs,\7\ for
    instance, all support health and wellness. Tribal nations and leaders
    often apply a holistic approach to healing, drawing on a sense of
    connectedness with culture, place and land. The Federal Government, in
    meeting its treaty and trust obligations, plays a key role in Indian
    Country. Thank you for the opportunity to share these views with the
    subcommittee. The needs in Indian Country are great and we thank this
    subcommittee for working in a bipartisan manner to honor the treaties
    and agreements made between our ancestors.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Indian Health Service. (2000). The Sanitation Facilities
    Construction Program of the Indian Health Service, Public Law 86-121
    Report for 2000.
        \5\ U.S. Centers for Disease Control. (2008) National Hospital
    Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2006 Emergency Department Summary.
    Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr007.pdf.
        \6\ Cook, J. T., Frank, D. A., Levenson, S. M., Neault, N. B.,
    Heeren, T. C., Black, M. M., Berkowitz, C. Casey, P. H., Meyers, A. F.,
    Cutts, D. B., & Chilton, M. (2006). Child Food Insecurity Increases
    Risks Posed by Household Food Insecurity to Young Children's Health.
    American Society for Nutrition.
        \7\ U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office
    of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2014). Attorney
    General's Advisory Committee on American Indian/Alaska Native Children
    Exposed to Violence: Ending violence so children can thrive (p. 51).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Environmental Services Center
        Chairperson Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the
    subcommittee:

        Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the
    Subcommittee on Interior Environment and Related Agencies. We recommend
    that within existing funding levels, the USEPA Office of Wastewater
    Management (OWM) be directed to provide at least 20 percent of the
    Clean Water State Revolving Fund annually to support the use of onsite
    and decentralized wastewater treatment systems. We further recommend
    that 20 percent of the EPA's OWM budget be dedicated to providing
    staffing and resources for the Office of Decentralized Wastewater.
    Implementing this recommendation will help address the lack of Federal
    support for the 85 million people in the U.S. dependent on
    decentralized wastewater treatment, many in small, rural and
    disadvantaged communities.
    Introduction
        I am Gerald Iwan and I am the executive director of the National
    Environmental Services Center (NESC), at West Virginia University.
    Since 1976, NESC has been home to the National Small Flows
    Clearinghouse (NSFC), National Drinking Water Clearinghouse (NDWC) and
    National Environmental Training Center for Small Communities (NETCSC).
    These centers have distributed comprehensive drinking water and
    wastewater information and services nationally to small rural and
    disadvantaged communities. Since their inception, they assisted
    communities with developing and maintaining onsite septic or
    decentralized wastewater treatment systems. In 1999, NESC began
    administering the State Onsite Regulators Alliance (SORA), the only
    national association of State onsite wastewater regulators in the
    United States. SORA provides the resources and venues for State
    regulators to share information among each other and the wastewater
    industry on decentralized wastewater regulatory and technology issues.
    SORA was instrumental in collaborating with the USEPA in developing
    guidance for the management of decentralized wastewater systems
    following EPA's 1997 report to Congress on the use of decentralized
    wastewater treatment systems. It is currently, along with NESC, an
    original member of the EPA Decentralized MOU Partnership, which advises
    EPA on decentralized wastewater management.
        NSFC, NETC and SORA were products of the 1977 Clean Water Act (CWA)
    and its subsequent reauthorizations. CWA mandated the NSFC to collect,
    distribute information, and provide training about wastewater treatment
    to small and rural communities. Thousands benefited from our water and
    wastewater technical assistance. EPA programs and management account
    funding for these activities ceased in 2005 along with much of the
    services previously provided.
    Need
        State regulators, technical assistance providers and the
    decentralized wastewater industry have long recognized a number of
    positive benefits provided by decentralized wastewater systems,
    including: job creation, water quality protection, aquifer recharge,
    affordability, low maintenance and the ability for people to live where
    municipal wastewater treatment is not feasible or available. For
    smaller communities, decentralized and onsite systems can usually be
    built and maintained more economically then municipal wastewater
    treatment plants and sewers. Larger utilities often consider
    decentralized systems as an option to help offset the costly
    replacement of aging wastewater infrastructure. Properly designed,
    sited, constructed and maintained decentralized systems supported by
    well-trained professionals and knowledgeable State regulators, is a
    fiscally responsible approach to public health and environmental
    protection.
        A recent survey of SORA regulators, conservatively estimated that
    approximately 27 percent of the U.S. population or 85 million people
    are served by onsite systems. Onsite or decentralized systems are a
    permanent and necessary part of the U.S. wastewater infrastructure for
    over a quarter of our population. However, EPA provides relatively
    little funding or support for decentralized wastewater compared to that
    directed to municipal wastewater treatment. As examples, less than 1
    percent of Clean Water State Revolving Loan funds is distributed to
    decentralized projects annually, there is no direct Federal funding
    available to States for decentralized wastewater regulatory programs,
    and EPA's own decentralized wastewater program has only one full time
    staff person.
    Request
        Having 35 years of expertise in decentralized wastewater treatment
    and management, and from our daily interactions in providing water and
    wastewater services to small, rural and often-disadvantaged
    communities, we are recommending that:
        1.  At least 20 percent of EPA's annual contribution to the Clean
    Water State Revolving Fund be designated to supporting the construction
    and use of onsite and decentralized wastewater treatment systems. Those
    funds should be distributed by the regulatory authority in each State
    that directly oversees and enforces onsite wastewater treatment,
        2.  At least 20 percent of the Office of Wastewater's funding be
    dedicated to increasing staffing and programmatic resources for the
    Office of Decentralized Wastewater.

        NESC believes that by redirecting OWM funding as recommended above,
    positive results can be realized for the Nation's wastewater
    infrastructure, economy and the population dependent on onsite systems
    by:

      --Significantly expanding EPA's training of industry professionals
            through grants to entities, which exclusively specialize in
            decentralized training.
      --Providing the resources that assure homeowners, business owners and
            industry professionals have an up-to-date source of information
            on decentralized technology.
      --Providing direct financial and staff support to State onsite
            wastewater programs to increase training and support better
            development and enforcement of State regulations.
      --Expanding research grants and onsite wastewater training centers
            and demonstration projects to help local decision-makers and
            design engineers better understand the benefits of onsite and
            decentralized wastewater treatment systems and technologies.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the National Ground Water Association
        The National Ground Water Association (NGWA) requests that $3.6
    million be allocated to the Department of Interior, United States
    Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Program account to continue
    implementation and maintenance of a national groundwater monitoring
    network (NGWMN). NGWA is the world's largest association of groundwater
    professionals, representing public and private sector engineers,
    scientists, water well professionals, manufacturers, and suppliers of
    groundwater related products and services.
        Water is one of the most critical natural resources to human,
    ecosystem and economic survival. Nationally, more than 41 percent of
    the drinking water supply comes from groundwater and in some locations
    it is relied on by 80 percent of Americans. Groundwater also serves as
    a key source of agricultural irrigation water, as well as for other
    critical economic purposes.
        While the Nation's people, food supply, economy and ecosystems
    depend on groundwater, no systematic nationwide monitoring network is
    in place to measure what is currently available and how groundwater
    levels and quality may be changing over time.
        As with any valuable natural resource, our groundwater reserves
    must be monitored to assist in planning and minimizing potential
    impacts from shortages or supply disruptions. Just as one cannot
    effectively oversee the Nation's economy without key data, one cannot
    adequately address the Nation's food, energy, economic, and drinking
    water security without understanding the extent, availability and
    sustainability of a critical input--groundwater.
        Congress acknowledged the need for enhanced groundwater monitoring
    by authorizing a national groundwater monitoring network with passage
    of Public Law 111-11 (Omnibus Public Land Management Act) in 2009 and
    viability of the network was proven through the completion of pilot
    projects in six States--Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, New
    Jersey, and Texas. These States voluntarily pilot tested concepts for a
    national groundwater monitoring network as developed by the Federal
    Advisory Committee on Water Information's (ACWI) Subcommittee on Ground
    Water (SOGW).
        $2.6 million in funding was provided in fiscal year 2015 through
    Public Law 113-235 the Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act,
    which will help to begin implementation of the national network.
    However, fiscal year 2015 funding will only allow implementation to
    begin across a handful of States. Additional funding for fiscal year
    2016 is requested to allow for implementation across more States.
        Once implemented nationwide, the NGWMN would provide consistent,
    comparable nationwide data accessible through a public web portal for
    Federal, State, local government and private sector users. In these
    tight fiscal times, the proposed network would build on existing State
    and Federal investments, maximizing their usefulness and leveraging
    current dollars to build toward systematic nationwide monitoring of the
    groundwater resource.

        Funding from the NGWMN will be used for two purposes:

        1.  Provide grants to regional, State, and tribal governments to
    cost share increased expenses to upgrade monitoring networks for the 50
    States to meet the standards necessary to understand the Nation's
    groundwater resources.
        2.  Support the additional work necessary for USGS to manage a
    national groundwater monitoring network and provide national data
    access through an Internet web portal.

        Though the amount requested is small in the context of the
    Department of Interior's annual budget request, funding is vital when
    we understand that for a small investment we can begin finally to put
    in place adequate monitoring of the hidden resource that provides more
    than 40 percent of the Nation's drinking water supply and serves as a
    key driver for our agricultural economy. Thank you for your
    consideration of this request.
        The National Ground Water Association is a not-for-profit
    professional society and trade association for the groundwater
    industry. NGWA is the largest organization of groundwater professionals
    in the world. Our more than 11,000 members from all 50 States and 72
    countries include some of the leading public and private sector
    groundwater scientists, engineers, water well contractors,
    manufacturers, and suppliers of groundwater related products and
    services. The Association's vision is to be the leading community of
    groundwater professionals that promotes the responsible development,
    use and management of water resources.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the National Horse & Burro Rangeland Management
                                   Coalition
        The National Horse & Burro Rangeland Management Coalition
    appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony regarding the fiscal
    year 2016 appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse &
    Burro Program. The National Horse & Burro Rangeland Management
    Coalition includes a wide range of sportsmen's, livestock, wildlife,
    and land conservation organizations and professional societies.
    Collectively, we represent millions of Americans and focus on
    commonsense, ecologically sound approaches to managing horses and
    burros to promote healthy wildlife and rangelands for future
    generations.
        Our coalition is concerned about the exponentially growing
    population of wild horses and burros on our Nation's rangelands and the
    lack of effort proposed in the President's fiscal year 2016 budget to
    reduce the threat this poses to our Nation's rangelands.
        As of March 1, 2014, wild horse and burro populations surpassed
    49,000 animals on BLM-rangelands. This threshold exceeds the BLM
    estimated ecologically sustainable level of 26,684 horses and burros by
    more than 22,500. With the documented potential for 20 percent annual
    population increase, there are likely more than 58,000 animals
    currently on the range--that means horses and burros already exceed 215
    percent of capacity for appropriate range management.
        This extreme level of overpopulation by an invasive species
    negatively impacts the country's rangelands, risking the future of the
    ecosystem. By continuing to allow horses and burros to exceed
    sustainable levels, the BLM is placing the future of wildlife,
    rangelands, livestock operations, and the horses and burros themselves,
    in jeopardy.
        The focus of the BLM Wild Horse & Burro program should revert to
    its original purpose and stated goal of achieving appropriate
    management levels (AML). Direct removal of horses and burros from
    impacted regions will aid in AMLs being achieved while simultaneously
    reducing their impact on the supporting ecosystem.
        The President's fiscal year 2016 budget proposal plans for the
    removal of only 2,000 horses and burros from the country's rangelands.
    Unfortunately, this limited number does very little to protect our
    Nation's rangelands from the growing negative impacts of overpopulated
    horses and burros.
        Wild horse populations typically grow by 20 percent per year and
    double in size every 4-5 years. At the current rate, the wild horse
    population will likely grow by 9,000 animals in 2015, even with the
    planned removal of 2,000 horses. As a result, we could see as many as
    67,000 wild horses and burros degrading the country's rangelands by
    2016--exceeding 250 percent of capacity for appropriate rangeland
    management. This is an unacceptable rate of increase for a population
    that already greatly exceeds AMLs. Such population numbers will
    continue to cause an unacceptable level of damage to a valuable asset
    for our country.
        We appreciate the BLM's increased attention to fertility control
    methods, as we believe that scientifically based use of fertility
    control (e.g., proven to be effective and safe) can be an important
    component to the solution to this problem. However, fertility control
    alone does not solve the problem and should not be the primary
    approach. There are currently Herd Management Areas (HMA) more than 500
    percent over AML. Fertility control methods, if they are effective in
    reducing pregnancies, will only help maintain population levels in the
    short term, not reduce them. Direct removal of wild horses and burros
    from the range is the only way to achieve AMLs in a reasonable amount
    of time.
        Without an increase in the rate of removal of horses and burros,
    populations will continue to expand and our Nation will witness not
    only growing degradation to its rangeland ecosystem, but also growing
    costs to its taxpayers.
        We urge this committee and other members of Congress to address
    this increasing problem for our Nation's valuable rangelands by
    directing the BLM to remove horses and burros at a rate substantial
    enough to produce impactful results and protect our resources.
        Thank you for considering the input of our coalition.
                        American Farm Bureau Federation, American Sheep
                                Industry Association, Masters of Foxhounds
                                Association, Mule Deer Foundation, National
                                Association of Conservation Districts,
                                National Cattlemen's Beef Association,
                                National Rifle Association, National
                                Wildlife Refuge Association, Public Lands
                                Council, Public Lands Foundation, Rocky
                                Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club
                                International, Society for Range
                                Management, and The Wildlife Society.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the National Humanities Alliance
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee:

        My name is Tamara Mann and I am the John Strassburger Fellow at
    Columbia University. I am writing to testify on behalf of the National
    Humanities Alliance in support of the National Endowment for the
    Humanities.
        My first class as a college professor started at 9 a.m. It was only
    7:30 and I was pacing the small seminar room, fretting about a course I
    had long admired but never imagined I would actually teach. Every
    summer for the past 6 years, 30, low-income, minority public high
    school students, arrive on Columbia University's campus to take an
    intensive Great Books course as part of the Freedom and Citizenship
    Program. For a veteran teacher, the syllabus is challenging: one day
    Plato, the next Aristotle, and then on to Locke, Jefferson, Lincoln,
    and King. For a novice, it is completely terrifying.
        My students arrived on time. They ambled into the seminar room,
    some laughing, others stoic, all clutching their copies of The Trial
    and Death of Socrates. As they sat down, I knew that they desperately,
    achingly, wanted to be in this room. Their parents hadn't gone to
    College and there they were, in high school, sitting around a Columbia
    University seminar table. I recalled what Professor Roosevelt Montas
    said to me when I agreed to take on the course, ``be quiet and be
    curious.''
        That first day of class I sat quietly for a minute or two and then
    opened our time together with a question: what fills you with a sense
    of wonder? Their answers were tender and earnest; they ranged from
    observations about primary colors to the miracle of small acts of
    kindness. And then came Quanisha. ``I'll tell you,'' she offered, ``but
    don't laugh. I wonder what this guy Socrates is saying. I just don't
    understand him. I have been up all night. I read this three times and I
    don't know what he is saying and I wonder about it.'' So our class
    really began.
        It was Socrates' description of wisdom that caused the most
    confusion. ``I don't get it,'' Lanique piped, ``he is wise and not
    wise, but wiser than other people and still ignorant. That doesn't seem
    very wise to me.'' ``Look closely at the passage in front of you,'' I
    said, ``what do you think Socrates is trying to say?''
        Gabriel spoke up, ``I think he is saying that you're not wise if
    you think you know something that you don't know. It's like a person
    who knows a lot about one subject and just because of that he thinks he
    knows about everything.'' ``So, how would you describe this definition
    of wisdom?'' I followed. ``Maybe wisdom is just knowing what you don't
    know,'' he replied. Laura and Genesys smiled. Now we could all remain
    in the classroom and claim to be wise, just by admitting what we did
    not know. Fabulous!
        ``But wait,'' questioned a soft voice to my left. ``Is that
    enough?'' Fatoumata leaned into our seminar table. ``How can it be
    enough to just say you don't know? Don't we have to do more? Don't we
    have to figure out how we could learn about a subject?'' The class
    found its rhythm and my students, drawing deeply from their reading of
    Socrates, debated the contours of wisdom, knowledge, and learning for
    the greater part of an hour. The morning ended with our own working
    definition of wisdom that we would try to apply to our future classes,
    ``Wisdom is being upfront about what you don't know and then carefully,
    ploddingly, figuring out how you would learn more about it.''
        As the summer progressed, the questions and the wonder continued.
    ``Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains,'' read Mystery but
    ``Why does Rousseau think we are born free? Is anyone really born
    free?'' My students pounced; everyone had a contribution. That day
    their comments didn't just come from the text, they came from them.
    They talked about the challenges of living with a parent suffering from
    drug addiction, the insecurity they felt in foster care, and the daily
    hardships of poverty.
        That summer we didn't just discuss freedom as an abstract concept;
    we discussed what that word meant to us as individuals, as members of
    families, and as citizens of our shared country.
        At the end of class, after a particularly harrowing conversation
    about all of the challenges my students faced, Heebong sighed and
    voiced our collective sense of defeat, ``but what can we do about these
    issues. They are so . . . big.''
        We could have ended there. If I were alone, I probably would have.
    But we were in a classroom and we had started with Socrates. ``We need
    to get wise,'' said Fatoumata, at first quietly and then emboldened by
    a chorus of her peers, ``We need to get wise.'' These extraordinary
    students then started designing a plan of study, a course of
    intellectual action to learn how to tackle the problems they had faced.
    Their plan of action required knowledge produced by biologists,
    physicians, psychologists, philosophers, politicians, and sociologists,
    to name only a few. These students understood that the great human
    problems of their generation were at once structural and personal. To
    solve them, they needed an education in the sciences and the
    humanities.
        When Professor Montas reflects on the purpose of a humanities
    education he explains, ``In most disciplines, the subject to be learned
    is at the center. . . . In this field of study, the student, the
    individual as a living growing entity, is at the center.'' Today, I ask
    you to support programs like this one. Programs that don't only give
    students content but actually help them understand the purpose and
    meaning of that content.
        My students came to this course because it was a means to an end--
    college. They left the course almost embarrassed by the
    shortsightedness of that goal. As one student put it ``Now I want to go
    to college not just to get there but to really learn something, so that
    I can give back; it's not just about me and my success but about what I
    can do with it.'' This is exactly why we have to support the
    humanities. It is courses like these that turn us from students of a
    topic into citizens of our great country.
        This is just one of the many programs that provide rich humanities
    content to underserved populations across the country, paving the way
    for personal achievement and civic engagement. The National Endowment
    for the Humanities has been a leader in supporting many of these
    programs. By way of the State humanities councils, the Endowment has
    long supported Clemente Courses in the Humanities, which provides a
    rigorous education in literature, philosophy, American history, art
    history, and critical thinking and writing for adults facing economic
    hardship. Students receive credit from Bard College, and the course
    strives to create a bridge to higher education by developing the
    skills, confidence, and motivation necessary to succeed in that
    context. Other programs include literacy initiatives for low-income
    families; research and teaching grants to community colleges, tribal
    colleges, historically black colleges and universities, and Hispanic
    serving institutions; and with fiscal year 2016 funding, grants to
    museums, libraries and cultural organizations that reach at-risk
    audiences.
        In the past few years, the Endowment has focused particularly on
    supporting veterans in their transition to civilian life. Since 2013,
    NEH has awarded grants to the Warrior-Scholar Project, which offers a
    two-week ``humanities boot camp'' to aid in veterans transition from
    the military to college. Currently hosted at three universities and--
    thanks to support from NEH--will be offered to an additional eight
    campuses in the summer of 2015. Through small grants to all of the
    State councils, the Endowment has also enabled reading and discussion
    programs for veterans in VA hospitals, community centers, and public
    libraries using great works of literature and public performances for
    and involving veterans that draw on timeless themes from classical
    Greek dramas of soldiers returning home from war. As noted in the
    agency's appropriation's request, expanding these programs is one of
    the Endowment's key goals for fiscal year 2016.
        To ensure that programs such as these continue to reach underserved
    communities--and that the humanities research, K-16 teaching, and
    historical preservation that underpins them continues as well--I ask
    you to support full funding for the National Endowment for the
    Humanities. Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit this
    testimony.
        Founded in 1981, the National Humanities Alliance advances national
    humanities policy in the areas of research, preservation, public
    programming, and teaching. More than one hundred organizations are
    members of NHA, including scholarly associations, humanities research
    centers, colleges, universities, and organizations of museums,
    libraries, historical societies, humanities councils, and higher
    education institutions.
        The Freedom and Citizenship Program at Columbia University enrolls
    low-income rising high school seniors from New York City schools in a
    rigorous college-level summer seminar. They read major works of
    political and moral philosophy from the ancient world to the present
    and explore the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. In the
    ensuing academic year, the students collaborate on a project that
    allows them to apply themes and ideas they explored in the summer to an
    issue in contemporary public life. Since it was founding in 2009, 100
    percent of its participants have attended college.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Indian Child Welfare Association
        The National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) is a national
    American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) nonprofit organization. NICWA has
    provided leadership in the development of public policy that supports
    tribal self-determination in child welfare and children's mental health
    systems for over 30 years. This testimony will provide recommendations
    for programs administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the
    Department of the Interior.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Current Fiscal    Recommended
                    Program Title                        Authorizing Statute           Year 2015       Fiscal Year
                                                                                       (million)      2016 (million)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indian Child Protection & Family Violence
     Prevention Act:
        Indian Child Abuse Treatment Grant         25 USC Sec.  3208 ($10m).......             $0              $10
         Program.
        Indian Child Protection and Family         25 USC Sec.  3210 ($30m).......              0               30
         Violence Prevention Grant Program.
        Indian Child Resource and Family Service   25 USC Sec.  3209 ($3m)........              0                3
         Center Program.

    Indian Child Welfare Act:
        ICWA on-reservation program..............  25 USC Sec.  1931..............             15.6             18.1
        ICWA off-reservation program.............  25 USC Sec.  1932..............              0                5
        ICWA self-governance funds...............  25 USC Sec.  1931/25 USC Sec.                8.5             11
                                                    458cc.
    General Welfare..............................  25 USC Sec.  13................             74.8             80
    Social Services..............................  25 USC Sec.  13................             40.8             46.8
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Congress has unequivocally recognized that there is nothing ``more
    vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than
    their children.'' (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901[3] [2006]). Congress must
    promulgate a budget that empowers tribes to provide the programs and
    services necessary to safeguard their children and strengthen their
    families. A recent report from the Attorney General's Advisory
    Committee on American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence
    emphasized this very point:

            Congress and the executive branch shall direct sufficient funds
            to AI/AN tribes to bring funding for tribal criminal and civil
            justice systems and tribal protection systems into parity with
            the rest of the United States and shall remove barriers that
            currently impede the ability of AI/AN nations to effectively
            address violence in their communities. The Advisory Committee
            believes that treaties, existing law, and trust
            responsibilities are not discretionary and demand this
            action.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office
    of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2014). Attorney
    General's Advisory Committee on American Indian/Alaska Native Children
    Exposed to Violence: Ending violence so children can thrive (p. 51).
    Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/
    defendingchildhood/pages/attachments/2014/11/18/finalaianreport.pdf.

        As this recommendation suggests, Congress must prioritize the
    safety and well-being of all children. According to the advisory
    committee, ``AI/AN children are generally served best when tribes have
    the opportunity to take ownership of the programs and resources they
    provide.'' \2\ The recommendations below suggest funding increases that
    will provide tribes with sufficient child welfare funding and avoid
    unnecessary restraint on tribal decisionmaking. We urge Congress, as
    they make budgetary decisions for fiscal year 2016, to not forget AI/AN
    children and families.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        priority program recommendation
        Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act
    Recommendation.--Appropriate for the first time $43 million for the
    three grant programs under this law--$10 million for the Indian Child
    Abuse Treatment Grant Program, $30 million for the Indian Child
    Protection and Family Violence Prevention Grant Program, and $3 million
    for the Indian Child Resource and Family Service Centers Program to
    protect AI/AN children from child abuse and neglect.
        The Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act
    (ICPFVPA), Public Law No. 101-630 (1991), was enacted to fill gaps in
    tribal child welfare services--specifically child protection and child
    abuse treatment--and to ensure better coordination between child
    welfare and domestic violence programs. The act authorizes funding for
    two tribal programs: (1) the Indian Child Protection and Family
    Violence Prevention Program, which funds prevention programming and
    supports investigations of family violence and emergency shelter
    services; and (2) the Treatment of Victims of Child Abuse and Neglect
    program, which funds treatment programs for victims of child abuse. It
    also authorizes funding to create Indian Child Resource and Family
    Service Centers at each of the BIA regional offices.
        Child abuse prevention funding is vital to the well-being and
    financial stability of AI/AN communities. Beyond the emotional trauma
    that maltreatment inflicts, victims of child maltreatment are more
    likely to require special education services, more likely to be
    involved in the juvenile and criminal justice systems, more likely to
    have long-term mental health needs, and have lower earning potential
    than their peers.\3\ Financially, child maltreatment costs tribal
    communities and the United States $210,012 per victim.\4\ Child abuse
    prevention funding is essential, therefore, to the well-being of
    families and the social and economic development of tribal communities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Fang, X., Brown, D. S., Florence, C. S., & Mercy, J. A. (2012).
    The economic burden of child maltreatment in the United States and
    implications for prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 156-65. doi:
    10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.10.006.
        \4\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Therefore, tribes, like States, need adequate resources to
    effectively prevent and respond to family violence in their
    communities. However, unlike States, tribes do not have access to the
    key Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) child protection
    programs, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) Basic
    Funding Program and the Social Services Block Grant (Title XX). The
    programs authorized under ICPFVPA were created to fill this gap but,
    without appropriation, tribes are left without funding for child
    protection and child abuse prevention services.
                         other program recommendations
        ICWA Funding Recommendation.--Increase the ICWA On or Near
    Reservation Program appropriations by $2.5 million and the Self-
    Governance and Consolidated Tribal Government ICWA On or Near
    Reservation appropriations by $2.5 million, for a total increase of $5
    million to help tribes meet the needs of their communities. Appropriate
    an additional $5 million for the authorized, but unfunded, Off-
    Reservation ICWA Program to ensure ICWA protects all children.
        As the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on American Indian/
    Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence recently stated ``If AI/AN
    children today are to be provided with a reliable safety net, the
    letter and spirit of [the Indian Child Welfare Act] must be enforced.''
    \5\ ICWA provides protections to AI/AN families in State child welfare
    and judicial systems. It also recognizes the sovereign authority of
    tribal nations to provide child welfare services and adjudicate child
    welfare matters. To effectuate these provisions, ICWA authorized grant
    programs to fund child welfare services on or near reservations and for
    ICWA support in off-reservation, urban Indian programs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office
    of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2014). Attorney
    General's Advisory Committee on American Indian/Alaska Native Children
    Exposed to Violence: Ending violence so children can thrive (p. 75).
    Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/
    defendingchildhood/pages/attachments/2014/11/18/finalaianreport.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ICWA funding is the foundation of most tribal child welfare
    programs. Compliance with the letter and spirit of ICWA necessitates
    adequate funding so that tribal child welfare programs can monitor
    State court proceedings and provide community-based, culturally
    appropriate services to children and families. At the time that ICWA
    was passed in 1978, Congress estimated that between $26 million--$62
    million would be required to fully fund tribal child welfare programs
    on or near reservations (S. Rep. No. 95-597, p. 19 (1977)). Even after
    an important fiscal year 2015 increase, for which we thank Congress,
    current funding levels fall far short of this estimate--especially
    after adjusting for inflation. Funding must be increased by an
    additional $5 million dollars, $2.5 to the On-Reservation program and
    $2.5 million for the Tribal Priority Allocation.
        According to the 2010 Census, 67 percent of AI/AN people lived off-
    reservation. These children and families are best served when State
    child welfare systems are not only working with the child's tribe, but
    also with urban Indian child welfare programs. These programs provide
    assistance to States and the child's tribe, and provide culturally
    appropriate child welfare services. For this reason, ICWA authorizes
    child welfare funding for urban Indian programs. When funded (until
    1996), off-reservation programs provided important services such as
    recruitment of Native foster care homes, child abuse prevention
    efforts, and culturally appropriate case management and wraparound
    services. When funding stopped, the majority of these programs
    disintegrated even as the population of AI/AN children off-reservation
    increased. This funding must be reinstated. We recommend a $5 million
    appropriation for this program.
        Welfare Assistance Recommendation.--Increase current funding levels
    to $80 million to provide a safety net for Native families and assist
    grandfamilies and other kinship caregivers in tribal communities.
        The Welfare Assistance line item provides five important forms of
    funding to AI/AN families: (1) general assistance, (2) child
    assistance, (3) non-medical institution or custodial care of adults,
    (4) burial assistance, and (5) emergency assistance. These programs
    often provide the assistance necessary to help a family make ends meet,
    prevent neglect, and keep their children safely in the home. Currently
    the need far exceeds the funding provided by this program.
        AI/AN adults on reservations--including parents and kinship
    caregivers--are unemployed at a rate more than two times the
    unemployment rate for the total population.\6\ Thirty-four percent of
    AI/AN children live in households with incomes below the poverty line
    as compared to 20.7 percent of children nationwide.\7\ AI/AN families
    live much closer to financial crisis than the average American family.
    AI/AN child welfare programs and social service agencies need to have
    the resources necessary to support families in times of crisis and
    uncertainty to promote stability and prevent abuse. In light of these
    identified needs and current underfunding, funds should be increased by
    $5 million to provide tribal governments the resources they need to
    support families and children in crisis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Stegman, E. & Ebarb, A. (2010). Sequestering opportunity for
    American Indians/Alaska Natives. Center for American Progress. (Para.
    1). Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/
    news/2013/11/26/80056/sequestering-opportunity-for-american-indians-
    and-alaska-natives/.
        \7\ U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources
    and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau. (2013).
    Child health USA 2012 (p. 9). Rockville, MD: Author.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Social Services Recommendation.--Increase funding by $6 million as
    recommended by the President's proposed Tiwahe Initiative for a total
    appropriation of $47 million so that child social services programs and
    families in Indian Country can be strengthened.
        The BIA Social Services Grant Program provides a wide array of
    family support services filling many funding gaps for tribal programs,
    and ensuring Federal staff and technical assistance for these programs.
    These funds are desperately needed. A recent assessment of BIA social
    services found that, in large part due to inadequate funding:

            BIA and tribal social services staff prepare, authorize, and
            document various social services activities as part of their
            daily activities. Some tribes reported frequent vacancies and
            staff turnover in social services programs and mentioned a need
            for BIA to provide basic guidance and supporting materials to
            ensure continuity of services throughout tribal communities . .
            . Technical support is one area where roles and
            responsibilities remain unclear, as demonstrated by BIA's
            social services contracts with tribes. The contracts, or annual
            funding agreements, State that BIA will provide technical
            support with social services issues as needed. Contrary to
            these agreements, we uncovered reports of insufficient or
            nonexistent technical support. In some cases, tribes could wait
            up to three weeks before receiving a response, or they might
            receive no response at all.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General.
    (2012). Management of social services in BIA: Opportunity for action
    (Report No. WR-EV-BIA-0001-2012). (pp. 5-6) Retrieved from http://
    www.doi.gov/oig/reports/upload/WR-EV-BIA-0001-2012Public.pdf.

        As this assessment describes, the program is drastically
    underfunded, and tribal programs, families, and children suffer as a
    result. In fiscal year 2015 this program saw a $5 million increase.
    This is to be commended and the momentum must continue. Another $6
    million must be appropriated for this program, as suggested in the
    President's budget to support the Tiwahe (family) Initiative--children
    and families depend on it.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Institutes for Water Resources
        Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:

        I am Sharon Megdal, Director of the University of Arizona Water
    Resources Research Center. Thank you for this opportunity to submit
    this testimony on behalf of the National Institutes for Water Resources
    (NIWR) in support of the Water Resources Research Act program, a
    program funded as part of the U.S. Geological Survey's budget. I
    specifically want to thank you for this subcommittee's strong
    continuing support for the Water Resources Research Act.
        The Water Resources Research Act, enacted in 1964, is designed to
    expand and provide more effective coordination of the Nation's water
    research. The Act establishes water resources research institutes
    (Institutes) at lead institutions in each State, as well as for
    Washington D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Federated
    States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
    and American Samoa.
        Congress created the Institutes to fulfill three main objectives:
      --Develop, through research, new technology and more efficient
            methods for resolving local, State and national water resources
            challenges;
      --Train water scientists and engineers through on-the-job
            participation in research; and
      --Facilitate water research coordination and the application of
            research results through the dissemination of information and
            technology transfers.

        Since 1964, the Water Resources Research Institutes have fulfilled
    these three objectives in partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey.
    The Institutes, managed by a director in each State, promote water-
    related research, education, and technology transfer at the national,
    State, and local level through grants and sponsored projects. The
    program is the only federally mandated research network that focuses on
    applied water resource research, education, training, and outreach.
        The Water Resources Research Institutes program is a State-based
    network dedicated to solving problems of water quantity (supply) and
    quality in partnership with universities, local governments, the water
    industry, and the general public. Each State contributes a minimum of a
    2:1 match, thus ensuring that local and regional priorities are
    addressed and the impact of Federal dollars is maximized. The
    Institutes are a direct, vital link between Federal water interests and
    needs and the expertise located within the States' research
    universities.
        The Water Resources Research Institutes program also provides a
    mechanism for ensuring State, regional, and national coordination of
    water resources research, future water professionals' education, and
    dissemination and utilization of results and outcomes. In fact, the
    Institutes collaborated with 150 State agencies, 180 Federal agencies,
    and more than 165 local and municipal offices.
        There are two grant components of the USGS Water Resources Research
    Institutes program. The first component is the base grant program,
    which is divided equally among the Institutes. Institutes use these
    funds to leverage research and/or student training through a statewide
    competitive grants process. NIWR requests the subcommittee provide
    continued funding for the base grant program, which supports research
    focused on water supply and quality, technology transfer, education,
    and outreach to the water-user community by the Institutes. The base
    program provides seed grants, which are used to develop future research
    proposals and secure additional external funds.
        The second grant component is a national competitive grants
    program, supporting research on water resources problems that are
    regional or national in nature. In 2014 this program received 68
    applications, which underwent rigorous peer review from a national
    panel. The national review panel selected a total of 4 grants. The
    agency awarded grants for research addressing water supply and quality
    issues facing our Nation to Purdue University, the University of Iowa,
    the University of Maryland, and the University of Nebraska.
        The Institutes specialize in identifying problems within their
    States, developing solutions to those problems, and engaging with the
    public to implement those solutions. One of the program's greatest
    strengths is that the research funded by each Institute is tailored to
    that State's needs, based on priorities set through consultation with
    an advisory panel. While these projects usually focus on State needs,
    they also address water issues relevant to our Nation. The following
    are five examples of research conducted by Institutes across the
    country.
        My Institute, the University of Arizona Water Resources Research
    Center (WRRC), is an Extension and research unit in the College of
    Agriculture and Life Sciences. Groundwater has been and continues to be
    a critical water resource for Arizona and the Nation. Over the years,
    Water Resources Research Act (WRRA) funding has supported considerable
    work on groundwater quantity and quality. Projects have looked at
    specific contaminants to determine their potential distribution and
    impacts, to then develop innovative and affordable methods of
    remediation.
      --A 2013 project continued development and testing of a novel
            approach that uses multiple models to quantify uncertainty in
            future hydrologic conditions, along with economic cost models
            to quantify the risk associated with water resource scarcity.
      --A 2014-2015 project investigates groundwater governance practices
            in order to examine how they contribute to improved groundwater
            management. For this project, WRRA funding, which was highly
            leveraged by considerable State funding, supported case study
            research by a graduate student, who also helped prepare the
            journal article, ``Groundwater Governance in the United States:
            Common Priorities and Challenges''.
      --In addition, WRRA funding is critical to the University of Arizona
            Water Resources Research Center's highly regarded information
            transfer activities, which focus on making water resources
            science and information accessible to stakeholders in Arizona,
            nationally, and beyond.
        In 2015, the Alaska Water Center sponsored the first comprehensive
    effort to assess stream temperature regimes across Southeast Alaska. In
    a project funded through the University of Alaska--Fairbanks Water and
    Environmental Research Center, a team of researchers at the University
    of Alaska Southeast will install 50 monitoring sites to evaluate stream
    temperatures under varying land use, geologic, hydrologic and climatic
    conditions. As the reproductive success of Pacific salmon is highly
    sensitive to stream temperature in the spawning grounds, understanding
    the factors impacting Southeast Alaska stream temperatures will promote
    more effective fisheries planning and management in the future.
        For decades, the New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute has
    played an instrumental role in helping to design water policy and
    manage resources in the State. Recently, the Institute began developing
    New Mexico's first comprehensive integrated statewide water assessment
    that will be used to address the State's water scarcity problems, help
    with the State's planning and management efforts, and inform the
    State's water policy decisions. The Institute will also soon be
    providing information supporting the development of groundwater flow
    and hydrochemical models that assist in water-resource planning along
    the New Mexico/Texas/Mexico border region.
        The California Water Center is working with fruit and wine growers
    to help maximize crop yields with a minimum amount of irrigation. As
    this subcommittee knows, competition for water resources in California
    is increasing between urban and agricultural entities, necessitating
    the need for more accurate information on the water requirements of
    important crops. Knowledge of a crop's water footprint allows for
    informed irrigation management decisions. The research funded by WRRA
    investigates the drought responses, water footprint, and wine quality
    through the imposition of water deficits to increase understanding of
    water use and fruit quality for specific cultivars, therefore allowing
    growers to apply a minimum amount of irrigation water to sustain
    profitable production levels.
        Recently, the Tennessee Water Resources Research Center supported a
    project at the University of Tennessee aimed at developing planning
    tools to prioritize locations for stream restoration projects. The work
    will especially assist smaller municipalities to plan and implement
    stormwater controls and stream improvements. Stream restoration is a
    billion-dollar industry that results in healthier waterways within
    communities as evidenced by improved water quality and greater
    biodiversity.
        For five decades the Institutes, in partnership with USGS, have
    provided significant research results and services to our Nation and
    proven successful at bringing new water professionals into the work
    force. The National Institutes for Water Resources recommends the
    subcommittee provide $8,800,000 to the USGS for the Water Resources
    Research Institute program for fiscal year 2016. We respectfully submit
    that, even in times of fiscal challenges, investing in programs at USGS
    focused on data collection and the reliability and quality of water
    supplies is critically important to the health, safety, quality of
    life, and economic vitality of communities across the Nation.
        Thank you, on behalf of all the Institute directors, for the
    opportunity to submit testimony and for the subcommittee's strong
    support of the Water Resources Research Institutes program.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Onsite Wastewater Recycling
                                  Association
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony
    regarding the proposed Environmental Protection Agency fiscal year 2016
    budget. My name is Tom Fritts and I am the vice president of
    Residential Sewage Treatment Company of Grandview Missouri, near Kansas
    City. I am also the past president of the National Onsite Wastewater
    Recycling Association. The purpose of my testimony is to request
    increased funding for our industry from the Environmental Protection
    Agency, specifically from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program
    and from the EPA Office of Wastewater.
        I would first like to describe what the onsite industry is. It is
    the segment of the wastewater industry which provides sewage treatment
    when there is no conventional sewer available to do so. The most widely
    known onsite systems within our industry are septic tanks; however, it
    encompasses a wide range of technologies which are designed to serve
    individual homes, a cluster of homes, a subdivision or small community,
    as well as commercial and industrial complexes. While there are slight
    differences in definition, onsite systems are also called decentralized
    or distributed wastewater treatment systems.
        Regardless of the type of system, they all share a common trait.
    They take advantage of the vast capacity of soil to remove or transform
    pollutants that are in the effluent as it percolates through the soil,
    thereby avoiding point discharges to surface waters and maintaining the
    quality and quantity of our groundwater.
        By definition, onsite wastewater management systems are a ``green
    technology'' because treated effluent recharges local aquifers. A new
    innovation in decentralized wastewater management is the reuse or
    recycling of treated effluent. With appropriate safeguards, local
    regulations or bylaws may allow the treated water to be used for
    irrigation, toilet and urinal flushing or make-up water for commercial
    boilers. These applications reduce the demand for potable water and aid
    in the protection and preservation of the available water sources.
        Ours is a growing and evolving industry supported by small
    businesses across the country. In fact, our organization estimates that
    the onsite wastewater industry employs as many as 150,000 people,
    virtually all of whom work for small businesses in the private sector.
    These include not only the companies which manufacture the components
    of the onsite system, but also the engineers who design the systems and
    the contractors who install, operate, and maintain them.
        More than 65 years ago, my father-in-law who started the family
    business (which is now in the 3rd generation) would talk about
    installers who would dig septic tank excavations with a shovel. Most
    anyone with a strong back could be in the business. Today it takes
    someone with a strong mind, an entrepreneurial spirit and a knack for
    running a small business.
        In my lifetime I have seen the humble back yard septic tank evolve
    into a range of sophisticated wastewater treatment solutions that lets
    families live wherever they want and lets businesses locate nearby to
    serve them, and even provides entire communities with options for
    treating wastewater so they don't have to automatically default to an
    expensive and disruptive sewer project. In fact, I have even begun to
    see utilities start to utilize decentralized treatment systems as
    distributed infrastructure within their utility service area.
        Onsite and decentralized wastewater treatment systems are an
    effective solution to protecting water quality. They are a valuable
    component of watershed management plans and sustainable development
    programs. Onsite and decentralized wastewater treatment systems can
    benefit both urban and rural areas by providing affordable solutions
    and reducing risk to the environment in unusual situations and
    difficult locations. These systems can provide optimal water management
    to homes, businesses and industrial centers. Their recycling capability
    can support water resource management goals in many arid areas of the
    country.
        Their use can support municipal wastewater treatment infrastructure
    by providing options for pretreatment and sewer mining, thus offering
    an alternative when centralized plants have reached or exceeded
    capacity. In addition, increasing numbers of utilities are viewing
    decentralized wastewater treatment as a critical component of their
    future growth strategies, because they add sustainability and
    resilience to their infrastructure while providing them with a modular,
    and cost-effective growth option that reduces their reliance on
    traditional centralized treatment facilities. As society demands more
    efficient use of financial resources and environmentally sustainable
    wastewater management, the use of managed decentralized wastewater
    treatment systems can be an effective solution which satisfies both
    imperatives.
        For smaller communities, decentralized and onsite systems can
    usually be built and maintained for less money than a centralized
    sewage treatment facility. Virtually any treatment technology employed
    in a centralized sewage treatment plan can be found in onsite
    wastewater treatment systems. In fact, onsite systems can be designed
    to provide equal or better levels of treatment as compared to
    conventional sewage treatment plants.
        There is one other very important benefit . . . they safely help
    replenish our dwindling underground aquifers through recharge of
    treated water onsite. While homeowners and many centralized sewage
    treatment systems draw their drinking water from underground aquifers,
    only onsite systems are designed to replenish aquifers. Most
    centralized sewage treatment systems discharge their treated water
    directly to rivers or streams where it ultimately ends up in an ocean.
    Using U.S. Census numbers from 2010 it can be estimated that onsite
    wastewater systems discharge an average of 9.9 billion gallons of water
    per day back to the soil. That is more than 3.5 trillion gallons per
    year.
        Nearly 85 million Americans--more than 25 percent of the country--
    are being served by the onsite industry and that number is growing.
    Because of this, technology has exploded. It sometimes reminds me of
    the computer industry of 30 years ago. There are many new decentralized
    technologies which have come online which treat wastewater in ways
    which are cheaper and more efficient and effective.
        In fact, nearly two decades ago the Environmental Protection Agency
    endorsed onsite wastewater systems. Their 1997 Report to Congress on
    Use of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems stated that this
    technology is a viable solution to treating and dispersing wastewater.
        Sadly, despite EPA's recognition that onsite wastewater treatment
    systems are a permanent part of our Nation's wastewater infrastructure,
    EPA has largely ignored the myriad challenges faced by our industry.
    Among these challenges are homeowner education, technical support, lack
    of support for research, replacement of failing systems and
    professional education.
        If I have convinced you that we are an important part of the
    solution to aquifer depletion, small business growth, infrastructure
    development and protection of public health and the environment, I'm
    sure you are curious to hear how much money we want . . . We don't want
    any. . . .  At least we don't want any new money.
        We have two requests. Currently more than 99.5 percent of the EPA
    Clean Water State Revolving Fund goes to municipal wastewater and
    stormwater projects. Less than \1/2\ of 1 percent goes to onsite
    wastewater activities--in spite of the fact that more than 25 percent
    of the country is served by these systems. This pattern of funding has
    been consistent all the way back to the start of SRF funding in the
    early 1990s. We believe it is fundamentally unfair that for more than
    two decades, the 85 million taxpayers who use onsite systems have been
    subsidizing the government-owned treatment plants that serve the rest
    of the country. The challenges faced by our industry are no less
    important or urgent than those faced by municipal utilities.
        The fact that they require a different set of solutions does not
    diminish the need to address them.
        For fiscal year 2016 and beyond we request that at least 20 percent
    of EPA's annual contribution to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund be
    specifically designated to fund projects related to the construction,
    management or remediation of onsite and decentralized wastewater
    treatment systems and the 85 million taxpayers who use them. We further
    request that those funds be designated for disbursement and
    distribution by the authority in each State which has direct regulatory
    oversight and enforcement authority over residential onsite wastewater
    treatment plants.
        Second, EPA has exactly one full-time employee (FTE) who focuses on
    Decentralized Wastewater. We would like to see at least 20 percent of
    the Office of Wastewater's funding be dedicated to increasing staffing
    and resources for the Office of Decentralized Wastewater. Among the
    specific requests:
      --Place at least one FTE in each EPA regional office to specifically
            support State and regional initiatives involving decentralized
            wastewater treatment.
      --Add at least one ``circuit rider'' with expertise in decentralized
            wastewater to each region to support decentralized wastewater
            project planning and implementation, regardless of the funding
            source (i.e. USDA, HUD, etc.).
      --Designate a specialist in the EPA Clean Water State Revolving Fund
            Branch to assist State funding authorities in revising policies
            and project scoring systems to ensure fair inclusion of onsite/
            decentralized systems.
      --Designate a second specialist in the EPA Clean Water State
            Revolving Fund Branch to proactively assist communities seeking
            funding for decentralized projects in navigating the often
            confusing maze of rules and regulations surrounding CWSRF and
            other sources of Federal funds.
      --Significantly expand EPA's training of industry professionals
            through grants to entities which exclusively specialize in
            decentralized training.
      --Provide increased direct financial support to the National
            Environmental Service Center and the Small Flows clearinghouse
            so that homeowners, business owners and industry professionals
            have an up-to-date source of information related to onsite and
            decentralized technology.
      --Provide funding for EPA's Septic Smart program so that its
            materials can be more easily distributed to homeowners.
      --Provide direct financial and staff support to State onsite
            wastewater regulators to facilitate increased training of
            industry regulators and mechanisms to support better
            enforcement of State onsite regulations.
      --Expand research grants and onsite wastewater training centers and
            demonstration projects to help local decision-makers and design
            engineers better understand the benefits of onsite and
            decentralized wastewater treatment systems and technologies.

        On behalf of the National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association
    and the onsite industry we thank you for your time.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Opera Center of America (OPERA
                                    America)
        Ms. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, OPERA
    America is grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf
    of OPERA America, its board of directors and its 2,000 organizational
    and individual members. We strongly urge the Subcommittee on Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies in the Committee on Appropriations to
    designate a total of $155 million to the National Endowment for the
    Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2016. This testimony and the funding
    examples described below are intended to highlight the importance of
    Federal investment in the arts, so critical to sustaining a vibrant
    cultural community throughout the country.
        Opera is a continuously growing art form that can address the
    diverse needs and backgrounds of our communities. New opera companies
    are being established in communities that have never before had access
    to live performances. OPERA America's membership includes 132
    professional company members representing 41 States. Sixty-six percent
    of these companies were established after 1970 and over 46 percent were
    established since 1980, indicating the growth of opera throughout
    America over the last 45 years.
        In the 2013-2014 season, OPERA America members were involved with
    37 world premieres. Since 1900, 950 new operatic works have been
    produced by professional opera companies in North America. Of that, 478
    new operatic works have been produced since 2000. The growth in number
    and quality of American opera corresponds directly to the investment of
    the NEA's earlier investment in the New American Works program of the
    former Opera-Music Theater Program.
        Beyond the opera house, opera companies are finding new and
    exciting ways to bring the essence of opera to other local theaters and
    community centers, frequently with new and innovative works that
    reflect the diverse cultures of the cities they serve. Strong
    partnerships with local schools extend the civic reach of opera
    companies as they introduce children to a multi-media art form and
    discover promising young talent.
    The NEA is a great investment in the economic growth of every community
        Despite diminished resources, including a budget that has decreased
    by over $20 million since 2010, the NEA awarded more than 2,100 grants
    in 2014, totaling more than $100 million in appropriated funds. These
    grants nurture the growth and artistic excellence of thousands of arts
    organizations and artists in every corner of the country. NEA grants
    also preserve and enhance our Nation's diverse cultural heritage. The
    modest public investment in the Nation's cultural life results in both
    new and classic works of art, reaching the residents of all 50 States
    and in every congressional district.
        The return of the Federal Government's small investment in the arts
    is striking. In 2013, the American creative sector was measured by the
    Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BEA and the NEA
    developed an ``Arts and Cultural Production Satellite Account'' which
    calculated the arts and culture sector's contributions to the gross
    domestic product (GDP) at 4.3 percent (or $699 billion) of current-
    dollar GDP in 2012. Additionally, the nonprofit performing arts
    industry generates $135.2 billion annually in economic activity,
    supports more than 4.13 million full-time equivalent jobs in the arts,
    and returns $9.59 billion in Federal taxes.
        On average each NEA grant leverages at least $9 from other State,
    local, and private sources. Few other Federal investments realize such
    economic benefits, not to mention the intangible benefits that only the
    arts make possible. Even in the face of cutbacks in the recent years,
    the NEA continues to be a beacon for arts organizations across the
    country.
        The return on investments is not only found in dollars. In 2012,
    2.2 million people volunteered 210 million hours with arts and cultural
    organizations, totaling an estimated value of $5.2 billion--a
    demonstration that citizens value the arts in their communities.
    NEA Grants at Work
        Past NEA funding has directly supported projects in which arts
    organizations, artists, schools and teachers collaborated to provide
    opportunities for adults and children to create, perform, and respond
    to artistic works. NEA funding has also made the art form more widely
    available in all States, including isolated rural areas and inner
    cities; indeed, NEA funded projects cross all racial, geographic, and
    socioeconomic lines.
        The NEA awarded nearly 2,000 grants last year through its largest
    grant programs, to nonprofit arts organizations for projects that
    encourage artistic creativity and that bring the arts to millions of
    Americans. In a striking example of Federal/State partnership, 40
    percent of NEA's program dollars are granted to State arts agencies,
    conditional on each State devoting its own appropriated funds. These
    grants, combined with State legislative appropriations and other
    dollars, are distributed widely to strengthen arts infrastructures and
    ensure broad access to arts.

        The following are some examples of the impact of NEA funding on
    opera programs from the NEA's 2014 and 2015 Art Works Program:
    Santa Fe Opera
    $75,000
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
        To support the world premiere of Cold Mountain by composer Jennifer
    Higdon and librettist Gene Scheer. Initially inspired by Homer's
    Ulysses, Charles Frazier's novel, Cold Mountain, tells the story of a
    Confederate soldier who is wounded, deserts the army, and returns home
    to reunite with the woman he left behind when he enlisted to fight in
    the Civil War. Performances will be presented at the John Crosby
    Theatre.
    Opera Memphis
    $30,000
    Memphis, Tennessee
        To support ``30 Days of Opera.'' Launched in 2012 as an outreach
    initiative with the goal of breaking down barriers that prevent new
    audiences from attending opera, the festival has successfully reached
    more than 50,000 people with more than 100 performances in at least 80
    different locations. The project includes admission-free concerts,
    opera performances for schools, an original children's opera, pop-up or
    guerilla opera performances, and a family day at the opera.
    Lyric Opera of Kansas City
    $35,000
    Kansas City, Missouri
        To support the regional premiere of Silent Night by composer Kevin
    Puts and librettist Mark Campbell. Adapted from Christian Carion's
    screenplay for the film, Joyeux Noel (2005), the Pulitzer Prize-winning
    opera is based on a true story that occurred during one of the
    bloodiest wars in human history. On Christmas Eve, 1914, along the
    western front, peace broke out when the Scottish, French, and German
    troops engaged in combat near the French border, defied their superior
    officers, and agreed amongst themselves to a cease-fire in order to
    celebrate the holiday and bury their dead. Performances took place at
    the Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts in February and March.
    New Orleans Opera Association
    $12,000
    New Orleans, Louisiana
        To support Verdi's Falstaff. Outreach activities will include an
    artist roundtable, free ``Nuts and Bolts'' opera lectures prior to each
    performance, and multimedia study guides that will be distributed to
    public, private, and charter schools in the region. The production will
    make use of video projection technology for scenic design.
    Long Beach Opera
    $30,000
    Long Beach, California
        To support the U.S. premier of Marilyn Forever by composer Gavin
    Bryars and librettist Marilyn Bowering. Based on Bowering's book of
    poetry, Anyone Can See That I Love You, the work explores the life and
    myth of Marilyn Monroe. The opera will go beyond the American icon's
    persona to reveal a portrait of an intelligent woman filled with
    conflicting emotions and ambitions. The semi-classical composition
    pairs orchestral music with a jazz trio.
        Over 50 million people experienced opera on stage, via radio and
    TV, in cinemas, and at stadiums, parks and alternative venues through
    one of OPERA America's Professional Company Members in the 2012-2013
    season. The collective expenses of member opera companies totaled over
    $1 billion. Total government support, including city, county, State,
    and Federal, amounted to $118 million, representing 10 percent of total
    operating income.
        Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending
    Federal tax dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered
    from a 40 percent budget cut in the mid-nineties and found its budget
    further decreased by $22 million since 2010, leaving its programs
    seriously underfunded. We urge you to continue toward restoration and
    increase the NEA funding allocation to $155 million for fiscal year 16.
        On behalf of OPERA America, thank you for considering this request.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Parks Conservation Association
        Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on
    behalf of National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). Founded in
    1919, NPCA is the leading national, independent voice for protecting
    and enhancing America's National Park System for present and future
    generations. On behalf of our one million members and supporters from
    every State in the union, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to
    provide our views regarding the National Park Service budget for the
    System's centennial year.
        NPCA requests for fiscal year 2016 appropriated funding for the
    National Park Service of $3,047,707,000, which is equal to the
    President's appropriated request, but rejecting his request to reduce
    National Heritage Area funding by $9,737,000. This includes NPCA's
    priorities this year of meeting the President's request for:
      --$239 million in restored funding for park operations;
      --$113 million in restored funding for construction; and
      --a $40 million increase in appropriated funds for the Centennial
            Challenge.

        This is a critical time for our National Park System and the
    National Park Service, which celebrate their 100th birthday next year.
    Our parks, though beloved by Americans from all walks of life and
    celebrated worldwide, are under significant financial strain. The
    centennial of this national treasure is a time to redouble our
    commitment to our national parks, local economies, and to the future
    generations for whom we hold them in trust.
        We are hopeful that Congress will be able to address this year's
    budget and appropriations cycle through a more orderly and reasonable
    process than has too frequently been the case in recent years, yet are
    fearful that the Interior bill could once again face challenges. We
    acknowledge the tremendous challenge the subcommittee faces in setting
    thoughtful spending priorities for the varied Federal agencies and
    programs under its jurisdiction, and are grateful for your consistent
    support for national parks given the constraints you face. NPCA
    believes the allocation provided to the subcommittee in recent years
    has been insufficient and emblematic of the unfortunate squeeze that is
    being forced on domestic discretionary funding in general. NPCA will
    continue to be a leader in calling for that to change. We are grateful
    to the full committee for helping to ensure the subcommittee had the
    resources to cover programs like Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) in
    fiscal year 2015, which was essential to the modest increase you were
    able to provide our parks. That said, we believe:
      --the sequester must be repealed and, at a minimum, the original
            Budget Control Act (BCA) caps restored;
      --the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act should be enacted; and
      --the Interior subcommittee allocation is unlikely to ever be
            sufficient to meet the full needs of the Land and Water
            Conservation Fund (LWCF), the National Park System backlog, or
            the Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Secure Rural Schools
            (SRS) programs, which should receive mandatory support outside
            of the Interior bill.

        Although the subcommittee clearly is facing challenges, we believe
    our request is modest. To mark the 50th anniversary of the National
    Park System in 1966, President Eisenhower initiated ``Mission 66,''
    which invested over $1 billion in national park enhancements and
    improvements to visitor facilities throughout the system--$7.2 billion
    in today's dollars. By comparison, the Obama administration's proposed
    new 3-year investment for the centennial is worth \1/7\ of that amount,
    and the $433 million portion they request from this subcommittee for
    fiscal year 2016 is equivalent to 6 percent of what Mission 66
    provided. Adjusted for inflation, the proposed $239 million increase
    for park operations and $113 million increase for construction
    essentially restores park budgets to fiscal year 2010 levels.
        Visitation to our national parks can fluctuate, but rose 7 percent
    from 2013 to 2014, to 292 million people. Joshua Tree, Rocky Mountain,
    Grand Teton and Glacier National Parks saw record-breaking visitation
    in 2014. Visitation is expected to continue to grow with increased
    visibility of our parks for their Centennial, which has obvious
    implications for National Park Service funding needs.
        For many years now, NPCA has shared with the subcommittee the
    impacts of compounded budget cuts on the National Park Service and the
    impacts of those cuts to visitors and communities surrounding national
    parks. We applaud efforts of the subcommittee in fiscal year 2015 in
    securing a $39 million increase in park operations funding, as well as
    a $10 million reinvestment in the Centennial Challenge, first proposed
    by the President George W. Bush administration, and now by President
    Obama, to leverage private donations with Federal dollars.
        However, even with those modest increases, the budget to operate
    our national parks has been cut by nearly 7 percent in today's dollars
    compared to 5 years ago. The National Park Service has experienced
    operations shortfalls ranging from estimates of $500 million to as much
    as $800 million annually. The investment in operations in fiscal year
    2015 provided some relief by addressing fixed cost increases such as
    cost-of-living adjustments for staff, rent, fuel, utility, and
    healthcare benefits. Park managers continue to do the best they can
    with reduced levels of funding to operate and maintain our national
    treasures and saving from employee attrition. However, park managers
    will share with you that operating a park with insufficient staff has
    started to compromise their ability to protect resources from damages
    and provide adequate visitor services. The result of chronic funding
    deficiencies, particularly due to the sequester but not limited to it,
    have been:
      --fewer park rangers and other staff providing day-to-day maintenance
            of parks;
      --parks and park facilities opening later and closing earlier or more
            frequently;
      --visitor centers operating with fewer rangers or closing altogether
            due to lack of staff;
      --compromised science and resource protection and decreased day-to-
            day maintenance;
      --fewer backcountry patrols to ensure visitor safety and prevent
            poaching and looting; and
      --other impacts that compromise resources and public enjoyment and
            safety.

        Additionally, over the past decade, the National Park Service
    construction budget has been cut by over $227 million, or 62 percent in
    today's dollars, contributing to the now $11.5 billion deferred
    maintenance backlog. Deficiencies in operations and transportation
    funding have also contributed to the maintenance backlog, with the
    parks receiving about $350 million less than necessary each year to
    keep the backlog from growing.
        Polling we have shared with this subcommittee several times
    conducted by Hart Research Associates and North Star Opinion Research
    indicated that 9 out of 10 likely voters agree that funding for our
    national parks should be held stable or increased. A strong bipartisan
    majority of Americans (73 percent) believe it is important that the
    parks are fully restored and ready for the national park centennial in
    2016. The broad support for our national parks is reflected in the
    membership of the National Park Second Century Action Coalition, which
    NPCA chairs and includes the active membership of a broad cross-section
    of the travel and outdoor industries, historic preservation and
    conservation interests, national park friends groups and other
    philanthropic organizations, park concessioners, and other national
    park supporters.
        NPCA and the coalition advocated, and the Obama administration has
    proposed a multi-year centennial initiative that builds on the one
    proposed by the George W. Bush administration. The administration
    proposes to reinvest in national parks and to begin addressing the
    maintenance backlog both through discretionary and mandatory funding
    approaches. The fact that Presidents Bush and Obama both have supported
    strong centennial efforts provides further evidence of broad,
    nonpartisan support for the parks, which I know this subcommittee
    shares. The question now is: what will Congress do? We sincerely hope
    this subcommittee and your colleagues outside this subcommittee will
    seize this moment to produce a legacy that will be looked upon fondly
    both now and 50-to-100 years from now.
        The proposed $239 million increase for park operations focuses
    predominantly on enhancing cyclic maintenance funding, while also
    enhancing the visitor experience, better connecting young people with
    their natural and cultural heritage, improving the NPS focus on the
    important impacts of the civil rights movement, and helping to ensure
    that park visitors can find a park ranger when they need one. The
    proposed increase of $113 million for the construction account will
    help address the deferred maintenance backlog by supporting the
    replacement and repair of water systems essential to public health and
    the visiting experience, the repair of visitor facilities and trails,
    and the removal of some excess, dilapidated structures.
        Under current allocations established by the BCA and sequester, it
    is difficult to see how this subcommittee will ever be able to address
    the $11.5 billion backlog. So, the administration again proposes, and
    we support, enacting legislation to begin reducing the backlog through
    a mandatory account. An initiative that attacks the backlog would
    produce needed construction jobs while restoring America's treasures. A
    flaw in the administration's proposal, however, is that their budget
    completely ignores the transportation-related half of the backlog.
    Ironically, Mission 66 occurred in the context of investments in the
    Interstate Highway System. Yet, so far, neither the administration nor
    congressional proposals attempt to improve the current $240 million
    allocation for national parks under the transportation bill and reduce
    the backlog.
        On the other hand, the administration was correct to propose
    enacting and funding the Bush administration-proposed Centennial
    Challenge. As we seek to enact legislation to authorize this innovative
    program, we hope the subcommittee is in the position again this year to
    invest discretionary resources to get the Challenge off the ground. By
    building on last year's $10 million investment with the additional $40
    million the administration proposes, the subcommittee can leverage
    scarce Federal dollars to produce even greater non-Federal investments
    for signature projects at parks throughout the country.
        We also support the administration's request of $178 million for
    the National Park Service's portion of the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund, a critical tool for protecting our national parks. Park Service
    LWCF funding has declined from $126 million in fiscal year 2010 to less
    than $100 million in fiscal year 2015, a decline of more than 20
    percent. The administration proposes partially funding LWCF with
    mandatory funds in fiscal year 2016 and providing full funding with
    mandatory funding starting in fiscal year 2017. The acquisition of
    inholdings is directly related to better managing the places in which
    our Nation already has made a significant investment. LWCF boosts
    access and the recreation economy; reduces administrative and
    management costs; reduces the threat of fire and invasive species
    introduction; and has many other benefits.
        We are grateful that this subcommittee has supported two extensions
    of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), which has
    currently been extended through the end of fiscal year 2016. If not
    reauthorized, public lands could lose over $300 million annually to
    support maintenance, education, and other priority projects, with
    national parks making up about \2/3\ of that amount. The administration
    proposes an extension to September 30, 2017 until a long term
    reauthorization can occur. As NPCA continue to advocate for a long-term
    reauthorization of FLREA with the respective authorizing committees, we
    hope the subcommittee will continue to support annual extensions, as
    necessary. Currently, without reauthorization by September 30, 2015,
    the agencies will lose their authority to issue the annual pass.
        Finally, we reject the administration's request to cut the National
    Heritage Area funding by 50 percent, or $9,737,000, as well as
    specifically realign $650,000 of program budget from the Blackstone
    River Valley National Heritage Corridor to the general National Park
    Service operations account.
        Overall, the budget for the National Park Service constitutes less
    than \1/15\ of 1 percent of the Federal budget, and our research shows
    that the average American household pays roughly as much in income
    taxes for their national parks as it would cost to buy a cup of coffee.
    Now is the time to reinvest in our national parks and prepare them for
    another hundred years of service. Every member of this subcommittee
    understands the deep affection the American people feel for our
    national parks. With the Centennial upon us, it is time to make taking
    care of the national parks a priority. We thank this subcommittee for
    your leadership and are eager to work with you to build on the
    investments made last year, and ensure that our national parks are
    protected for generations to come.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to submit written testimony. I
    am happy to respond to any questions you may have.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Parks Second Century Action
                                   Coalition
        Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:

        Next year, Americans will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the
    creation of the modern National Park System. We, the members of the
    National Parks Second Century Action Coalition, write in support of
    increasing the Nation's commitment to our national parks for their
    centennial year in the Fiscal Year 2016 Interior, Environment, and
    Related Agencies Appropriations bill. Specifically, we support:
      --A $239 million increase in the operating budget for the National
            Park Service over fiscal year 2015 levels to restore funds lost
            over the last several years;
      --A $113 million increase in the construction budget for the National
            Park Service over fiscal year 2015 levels to help address the
            deferred maintenance backlog;
      --A $40 million increase for the Centennial Challenge program to
            continue to leverage Federal funding with private donations to
            help restore and modernize our parks;
      --The temporary extension of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement
            Act until a longer term reauthorization can occur; and
      --The continued support for legislation to address the financial
            impacts of wildfire suppression on the Department of the
            Interior budget.

        The National Parks Second Century Action Coalition is made up of
    organizations supporting conservation, recreation, outdoor industry,
    travel and tourism and historic preservation that are dedicated to
    promoting the protection, restoration, and operation of the National
    Park System to benefit the health and well-being of current and future
    generations.
        We are grateful for the real, though modest, reinvestment in park
    operations funding in fiscal year 2015 and we support an additional
    investment of $239 million in fiscal year 2016 so parks can address
    fixed costs, ensure day-to-day maintenance, advance urban youth
    education initiatives, preserve the Civil Rights Movement, and restore
    lost park ranger positions that maintain, restore and interpret parks.
    In addition, an increased investment of $113 million in the
    construction account will help address the $11.5 billion deferred
    maintenance backlog. These requested amounts return the operations and
    construction budgets to fiscal year 2010 levels prior to the harmful
    sequester.
        An increased investment of the Centennial Challenge program by $40
    million will encourage friends groups, foundations, businesses and
    other non-Federal institutions to help restore our parks. An initial
    Federal investment of $40 million several years ago generated $50
    million in donations.
        We ask for continued support to extend the Federal Lands Recreation
    Enhancement Act until a longer term reauthorization can occur. This
    will allow the National Park Service and other Federal land management
    agencies to retain and use nearly $300 million in critically needed fee
    revenue annually.
        Additionally, we urge your support for the reintroduced Wildfire
    Disaster Funding Act. Passage would provide some necessary funding
    relief to the National Park Service and other Interior agency budgets
    while relieving the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest
    Service of the many challenges and inefficiencies with ``fire
    borrowing.''
        As a final note, we recognize that a more substantial investment is
    needed in our national parks as the System turns 100, and thus are
    urging Congress to support the President's request to provide mandatory
    funding to support the Centennial Challenge and address the deferred
    maintenance backlog.
        We recognize and thank you for your ongoing efforts to balance
    limited resources in a difficult fiscal climate. With the National Park
    System Centennial approaching, we ask you to restore funding to our
    national parks to ensure enjoyment for future generations. Our cultural
    and natural heritage, recreational resources, American families who
    love to visit our national parks, and the economies of park-reliant
    communities will all benefit from your commitment to our national parks
    and their gateway communities.
        Thank you for considering our views.

        Sincerely,

    Association for Partners for Public Lands
    American Forests
    American Hiking Society
    American Recreation Coalition
    Appalachian Trail Conservancy
    Coalition of National Park Service Retirees
    Conservancy for Cuyahoga Valley National Park
    The Corps Network
    Destination Marketing Association International
    Friends of Acadia
    Friends of Big Bend National Park
    Friends of Dyke Marsh
    Friends of the Oregon Caves and Chateau
    Friends of Saguaro National Park
    Friends of Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge
    GirlTrek
    Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy
    Grand Canyon Association
    Hispanic Access Fund
    Mount Rushmore Society
    National Council on Public History
    National Military Family Association
    National Parks Conservation Association
    National Park Hospitality Association
    National Trust for Historic Preservation
    National Tour Association
    NatureBridge
    Nature Fund for National Parks
    Outdoor Industry Association
    Public Lands Service Coalition
    Receptive Services Association of America
    The Shenandoah National Park Trust
    Student & Youth Travel Association
    Travel Professionals of Color
    U.S. Travel Association
    U.S. Tour Operators Association
    Western National Parks Association
    Western States Tourism Policy Council
    Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Recreation and Park Association
        Thank you Chairwoman Murkowski, Senator Udall, and other honorable
    members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit written
    testimony pertaining to funding for the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund's (LWCF) State Assistance Program and the Urban Parks and
    Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) in the fiscal year 2016 Interior
    Appropriations bill.
    Overview of Funding Request
        As outlined below, we encourage you to renew the Federal investment
    in the LWCF. However, given that the purpose of the Act is to help
    preserve, develop, and assure access to outdoor recreation facilities
    to strengthen the health of U.S. citizens, we urge you to make a
    greater investment in States and local communities by:
      --Allocating a minimum of 40 percent of fiscal year 2016 LWCF
            appropriations to the State Assistance Program;
      --Continuing the innovative, ``Outdoor Recreation Legacy
            Partnership'' (ORLP) competitive grant program in the amount of
            $5 million;
      --Allocating up to $25 million in funding for UPARR out of total
            fiscal year 2016 LWCF appropriations; and
      --Ensuring that any amount allocated to either the ORLP or UPARR
            program is not done at the expense of the existing core formula
            grants distributed to the States for conservation and active
            recreation.

    About the National Recreation and Park Association
        The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), is a nonprofit
    organization working to advance parks, recreation and environmental
    conservation efforts nationwide. Our members touch the lives of every
    American in every community every day. Through our network of
    approximately 48,000 citizen and professional members we represent park
    and recreation departments in cities, counties, townships, special park
    districts, and regional park authorities, along with citizens concerned
    with ensuring close-to-home access to parks and recreation
    opportunities exist in their communities. Everything we support and do
    is focused through our three pillars: Conservation; Health & Wellness
    and Social Equity.
    40 Percent Allocation of Total LWCF Appropriations to the State
            Assistance Program
        There is a common misconception that LWCF is merely a Federal land
    acquisition program. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the
    LWCF State Assistance Program provides dollar-for-dollar matching
    grants to States and local communities for the construction of outdoor
    recreation projects. The land purchased with LWCF State Assistance
    funding remains the property of the State or local government, and the
    resources developed through the LWCF remain publicly accessible in
    perpetuity.
        The LWCF provides numerous benefits to local communities across
    America, and it does so through a dedicated funding source--namely oil
    and gas leasing revenues from the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Over
    $9 billion was provided through these leases in 2013, with a small
    fraction provided to the LWCF. Unfortunately an even more miniscule
    amount is provided to the State Assistance Program. This is in large
    part due to the fact that current law mandates that a minimum of 40
    percent of the total LWCF annual appropriations must be provided to the
    Federal land acquisition program without specifying an amount for the
    State Assistance Program.
        As a result, States and local communities have historically
    received a very disproportionate share of the total LWCF
    appropriations, with little more than 12 percent of total LWCF funding
    going to the State Assistance Program since 1998. More recently, in
    fiscal year 2013, when final discretionary spending was subject to
    ``sequestration,'' you provided $305 million overall to the LWCF and
    $39.9 million to the State Assistance Program--also 13 percent. We
    appreciate that you've recently recognized the importance of the State
    Assistance Program and allocated a larger percentage of total LWCF
    appropriations to it in fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015--pre-
    sequestration levels of $45 million, which includes the innovative $3
    million ``Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership'' competitive grant
    program. However, even with these increases, State Assistance continues
    to receive less than 15 percent of overall LWCF appropriations.
        What we find has gotten lost in the ongoing discussion over the
    reauthorization of the LWCF is, first and foremost, the issue of
    fairness in how LWCF dollars are being distributed. For nearly 50 years
    the bulk of the work to carry out the purpose of the Act has fallen on
    local communities to handle alone. While four-out-of-five Americans
    live in larger metropolitan areas, the LWCF is now only providing about
    13 percent of overall funding to the very program--State Assistance--
    which impacts people where they live, and recreate, the most. Urban
    communities, in particular, suffer from the severe lack of resources
    currently provided through the State Assistance program.
        The State Assistance Program is consistently listed as a key tenant
    of the overall LWCF program. We value preserving and providing access
    to our national treasures for all to enjoy, but we want to remind you
    that many treasured areas are NOT located on Federal property.
        We'd like to specifically note that the administration's fiscal
    year 2016 budget request includes a total of $400 million in
    discretionary funding for the LWCF with the current $50 million (12.5
    percent) being allocated for the State Assistance Program continuing
    the pattern of falling well short of a fair and equitable percentage
    being made available for State and local outdoor recreation. We note
    that it would take $160 million of overall LWCF appropriations to State
    Assistance to achieve the 40 percent threshold.
        For the reasons outlined below, we are asking you to empower States
    and local communities to do more to preserve, develop, and assure
    access to outdoor recreation facilities to strengthen our Nation by
    allocating 40 percent of total LWCF appropriations to the State
    Assistance Program in fiscal year 2016.
    LWCF State Assistance's Return on Investment and Return on Objective
        One of the key aspects of the LWCF State Assistance Program is the
    ability to create jobs. The outdoor recreation industry, as such is
    supported by LWCF State Assistance, is an economic powerhouse in the
    United States. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, the
    industry generates $646 billion in consumer spending and supports over
    6 million jobs annually.\1\ Considering there are 7,800 State and over
    100,000 locally managed parks throughout the country, it is obvious
    that outdoor recreation is most prevalent at the State and local level.
    In fact, the National Association of State Park Directors reports that
    America's State park system contributes $20 billion to local and State
    economies each year.\2\ There is no doubt, that it is the LWCF State
    Assistance Program that provides the vast majority of places, spaces,
    and opportunities for outdoor recreation which stimulates the outdoor
    industry.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Outdoor Industry Association, ``The Outdoor Recreation Economy
    Report 2012''.
        \2\ NASPD Annual Report, March 2013.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        When viewed through the lens of the importance of the American
    outdoor recreation industry, the LWCF State Assistance Program has, for
    more than four decades, achieved a proven return on investment (ROI)
    demonstrated by the fact that nearly $4 billion in Federal support has
    leveraged over $4 billion additional dollars in matching funds. But the
    benefits of this program, don't stop there, as the State Assistance
    Program has not only provided a ROI, but has also done a tremendous job
    of providing an outstanding return on objective for the American
    taxpayer by ensuring access for all.
        It is well known that not everyone has the ability to visit one of
    our treasured national parks, and even those who do so are unable to on
    a regular basis as national parks are often vacation destinations or
    once-in-a-lifetime trips. To the average American, however, the
    neighborhood park--down the street, open and accessible to the public,
    and without an admission fee--is the most important public space in
    their lives. The majority of our country's public places, spaces, and
    opportunities for outdoor recreation are provided through the State
    Assistance program, with more than 42,000 grant projects covering
    nearly every county across America.
        The LWCF State Assistance Program is the only Federal investment
    tool dedicated to ensuring that Americans have access to close-to-home
    public recreation opportunities. Because the program develops and
    provides local outdoor recreation, millions of Americans, of all ages
    and abilities have places where they can regularly connect with nature,
    be physically active and simply enjoy the outdoors. It is a means by
    which this committee can provide investment to critically important
    local park infrastructure, including: a new soccer field at Sisterhood
    Park in Anchorage, Alaska; enhancements at Bluewater Lake State Park
    near Perwitt, New Mexico; and an accessible playground at Fall Creek
    Falls State Park in Spencer, Tennessee. Each of the aforementioned
    communities benefited from State Assistance grant funding since 2013.
    LWCF State Assistance Provides Health and Environmental Benefits
        In addition to creating jobs and ensuring access for all, the LWCF
    State Assistance Program delivers tangible health benefits,
    contributing to the overall health and well-being of Americans. The
    National Park Service recognizes this through its Healthy Parks Healthy
    People U.S. initiative, which aims to increase public recognition of
    parks and public lands (including State, local, and regional park and
    trail systems) as places for the promotion of physical, mental, and
    social health. The CDC reports that childhood obesity has tripled in
    the last 30 years, less than 25 percent of adults engage in recommended
    levels of physical activity, and that obesity is a leading cause of
    chronic disease. As noted by the CDC, increased access to parks, green
    space, and recreation opportunities is essential to becoming a
    healthier Nation and reducing unsustainable healthcare costs.
        The LWCF State Assistance Program also significantly contributes to
    protecting the environment and promoting environmental stewardship.
    LWCF State Assistance projects have a historical record of contributing
    to reduced and delayed storm water runoff volumes, enhanced groundwater
    recharge, storm water pollutant reductions, reduced sewer overflow
    events, increased carbon sequestration, urban heat island mitigation
    and reduced energy demands, resulting in improved air quality,
    increased wildlife habitat, and increased land values on the local
    level.
    Revitalizing Urban Parks and Recreation through Funding of UPARR
        While the LWCF has indeed benefited virtually every community in
    the country, many of our Nation's cities and urbanized counties face
    distinct challenges that require additional resources. Recognizing this
    fact as well as the importance of public parks and recreation to larger
    urban renewal and community development efforts, Congress established
    the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) to provide
    matching grants directly to localities in metropolitan areas. Over the
    course of more than two decades UPARR provided $272 million for nearly
    1,500 projects in 380 communities. This enabled neighborhoods across
    the country to restore both outdoor and indoor recreation facilities;
    support innovative recreational programming and enhance delivery of
    services and programs that provided constructive alternatives to at-
    risk youth.
        Despite its successes, UPARR has not been funded since fiscal year
    2002, yet many of the urban open space and recreation challenges still
    exist today. NRPA is very pleased to see UPARR in the President's
    fiscal year 2016 budget and calls on Congress to update and fund this
    needed program to enable metropolitan areas to address quality of life,
    health and wellness, and conservation issues as they work to make their
    communities more attractive for families and businesses alike. Both
    LWCF State Assistance and UPARR are critical to providing Americans
    close to home recreation opportunities. The programs complement each
    other and NRPA implores Congress to fund UPARR from total LWCF
    appropriations but not at the expense of the already underfunded State
    Assistance Program.
    Maintaining The Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Competitive Grant
            Program
        The fiscal year 2014 Interior Appropriations package included an
    ``additional'' $3 million of funding for a pilot ``Competitive Grant
    Program'' managed under the State Assistance Program. NRPA is pleased
    to have worked with NPS to help craft this pilot initiative and
    believes the first set of grantees will prove successful in
    highlighting the innovative projects and partnerships the State
    Assistance Program provides across America. We support the continuation
    of what is now called, the ``Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership''
    (ORLP) program, provided the funds allocated are not done at the
    expense of the existing core formula grants distributed to the States
    for public recreation.
        Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, few programs can
    address so many national priorities as effectively as the LWCF State
    Assistance Program and UPARR, with so few dollars and without
    negatively impacting the Federal budget. This subcommittee and Congress
    have the rare opportunity to achieve national goals without increasing
    spending or adding to the deficit, and can do so by adopting three
    simple recommendations: Allocate a minimum of 40 percent of LWCF
    funding to the State Assistance Program; continue the innovative ORLP
    grant program, and address the need for improved infrastructure in
    urban areas by allocating a portion of the total LWCF funding to UPARR.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to share NRPA's recommendations
    and your consideration of our request.

        [This statement was submitted by Kevin O'Hara, Vice President for
    Urban and Government Affairs.]
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the National Tigers for Tigers Coalition
        Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee:

        On behalf of the National Tigers for Tigers Coalition (T4T), I am
    submitting testimony on behalf of critically important conservation
    programs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Thank you for
    your continued support for USFWS-International Affairs Office and its
    role in protecting international wildlife. We sincerely appreciate the
    opportunity to respectfully request the following appropriations for
    fiscal year 2016:
      --$14.7 million to the FWS International Affairs Office (IA);
      --$11.1 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Funds
            (MSCFs);
      --$75.4 million to support the FWS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE).

        Tigers for Tigers is a student-led national organization dedicated
    to engaging students and fans of universities with tiger mascots in the
    protection of our majestic and endangered team emblem. Currently active
    in 12 universities across the Nation, T4T is quickly expanding. Our
    goal is to eventually engage all 56 tiger mascot universities
    nationwide--reaching more than 450,000 enrolled college students who
    self identify with their tiger mascot. T4T amplifies this amazing
    school spirit and empowers students and fans to save tigers from the
    loss and fragmentation of habitat and from increasing levels of illegal
    poaching and trafficking.
        Compared to a century ago, tiger habitat has declined by 93 percent
    and tiger populations have plummeted by 97 percent. As a result of such
    crippling losses, it is estimated that only 3,200 tigers remain in the
    wild--mainly in India, Russia and Sumatra. Prized for their beauty and
    admired for their strength, tigers are poached for a variety of
    purposes, including, but not limited to: traditional medicine,
    clothing, food, wine and decoration. Protecting tigers from poachers
    and reducing the demand for tiger parts is critical for their survival.
        The wildlife trafficking and trade crisis is an immediate threat to
    global biodiversity and is an issue of U.S. national security that must
    be addressed without delay. Highly organized and sophisticated crime
    networks around the world are starting to take advantage of this
    lucrative business, which generates an estimated $10 billion annually.
    The resulting revenue is used to support the illegal trafficking of
    both humans and drugs and to fund terrorist activities. Reducing the
    demand for wildlife parts would not only benefit conservation efforts,
    but would also decrease the funds available to crime networks to
    support trafficking and terrorist activities.
        In July 2013, President Obama announced the National Strategy for
    Combating Wildlife Trafficking as part of Executive Order 13684. In
    February 2015, the Presidential Task Force announced the Implementation
    Plan for the National Strategy to focus on strengthening law
    enforcement, reducing demand for illegal wildlife products, and
    increasing cooperation through public and private partnerships. The
    Implementation Plan contains forward-thinking solutions to halt the
    loss of tiger habitat and populations, and we request robust funding to
    support the Executive Order.
    FWS--Office of International Affairs (IA)--$14.7 million requested
        The FWS International Affairs Office is responsible for protecting
    and supporting our world's rich biodiversity, flora and fauna through
    landscape conservation programs and the implementation of roughly 40
    international treaties and conventions. The IA office administers an
    extensive grant program and works to conserve species at risk through
    regulation of international wildlife trade.
        Two programs administered under the IA, Wildlife Without Borders
    (WWB) Global and Wildlife Without Borders Regional Programs, support
    groundbreaking conservation programs and foster partnerships with
    governments, agencies, local organizations, and community stakeholders.
    The WWB Global Programs focus on international treaties, partnership
    and grant programs like the Critically Endangered Animals Conservation
    Fund and the Amphibians in Decline Fund. WWB Regional Programs foster
    collaborative efforts with multiple stakeholders to conduct shared
    conservation initiatives abroad in Africa, East Asia, Latin America,
    Russia and Mexico. T4T has been working directly with WWB Global
    Programs Office to promote the Save Vanishing Species postage stamp on
    our tiger mascot campuses. With support from the Global office and
    Clemson University, T4T produced a 25-second public service
    announcement video that was displayed on the jumbo-tron at all home
    football games in 2013 within a stadium of 80,000 cheering tiger fans.
        The U.S. is the second largest consumer of illegal wildlife
    products in the world behind China. In November 2013, FWS hosted an
    Ivory Crush and destroyed 6 tons of confiscated elephant ivory to show
    the international community that the U.S. does not support or condone
    illegal wildlife trade. Immediately after the event, other countries,
    including China, followed the U.S.'s lead and destroyed their
    stockpiles of elephant ivory. To continue taking a leading role on the
    international stage, the U.S. must continue improving our local
    enforcement policies and supporting international conservation
    programs.
        We respectively request the subcommittee to support the President's
    request of $14.7 million for fiscal year 2016 for the FWS's Office of
    International Affairs.
    Multinational Species Conservation Funds--$11.1 million request
        The Multinational Species Conservation Funds (MSCFs) of the FWS
    provide crucial funding to support conversation projects for tigers,
    elephants, rhinos, great apes, and marine turtles. These funds finance
    anti-poaching efforts to combat illegal wildlife trafficking, educate
    and incentivize local communities, and finance projects to protect
    critical habitat.
        In fiscal year 2015 Congress allocated $9.1 million to support
    MSCFs. This year, we respectively ask the subcommittee to support an
    $11.1 million budget, an increase in $2 million allocated at the
    President's request to support the African Elephant Conservation Fund
    and the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund.
      --The African Elephant Conservation Fund promotes conservation,
            research, and habitat management for African elephants. At the
            current rate of 35,000 elephants poached annually for their
            ivory, the population of 470,000 to 690,000 will face imminent
            extinction within the next decade.
      --The Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, established in 1994,
            provides funding for education, research and management of
            species with the objective of conserving rhinos and tigers and
            decreasing demand for illegal trade of animal parts. In 2014,
            the FWS funded over 40 projects for $3.2 million, which was
            leveraged by $5.5 million in additional funds.
        --In Asia, rhino populations are dwindling with fewer than 50 Javan
                rhinos and 400 Sumatran rhinos remaining in the wild. Every
                poached one-horned rhino has a significant impact on the
                remaining populations.
        --The Conservation Fund has improved recovery programs for the
                3,200 remaining tigers in the wild by helping implement
                consumer demand reduction strategies and expand wildlife
                enforcement networks. T4T has worked directly on reducing
                human-tiger conflicts by funding groups that train female
                forest guards in Central India to educate their communities
                about wildlife laws and how to mitigate human-wildlife
                conflicts.

        In addition to funding landscape conservation projects,
    Multinational Species Conservation Funds also stimulate local
    economies, build long-lasting partnerships between stakeholders and
    provide a growing constituency for international wildlife. Between 2007
    and 2013, $77 million has been appropriated to support MSCFs and
    establish partnerships in more than 54 countries. The more than 2,000
    grants awarded have leveraged $115 million in private and in-kind
    donations.
        MSCFs have consistently received bi-partisan support in Congress
    and the administrations since the program began in the 1990s and we
    request allocation of the President's request of $11.1 million.
    Office of Law Enforcement--$75.4 million request
        The FWS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) is involved in all aspects
    of the agency's efforts to manage eco-systems and promote international
    conservation efforts. The 261 special agents and 140 wildlife
    inspectors are highly involved in combating illegal wildlife
    trafficking, training foreign law enforcement officers, and solving
    wildlife crimes through their forensic labs. Yet despite its proven
    track record of addressing international wildlife crimes, the OLE is
    extremely under-funded and under-staffed and lacks the capacity to stem
    the tide of illegal wildlife products imported into the U.S. through
    shipping ports such as Miami, Los Angles, or New York.
        We commend the international efforts and global operation of
    Operation Cobra 2 in late 2013 that resulted in over 400 arrests and
    350 wildlife seizures in Africa and Asia. We have seen similar success
    in the domestic operation--Operation Crash--conducted in conjunction
    with the Department of Justice. Last year, the FWS in coordination with
    the State Department placed FWS experts in U.S. embassies in Bangkok
    and Dar es Salaam to support wildlife enforcement capacity and to
    coordinate wildlife trafficking investigations with local authorities.
    The fiscal year 2016 Presidential budget proposes to add four more law
    enforcement experts in additional countries, including China.
        It is critical that we continue to fund and support the OLE's
    efforts to catch and disrupt the import, distribution and export of
    illegal wildlife products. The National Strategy to Combat Wildlife
    Trafficking seeks to strengthen legal authorities and enforcement
    capacity, strengthen investigative efforts abroad, increase
    collaboration across agencies, and reduce demand for illegal wildlife
    products. Therefore we respectfully request $75.4 million to support
    the OLE in fiscal year 2016.
        The President has also requested an additional $8 million within
    his fiscal year 2016 budget to be allocated to the FWS to address the
    wildlife trafficking crisis. Most of this funding would be part of the
    $75.4 million for the OLE to fund the expansion of the Fish & Wildlife
    Service's ability to process incoming forensic evidence and prosecute
    the criminal violations of wildlife protection laws.
        Members of the subcommittee, we sincerely appreciate the
    opportunity to provide our written testimony to advocate for the
    successful programs of FWS and our Nation's commitment to international
    conservation efforts. Only by investing now in international
    conservation efforts to establish a healthy wild tiger population can
    we ensure that future generations will be able to fully appreciate the
    magnificent power of wild tigers--whatever the mascot of their favorite
    team.
        And as a recent Clemson University Alumnus, I'd like to add--Go
    Tigers!
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Tribal Contract Support Cost
                                   Coalition
        My name is Lloyd Miller and I am a partner in the law firm of
    Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Miller and Munson, LLP. I appear here today
    as counsel to the National Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition. The
    Coalition is comprised of 21 tribes and tribal organizations situated
    in 11 States. Collectively, they operate contracts to administer almost
    $500 million in IHS and BIA programs and services on behalf of over 250
    Native American tribes.\1\ The NTCSC Coalition was created to assure
    that the Federal Government honors the United States' contractual
    obligation to add full contract support cost funding to every contract
    and compact awarded under the Indian Self-Determination Act. I also
    litigated the Supreme Court Cherokee and Arctic Slope cases, and co-
    litigated the Ramah case, all of which held that IHS and BIA contracts
    with Indian tribes are true, binding contracts which must be paid in
    full no less than any other government contract.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The NTCSCC is comprised of the: Alaska Native Tribal Health
    Consortium (Alaska), Arctic Slope Native Association (Alaska), Central
    Council of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes (Alaska), Cherokee Nation
    (Oklahoma), Chickasaw Nation, Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's
    Reservation (Montana), Choctaw Nation (Oklahoma), Confederated Salish
    and Kootenai Tribes (Montana), Copper River Native Association
    (Alaska), Forest County Potawatomi Community (Wisconsin), Kodiak Area
    Native Association (Alaska), Little River Band of Ottawa Indians
    (Michigan), Pueblo of Zuni (New Mexico), Riverside-San Bernardino
    County Indian Health (California), Shoshone Bannock Tribes (Idaho),
    Shoshone-Paiute Tribes (Idaho, Nevada), Southeast Alaska Regional
    Health Consortium (Alaska), Spirit Lake Tribe (North Dakota), Tanana
    Chiefs Conference (Alaska), Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation
    (Alaska), and Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board (43 Tribes in
    Idaho, Washington, Oregon).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Every year I recall for this subcommittee that no single enactment
    has had a more profound impact on tribal communities than has the
    Indian Self-Determination Act. In just three decades tribes and inter-
    tribal organizations have taken control of vast portions of the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service, including services
    previously provided by the Federal Government in the areas of
    healthcare, education, law enforcement and land and natural resource
    protection. Today, not a single tribe in the United States is without
    at least one self-determination contract with the IHS or the BIA, and
    collectively the tribes administer nearly $3 billion in essential
    Federal Government functions employing an estimated 35,000 people.
    Under all of these contracts, the tribes must cover contract support
    costs--essentially overhead--to responsibly manage their programs. They
    have to make payroll. They have to manage their finances and their
    information technology systems. They have to buy insurance. They have
    to procure goods and services. All of the same things the government
    has to do, the tribes have to do--and even more: the tribes must
    complete costly annual audits, negotiate indirect cost rates, and
    comply with a raft of Federal mandates.
        These costs are fixed, and they must be paid. Otherwise, they are
    paid out of program funds or paid out of tribal trust funds. Thus, full
    payment of contract support costs is essential to keeping faith with
    the Government's contractual commitments, honoring the Government's
    trust responsibility, and permitting the tribes to prudently carry out
    the contracted programs, from law enforcement to range management to
    full-on hospital operations.
        Four years ago this committee explained its views on contract
    support costs:

              The Committee believes that both the Bureau [of Indian
            Affairs] and the Indian Health Service should pay all contract
            support costs for which it has contractually agreed and directs
            the Service to include the full cost of the contract support
            obligations in its fiscal year 2013 budget submission.

        H.R. Rep. No. 112-151, at 98 (2011). See also id. at 42 (addressing
    the BIA). The Committee was remarkably prescient in its assessment of
    the government's liability: the very next year the Supreme Court ruled
    that ``[c]onsistent with longstanding principles of Government
    contracting law, we hold that the Government must pay each tribe's
    contract support costs in full.'' Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 132
    S. Ct. 2181, 2186 (2012). The Supreme Court emphasized that ``the
    Government's obligation to pay contract support costs should be treated
    as an ordinary contract promise.'' Id. at 2188. Two months later the
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied the Ramah ruling
    to the Indian Health Service, concluding that ``[t]he Secretary [was]
    obligated to pay all of ASNA's contract support costs for fiscal years
    1999 and 2000.'' Arctic Slope Native Ass'n, Ltd. v. Sebelius, No. 2010-
    1013, Order at 6, 2012 WL 3599217 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2012), on remand
    from 133 S. Ct. 22 (2012).
        Today it is beyond any debate that the payment of contract support
    costs is a binding contractual obligation owed to all tribes that
    operate BIA and IHS contracts. The only issue remaining has been how to
    meet that obligation.
        Thanks to this subcommittee's vision and decisive action, fiscal
    year 2014 was the first year in which contract support costs were paid
    in full through the ordinary appropriations process. For the agencies,
    particularly IHS, it was a rocky start, as early mistaken estimates
    gave way to the reality that the agency has missed the mark by millions
    of dollars. A major reprogramming action was necessary to make tribes
    whole, but the agency weathered the storm with a minimum of disruption
    to direct service operations, and all contracts were paid in full.
        Last year's appropriation followed a crooked path to final
    enactment. But an unintended benefit of the delayed fiscal year 2015
    appropriations cycle was that this subcommittee, the agencies and
    tribal advocates (including this Coalition) were able to compare notes
    last December and this subcommittee was able to adjust the fiscal year
    2015 final appropriation levels to assure that all tribes will be paid
    in full for carrying out their government contracts--and this time,
    without any disruption to ongoing program or agency operations. We are
    truly in a new era.
    Fiscal Year 2016
        For fiscal year 2016 the administration has proposed contract
    support costs payment levels of $718 million for IHS and $272 million
    for the BIA. Based upon actual experiences in fiscal year 2014, there
    is every reason to believe these amounts will be sufficient to cover
    all contract requirements next year. The National Tribal Contract
    Support Cost Coalition fully supports the President's proposed fiscal
    year 2016 funding levels, reflecting a full administration commitment
    to tribal self-determination and self-governance.
    Fiscal Year 2017 and Beyond
        Going forward, the administration has proposed a 3-year mandatory
    appropriation at stated dollar amounts for each agency, with up to 2
    percent of the sums so designated to be available for agency
    administration. The National Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition
    deeply appreciates the President's effort to find a solution to the
    multi-decade underfunding of contract support costs, and agrees that
    the long-term solution lies in a mandatory appropriation. A mandatory
    appropriation is an effective answer to the dilemma posed by locating a
    legally binding obligation within an appropriation structured to
    address discretionary requirements. It protects the discretionary side
    of the ledger while assuring that tribal contractors and compactors
    will be paid in full for services duly rendered to the United States.
        But care in this area must be taken, and a half measure could be
    more disruptive than no measure at all. A time-limited mandatory
    appropriation is ill-suited to paying a permanent obligation, because
    each renewal is subject to the vagaries of the political process. The
    best example of those vagaries is reflected in the history of the time-
    limited mandatory appropriation enacted for the Special Diabetes
    Program for Indians (SDPI).\2\ This instability is orders of magnitude
    more destabilizing when it comes to the payment of contract support
    costs for the delivery of core governmental functions, including the
    annual operation of police departments, schools and entire hospitals
    and clinics serving many of the Nation's most vulnerable populations.
    It is one thing for a discrete program to end; it is quite another
    thing for an entire hospital or police department to close or be cut
    back by a third because contract support cost payments suddenly cease.
    One can imagine the grave instability that would ensue if by March
    2019, Congress had not yet renewed the measure and yet the Budget
    Committee was developing its discretionary caps for the coming year and
    this subcommittee was holding these hearings.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Public Law No. 105-33, Sec. 4922, 111 Stat. 251 (1997) (5
    years); Public Law No. 107-360, Sec. 1(b), 116 Stat. 3019 (2002) (6
    years); Public Law No. 110-173, Sec. 302(b), 121 Stat. 2492, 2515
    (2007) (one year); Public Law No. 110-275, Sec. 303(b), 122 Stat. 2494,
    2594 (2008) (2 years); Public Law No. 111-309, Sec. 112(2), 124 Stat.
    3285, 3289 (2010) (2 years); Public Law No. 112-240, Sec. 625(b), 126
    Stat. 2313, 2352-53(2014) (1 year); Public Law No. 113-93, Sec. 204(b),
    128 Stat. 1040, 1046 (2014) (1 year).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Given these practical considerations, the Coalition respectfully
    urges all members of this subcommittee to build upon the President's
    proposal by supporting a permanent mandatory appropriation.
        The Coalition also respectfully urges this subcommittee's members
    to support a mandatory appropriation which only appropriates what is
    needed, and not a penny more.\3\ In recent listening sessions the
    agencies have explained that the specific sums requested are somewhat
    higher than the sums each agency projects it will actually need. This
    makes no sense to us, and will only drive up the cost of any measure.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ See 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1305 (appropriating ``such amounts as may be
    necessary'' for specified purposes).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To the extent the higher amounts are designed to make available up
    to 2 percent of the designated sums for agency overhead, the Coalition
    strongly opposes those amounts. A flat 2 percent would authorize IHS to
    spend over $20 million on overhead costs to pay tribal contractors, 10
    to 20 times what the agency currently spends on this activity out of
    its discretionary appropriation. No explanation has been offered for
    such excessive sums, and IHS has readily acknowledged that far lesser
    sums would be sufficient.
        The Coalition appreciates that the agencies would each benefit from
    additional resources to administer their obligations under the law to
    pay full contract support costs. But before increasing existing sums,
    the subcommittee should direct the BIA and IHS to perform an assessment
    to determine their exact staffing needs and associated funding
    requirements. Whatever sum is necessary for agency overhead, those
    costs should be left within each agency's discretionary appropriation,
    where the appropriations committees can continue to monitor and respond
    on an annual basis to agency and tribal concerns. No reason has been
    offered by anyone for transferring such sums to a mandatory
    appropriation.
        On an issue closely related to agency overhead, the Coalition
    respectfully requests that the subcommittee caution the agencies
    against developing any new initiatives that would leave contract
    support cost accounts open for 5 years. IHS is already moving in this
    direction, which would be both unprecedented and directly at odds with
    standard grant practices, including IHS's own grant programs. Contracts
    should be closed out within 60 days of the close of the fiscal year,
    and both agencies should be directed to develop initiatives which make
    contract implementation and close-out more efficient and speedier, not
    more complex. Multi-year arrangements for fixed rates, or fixed lump-
    sum amounts subject to inflationary adjustments, should be strongly
    encouraged as an efficient alternative to lengthy annual recalculations
    and reconciliations.
        Finally, the Coalition respectfully urges the subcommittee to amend
    the Appropriations Act's language to require that contract support
    costs be added to program funds covering the domestic violence
    prevention initiative (DVPI) and methamphetamine and suicide prevention
    initiative (MSPI). A recent Federal court confirmed that such funds are
    subject to the Indian Self-Determination Act, consistent with IHS's
    position since 2010. But this past year, just when full CSC funding
    finally became a reality, IHS unilaterally--and without any
    consultation whatsoever--changed position, announcing that hereinafter
    tribes must divert their domestic violence and methamphetamine and
    suicide prevention program dollars to cover all overhead costs. On
    average, this will reduce the program funding amounts nationwide by 25
    percent. Congress should not tolerate this irrational change to these
    programs.
        It is a privilege to appear before this subcommittee once again. On
    behalf of the over 250 federally recognized tribes represented by the
    National Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition, I thank the
    subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 2016
    budget.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
        Madame Chairman, Senator Udall, and members of the subcommittee, I
    appreciate this opportunity to present the National Trust for Historic
    Preservation's recommendations for fiscal year 2016 appropriations. My
    name is Thomas J. Cassidy, Jr. and I am the Vice President for
    Government Relations and Policy. The National Trust is a privately-
    funded nonprofit organization chartered by Congress in 1949. We work to
    save America's historic places to enrich our future.
        The Nation faces a challenging fiscal environment. The National
    Trust recognizes there is a need for fiscal restraint and cost-
    effective Federal investments. However, we do not believe that
    preservation, conservation and recreation programs should suffer from
    disproportionate funding reductions. We look forward to working with
    you, Madame Chairman, as you address the ongoing needs for investments
    to sustain our Nation's rich heritage of cultural and historic
    resources.
        Historic Preservation Fund.--The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF)
    is the principal source of funding to implement the Nation's historic
    preservation programs. Like the Land and Water Conservation Fund, its
    dedicated revenues are generated from oil and gas development on the
    Outer Continental Shelf.
        The National Park Service distributes HPF grants that are matched
    by State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic
    Preservation Offices (THPOs). Inadequate HPF funding limits support for
    preservation activities such as survey, nomination of properties to the
    National Register of Historic Places, public education, project review
    required by the National Historic Preservation Act and for the Federal
    Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC). The HTC is the largest
    Federal investment in historic preservation. It has leveraged nearly
    $117.6 billion in private investment, created 2.4 million jobs and
    adapted more than 40,300 buildings for new and productive uses.
        The National Trust applauds the administration's request of $89.9
    million for the HPF. Most of the $33.5 million increase is associated
    with the Civil Rights Initiative, including a new $30 million
    competitive grants program to document, interpret, and preserve the
    stories and sites associated with the Civil Rights Movement and the
    African-American experience, and $2.5 million in grants for
    Historically Black Colleges and Universities. The request would
    continue for a third year the $500,000 competitive grants program for
    the survey and nomination of properties associated with communities
    currently underrepresented in the National Register of Historic Places
    and National Historic Landmarks. Recent studies have documented that
    less than 8 percent of such listings identify culturally diverse
    properties.
        The request also includes a much needed increase of $1 million over
    fiscal year 2015 enacted for THPOs. This modest increase in funding
    would address an increase in participation among THPOs from 154 tribes
    in fiscal year 2015 to potentially 160 tribes in fiscal year 2016. We
    were disappointed that the administration did not request any funding
    increase to the SHPOs. We urge the subcommittee to provide the much
    needed increases for SHPOs and THPOs to provide their essential
    preservation services.
        National Park Service: Civil Rights Initiative.--The National Trust
    strongly supports President Obama's $50 million Civil Rights Initiative
    in this 50th anniversary year of the Voting Rights Act. In addition to
    the new competitive grant programs funded through the HPF, the request
    includes $17.5 million in funding for sites within the National Park
    System, including the Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail, the
    Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site and the Martin
    Luther King Jr. National Historic Site.
        National Park Service: Operation of the National Park System and
    Cultural Resources Stewardship.--The National Park Service (NPS) is
    responsible for 407 units of the National Park System ranging from the
    battlefields where our ancestors fought and died to places that stir
    the soul like the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, the gateway for
    millions of new Americans. Three-quarters of our parks were created to
    protect our most important historic and cultural resources. Over the
    past 20 years, more than 40 new parks have been added to the park
    system, many of which preserve historic places and themes that have
    been underrepresented within the system.
        We support the President's budget proposal of $239 million above
    the fiscal year 2015 enacted level for National Park Service
    Operations. The increase includes several Centennial Initiative
    requests of great importance to the preservation community, including
    increases of $66.7 million for repair and rehabilitation projects, $64
    million for cyclic maintenance, $13.5 million for new responsibilities
    and critical needs, $5.5 million for the documentation and preservation
    of Civil Rights history in the National Park System and $3 million for
    the Cultural Resource Challenge.
        Repair and Rehabilitation.--The Repair and Rehabilitation Program
    is a part of the overall service wide deferred maintenance strategy
    that directs funds to high priority mission critical and mission
    dependent assets with deferred maintenance projects less than $1
    million. Approximately $4.5 billion of the overall deferred maintenance
    backlog is for the 27,000 properties listed on the National Register of
    Historic Places within National Park units.
        Cyclic Maintenance.--Investing in cyclic maintenance required to
    maintain historic structures is essential to abate the continued growth
    of the deferred maintenance backlog. The kind of projects addressed by
    cyclic maintenance funding includes roofing of buildings, re-pointing
    masonry walls, painting, sealing and stabilizing archaeological sites.
        Leasing Historic Structures in National Parks.--In recent years,
    the subcommittee has repeatedly included report language encouraging
    the NPS to utilize leases as a means to mitigate the maintenance
    backlog of historic structures. The Service is slow to implement the
    policy changes necessary to facilitate more leasing and catalyze even
    broader use of this important authority. We recommend that the
    subcommittee request the NPS to create a pilot project to catalyze such
    leases and report on any statutory or regulatory barriers that inhibit
    the expansion of this public-private approach to bring private
    investment into the parks.
        Visitor Services: New Responsibilities and Critical Needs.--We
    support the requested $13.5 million increase to support the operations
    of newly established units of the National Park System including the
    recently established Pullman National Monument in Illinois and
    Honouliuli National Monument in Hawaii. The requested increase would
    also support the critical operating needs of parks with Civil Rights
    stories, including the Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail and
    the Carter G. Woodson Home National Historic Site.
        Visitor Services: Increase Volunteer Capacity and Engaging the Next
    Generation.--We support the administration's $2 million request to
    increase increased volunteer capacity through partner organizations. In
    conjunction with funding enacted in the fiscal year 2015, this would
    fund increased partnership opportunities with conservation corps to
    support an additional 70 volunteer coordinator positions, for a total
    of 140 positions.
        As part of our commitment to advancing the goals of the 21st
    Century Conservation Service Corps, and assist the NPS reduce the
    maintenance backlog of historic properties, the National Trust launched
    the HOPE (Hands-On Preservation Experience) Crew initiative in 2014 to
    train young adults in preservation skills while helping protect and
    restore historic sites. Youth and veterans are trained in the
    preservation skills necessary to perform preservation work in the parks
    and other Federal lands through a cooperative agreement between the
    NPS, other Federal land management agencies, and several NGOs including
    the Student Conservation Association and The Corps Network. In the
    first year, nearly 100 Corpsmembers spent 20,000 hours completing 15
    projects, including rehabilitation of properties at Shenandoah National
    Park, LBJ National Historical Park, FDR National Historical Site and
    Little Big Horn Battlefield National Monument. Projects like this can
    reduce the maintenance backlog while also providing job skills and
    education for the next generation of stewards of America's most
    important historic sites.
        National Park Service: Construction.--We support the requested
    increase of $91 million over fiscal year 2015 enacted for Line Item
    Construction. This account addresses the deferred maintenance for the
    NPS' highest priority non-transportation assets with projects larger
    than $1 million. We also support the President's request that this fund
    be used for the repair and stabilization of important historic
    structures as opposed to new construction. Of the 6,735 highest
    priority non-transportation assets approximately 4,000 have deferred
    maintenance needs. Examples of these needs include critical health and
    safety issues in the lobby of the Many Glacier Hotel in Glacier
    National Park; the rehabilitation of historic cottages, and reroofing
    Ebenezer Church and seven historic houses at Martin Luther King, Jr.
    National Historic Site; and the rehabilitation of the Lincoln Memorial
    to provide accessible spaces, restrooms and pathways.
        National Park Service: National Heritage Areas.--We recommend
    funding for National Heritage Areas (NHAs) at the fiscal year 2015
    enacted level or higher. The administration's repeated proposals to
    reduce NHA funding, justified as ``encouraging self-sufficiency,''
    would severely impair the sustainability of the program and most likely
    have the exact opposite effect by rendering many NHAs not self-
    sufficient, but rather unable to function. National Park Service
    Director Jon Jarvis has described National Heritage Areas as ``places
    where small investments pay huge dividends.'' We agree.
        National Park Service: Centennial Challenge.--We support the $10
    million Centennial Challenge to provide dedicated Federal funding to
    match donations for signature National Park Service projects and
    programs. This funding will allow the NPS to leverage private
    contributions to enhance visitor services and improve cultural and
    natural resources across the parks in the Service.
        Bureau of Land Management: Cultural Resources Management..--The BLM
    oversees the largest, most diverse and scientifically important
    collection of historic and cultural resources on our Nation's public
    lands as well as the museum collections and data associated with them,
    including 10 million artifacts and specimens, 366,232 documented
    cultural sites, 3,965 monitored archaeological sites, 431 maintained
    historic structures and 108 properties listed on the National Register
    of Historic Places. This program funds National Historic Preservation
    Act (NHPA) section 106 review of 13,000 land use proposals each year,
    compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
    Act and Government-to-Government consultation with Indian tribes and
    Alaska Native governments. Since fiscal year 2003 this program has lost
    19 FTEs while the demand for section 106 compliance has remained even
    or increased. The loss of personnel has diminished the BLM's ability to
    review land proposals like transmission lines, energy development and
    recreation permits.
        We support the administration's fiscal year 2016 request of $17.2
    million, a modest increase of $2.075 million above fiscal year 2015
    enacted. The increased support is necessary to fulfill BLM's statutory
    requirements for section 106 reviews of land use proposals, and NHPA's
    section 110 requirements for inventory and protection cultural
    resources. The increase would support 60 on-the-ground surveys of
    sensitive areas, site protection and stabilization projects for
    priority sites vulnerable to unauthorized activities and damage due to
    fire, erosion and changing water levels. Projects will also update
    predictive modeling and data analysis to enhance the BLM's ability to
    address large-scale, cross jurisdictional land-use projects.
        Bureau of Land Management: National Landscape Conservation
    System.--The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) National Landscape
    Conservation System (National Conservation Lands) includes 30 million
    acres of congressionally and presidentially designated lands, including
    National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, Wilderness, Wilderness
    Study Areas, National Scenic and Historic Trails, and Wild and Scenic
    Rivers.
        As the Nation's newest system of protected lands, the National
    Conservation Lands encompass some of our country's most significant
    historic and cultural resources, yet the BLM's ability to steward these
    resources is undermined by insufficient funding. The National
    Conservation Lands are just one-tenth of BLM managed lands but they
    host one-third of all BLM's visitors. Without sufficient funding, the
    BLM struggles to complete essential resource protection, such as
    signing trails, inventorying and protecting cultural sites from looting
    and vandalism.
        We support the administration's fiscal year 2016 request of $81.079
    million, a $11.181 million increase over fiscal year 2015 enacted, in
    order to prevent critical damage to the resources found in these areas,
    ensure proper management and provide for a quality visitor experience.
    This funding level would enable BLM to hire essential management and
    law enforcement staff, monitor and protect natural and cultural
    resources, close unauthorized routes that damage fragile cultural sites
    and undertake needed ecosystem and species restoration projects.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund.--The National Trust supports
    robust funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Many of the
    Nation's most significant historic and cultural landscapes have been
    permanently protected through LWCF investments, including Martin Luther
    King Jr. National Historic Site, Canyons of the Ancients National
    Monument and Harpers Ferry National Historic Park. Culturally
    significant projects in the fiscal year 2016 request include Cedar
    Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park (Virginia), Pecos
    National Historical Park (New Mexico), Gettysburg National Military
    Park (Pennsylvania) and the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National
    Historic Trail (District of Columbia/Delaware/Maryland/Virginia). We
    strongly support the administration's request for the American
    Battlefield Protection Program Grants.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present the National Trust's
    recommendations for the fiscal year 2016 Interior, Environment and
    Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Refuge Association
        Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee:

        On behalf of the National Wildlife Refuge Association and its
    membership of current and former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    (Service) professionals, Refuge Friends organizations and concerned
    citizens, thank you for your support for the National Wildlife Refuge
    System (NWRS), particularly for the funding increase for fiscal year
    2015. We appreciate the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal
    year 2016 Interior Appropriations bill and respectfully request:
      --$508.2 million for the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) accounts of
            the NWRS, including $5 million for the Pacific Marine
            Monuments;
      --$900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), with
            $173.8 million allocated for the FWS, including $10 million for
            Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area (Florida); $3
            million for Silvio O. Conte NFWR (Connecticut, New Hampshire,
            Vermont, Massachusetts); $3 million for Cache River NWR
            (Arizona); $3 million for Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area
            (Kansas); $2 million for Bear River Watershed Conservation Area
            (Wyoming, Idaho, Utah); $3.4 million for Blackwater NWR
            (Maryland); and $1 million for the Clarks River NWR (Kentucky);
      --$60 million for the Refuge Fund;
      --$75 million for the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program;
      --$14 million for the FWS Coastal Program;
      --$60 million for FWS for Preparedness and Hazardous Fuels Reduction
            (under DOI);
      --$70 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program;
      --$50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund;
      --$5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund; and
      --$11 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund.

        We understand our Nation's challenging fiscal constraints but
    cutting funding to programs that are economic drivers and job creators
    in local communities only exacerbates an already difficult situation.
    For example, the NWRS averages almost $5 in economic return for every
    $1 appropriated and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program returns
    nearly $16 for every $1 spent on projects. Unfortunately, just when
    these public lands and programs could return economic output to
    communities and help them through the recession, funding fell
    dramatically. Budgets have not kept pace with rising costs, and the gap
    between the funding needed to maintain these programs and the funding
    appropriated has widened dramatically. The Refuge System is
    approximately $72 million below what would be needed to keep pace with
    inflation relative to the fiscal year 2010 level ($545.8 million
    inflation-adjusted).
        To begin bridging that gap, NWRA urges Congress to fund these
    critical programs that leverage Federal dollars and serve as economic
    drivers.
    National Wildlife Refuge System--Operations and Maintenance
        NWRA chairs the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE),
    a diverse coalition of 23 sporting, conservation, and scientific
    organizations representing more than 16 million Americans that supports
    increased funding for the Refuge System. CARE estimates the NWRS needs
    at least $900 million annually to manage its 150 million acres and over
    400 million acres of national marine monuments, yet it is currently
    funded at roughly half that amount--at less than $1 per acre. The
    Refuge System cannot fulfill its obligation to the American public, our
    wildlife, and 47 million annual visitors without increases in
    maintenance and operation funds.
        Funding for the Refuge System has declined substantially from a
    funding level of $503 million in fiscal year 2010 to its current $474.2
    million--$72 million below what it needs to keep pace with inflation.
    This has forced the Service to cut back on programs and create
    efficiencies whenever possible. Because of these hard decisions, the
    Service has cut their maintenance backlog in half from $2.7 billion to
    $1.3 billion in less than 5 years. But budget cuts also led to the loss
    of 430 positions since fiscal year 2011 and thus an increase in the
    operations backlog, now at $735 million. Because most refuge lands and
    waters are highly managed, this deterioration in staffing has had a
    dramatic impact resulting in significant declines in habitat
    preservation and management, hunting, fishing, volunteerism and
    scientific research.
        For instance, visitor services staff has declined by 15 percent,
    forcing a reduction in public programs and hours of operation. Hunting
    visits are down by 5 percent since fiscal year 2011 and fishing visits
    are down 7 percent. Overall, there are fewer opportunities for the
    public to recreate, yet the desire for such programs is still high and
    visitation to all refuges since fiscal year 2011 has actually increased
    by 2.6 percent.
        Reductions in visitor services can be extremely troubling to
    constituencies who want to visit. Take the Midway Atoll NWR in the
    Hawaiian Islands. In November of 2013, due to sequestration cuts, the
    Service suspended the visitors services program at Midway. Although in
    the 5 years prior to this suspension, the refuge saw only about 300
    annual visitors, those visitors were passionate about their reasons for
    visiting. Some wanted to view more than 3.5 million birds and some
    wanted to visit the Battle of Midway National Memorial. Whatever their
    reason, they wanted to have one of the most unique refuge experiences
    in the entire System. Congress has asked for a GAO investigation on why
    the Service suspended its program; yet it's clear that when you cut the
    budget and loose several positions including a permanent Wildlife
    Biologist, Park Ranger, and Law Enforcement Officer, there will be
    ramifications.
        Equally troubling is a 15 percent drop in the number of volunteers
    since fiscal year 2011. At a time when record numbers of Americans are
    retiring and have the capability to give back, the Service's ability to
    oversee their efforts has been curtailed. Volunteers provide an
    additional 20 percent of work on our national wildlife refuges, yet
    they are being turned away when the System needs them the most.
        During these years of challenging budgets, the Refuge System's
    potential to drive local economies and create jobs is of paramount
    importance. Banking On Nature, a report issued by the FWS in 2013,
    shows that even during the worst recession since the Great Depression,
    the Refuge System saw sales and economic output increase 20 percent to
    $2.4 billion, visitation increase 30 percent to 46.5 million, average
    return on investment increase 22 percent to $4.87 for every $1
    appropriated, and supported jobs increase 23 percent to 35,000.
    Strategic Growth
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is an essential tool
    for protecting the integrity of the Refuge System and is the primary
    funding source for land and conservation easement acquisition by
    Federal land agencies. Some in Congress have argued that public lands
    like the Refuge System can't manage what they have and thus, all land
    acquisition should end. However, in the past 20 years, lands contained
    within the Refuge System have only grown by 5.6 percent, while at the
    same time, visitation has grown by 30 percent. The real cause of rising
    operations and maintenance costs is that the public is hungry for more
    opportunities to recreate.
        Increasingly, LWCF is being used to conserve working lands through
    the acquisition of easements that secure conservation protection while
    leaving the land in private ownership and on the tax rolls. Easements
    are powerful tools that foster public-private partnerships with
    ranchers, farmers and foresters to conserve wildlife, habitat and a
    uniquely American way of life. Innovative landscape-scale initiatives
    using easements have broad community and State support in New England's
    Connecticut River Watershed, the Flint Hills of Kansas, the Everglades
    Headwaters, Montana's Crown of the Continent, and the Dakota
    Grasslands. These iconic landscapes remain privately managed,
    generating tax income for local communities, securing our Nation's
    food, and balancing resource use and resource protection for wildlife.
        In many cases, however, land acquisition is required to conserve
    intact and functional natural habitat. The Refuge System is responsible
    for safeguarding population levels of a range of species, including
    many that require specific habitat conditions, such as beaches for sea
    turtles and isolated springs for endemic desert fish. Others require
    multiple habitat types during their life cycle. By acquiring critical
    habitat areas and linking conserved lands, the Refuge System enhances
    the integrity of the System and strengthens our network of habitat to
    give wildlife space and time to respond to changes, whether from
    climate or changing land use patterns.
        The Refuge Association calls on Congress to fund LWCF at $900
    million per year, with $173.8 million provided in fiscal year 2016 to
    the FWS for conservation easements and refuge in-holdings, including
    the following projects and those advocated by refuge Friends:
      --Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area (Florida)--$10
            million;
      --Cache River NWR (Arizona)--$3 million;
      --Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
            Connecticut)--$3 million;
      --Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area (Kansas)--$3 million;
      --Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (Wyoming, Idaho, Utah)--$2
            million;
      --Blackwater NWR (Maryland)--$3.4 million; and
      --Clarks River NWR (Kentucky)--$1 million.
    Commitment to Refuge Communities--Refuge Fund
        The Refuge System uses net income derived from permits and timber
    harvests to make payments to local communities to offset property tax
    revenue lost when the federally acquired lands are removed from local
    tax rolls, and relies on congressional appropriations to the Refuge
    Fund to compensate for the shortfall between revenues and tax
    replacement obligations. Unfortunately, declining revenues and lack of
    appropriations have resulted in the Service paying less than 50 percent
    of its tax-offset obligations since 2001. The negative impact on local
    communities is felt even more starkly in difficult economic times and
    severely strains relations between the Federal units and their local
    community, threatening the goodwill and partnerships that are keystones
    of successful conservation. NWRA requests $60 million for the Refuge
    Fund and thanks Chairman Calvert for his leadership in fiscal year 2015
    to pursue a much-needed increase. NWRA also calls for a review of the
    Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935 as amended, and consideration of
    conversion to a Payment-in-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program to be
    consistent with other Federal land management agencies and to provide
    refuge communities with more equitable payments.
    Partnerships
        With 75 percent of all fish and wildlife species dependent upon
    private lands for their survival, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
    program (Partners Program) is one of the most powerful tools for
    protecting wildlife where it lives. By building effective partnerships
    between public agencies and private landowners to conserve America's
    expansive working landscapes, the Partners Program has implemented
    nearly 29,000 restoration projects in the past 25 years, restoring over
    one million acres of wetlands, three million acres of uplands, and
    11,000 miles of streams. The program has been instrumental in the
    success of such iconic landscape conservation projects as the Rocky
    Mountain Front and Blackfoot Challenge in Montana and the Flint Hills
    in Kansas, and is playing a key role in conserving greater sage-grouse
    habitat in the intermountain west.
        The Partners program consistently leverages Federal dollars for
    conservation, generating nearly $16 in economic return for every $1
    appropriated for projects. The Refuge Association and the landowner-led
    Partners for Conservation request $75 million for fiscal year 2016.
    Such a funding level would result in an additional $400 million worth
    of conservation across the Nation.
        The Partners Program provides a bridge between private and public
    conservation efforts that has been instrumental in the success of large
    landscape partnerships from Montana to Florida, and is playing a key
    role in conserving greater sage-grouse habitat in the intermountain
    west. To this end, we request an additional $78 million for the
    Interior agencies to implement sagebrush steppe habitat conservation
    and monitoring efforts that will leverage $300 million in Department of
    Agriculture investments across the west.
    Sharing Lessons and Protecting Global Species
        Wildlife species know no international boundaries, therefore
    conservation must happen globally to ensure populations survive. Many
    international wildlife agencies look to the Refuge System as the world
    leader in wildlife and fish conservation. The Service's Wildlife
    Without Borders Program and Multinational Species Conservation Funds
    together support global partnerships to protect marine turtles, tigers
    and rhinos, great apes and elephants and other iconic species. These
    programs are particularly important as wildlife face a poaching crisis
    that is leading species such as rhinos to the brink of extinction. The
    Refuge Association and student-led Tigers 4 Tigers Coalition request
    $11 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund in fiscal
    year 2016.
        We believe that with sound conservation policy, adequate funding,
    and the power of more than 40,000 dedicated volunteers, the Refuge
    System can fulfill its mission to provide wildlife dependent recreation
    for Americans and protect the habitat for more than 700 species of
    birds, 220 species of mammals, 250 reptile and amphibian species and
    more than 1,000 species of fish.
        We look forward to working with Congress in 2015 to accomplish this
    goal.

        [This statement was submitted by Desiree Sorenson-Groves, Vice
    President, Government Affairs.]
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Natural Science Collections Alliance
        The Natural Science Collections Alliance appreciates the
    opportunity to provide testimony in support of fiscal year 2016
    appropriations for the Department of the Interior (DOI). We encourage
    Congress to provide the DOI Working Capital Fund with at least $74.5
    million in fiscal year 2016. We also encourage Congress to provide
    adequate funding for the scientific collections maintained by the
    United States Geological Survey, National Park Service, Bureau of Land
    Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service. These collections are used
    to inform resource management and support law enforcement efforts.
        The Natural Science Collections Alliance is a non-profit
    association that supports natural science collections, their human
    resources, the institutions that house them, and their research
    activities for the benefit of science and society. Our membership
    consists of institutions which are part of an international community
    of museums, botanical gardens, herbaria, universities, and other
    institutions that contain natural science collections and use them in
    research, exhibitions, academic and informal science education, and
    outreach activities.
        Scientific collections are a vital component of our Nation's
    research infrastructure. Whether held at a museum, government managed
    laboratory or archive, or in a university science department, these
    scientific resources contain genetic, tissue, organismal, and
    environmental samples that constitute a unique and irreplaceable
    library of the Earth's history. The specimens and their associated data
    drive cutting edge research on significant challenges facing modern
    society, such as improving human health, enhancing food security, and
    understanding and responding to environmental change. Collections also
    inspire novel interdisciplinary research that drives innovation and
    addresses some of the most fundamental questions related to
    biodiversity.
        The institutions that care for scientific collections are important
    research centers that enable scientists to study the basic data of
    life, conduct modern biological, geological, and environmental
    research, and provide undergraduate and graduate students with hands-on
    training opportunities.
        According to the Federal Interagency Working Group on Scientific
    Collections, ``scientific collections are essential to supporting
    agency missions and are thus vital to supporting the global research
    enterprise.'' In recognition of the importance of collections, the
    Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a memo in 2010 that
    directed Federal agencies to budget for the proper care of collections.
    ``Agencies should ensure that their collections' necessary costs are
    properly assessed and realistically projected in agency budgets, so
    that collections are not compromised.''
        Preservation of specimens is not only in the best interest of
    science, it is also in the best interest of taxpayers. Proper care of
    existing scientific collections is typically more cost effective than
    recollecting the information. Moreover, preservation of specimens and
    associated data allows for integration into new research. Specimens
    that were collected decades or centuries ago are often used in cutting
    edge research in the fields of genetics, biodiversity, and human
    health.
        We are pleased to see that DOI has included an increase of $1.0
    million in its budget request for the Cultural and Scientific
    Collections Management initiative. Interior is an important caretaker
    of museum collections; the Department has an estimated 146 million
    items, which is second in size to the Smithsonian Institution. Although
    many of the department's collections are located in bureau facilities,
    artifacts and specimens are also housed by non-governmental facilities,
    such as museums and universities.
        The United States Geological Survey (USGS) plans to maintain its
    efforts to preserve, inventory, and digitize geological scientific
    collections, such as rock and ice cores, fossils, and samples of oil,
    gas, and water. The National Geological and Geophysical Data
    Preservation program helps States with collections management, improves
    accessibility of collections data, and expands digitization of
    specimens. We are grateful to Congress for awarding additional funds
    for this program in fiscal year 2014. USGS plans to maintain the
    expanded program in fiscal year 2016.
        Another USGS program is supporting public access to biodiversity
    information. The Biodiversity Information Serving Our Nation system is
    the only Web-based Federal resource for finding species in the United
    States and contains 168 million records. It also serves as the U.S.
    connection to the Global Biodiversity Information Facility.
        The National Park Service is planning to continue its investments
    in scientific collections. The proposed budget would support plans to
    catalog an additional two million museum objects in fiscal year 2016.
    Additionally, several parks will address planning, environmental,
    storage, security, and fire protection deficiencies in museum
    collections.
                                   conclusion
        Scientific collections are an important part of our Nation's
    research enterprise. Research specimens connect us to the past, are
    used to solve current societal problems, and are helping to predict
    future environmental changes. Sustained investments in scientific
    collections are critical for our Nation's continued scientific
    leadership. Please support the budget request for the Department of the
    Interior's Capital Working Fund, which will support Interior's efforts
    to preserve scientific collections--a truly irreplaceable resource.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request.

        [This statement was submitted by Larry Page, Ph.D., President.]
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the The Nature Conservancy
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit recommendations
    for fiscal year 2016 appropriations. The Nature Conservancy is an
    international, non-profit conservation organization working around the
    world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and
    people. Our mission is to conserve the lands and waters upon which all
    life depends.
        As we enter the fiscal year 2016 budget cycle and another year of a
    challenging fiscal environment, the Conservancy continues to recognize
    the need for fiscal austerity. The Conservancy also wishes to thank
    this subcommittee for the final fiscal year 2015 funding levels for
    Department of Interior and U.S. Forest Service conservation programs.
    Our budget recommendations this year reflect a balanced approach with
    funding levels consistent in most cases with fiscal year 2015 funding
    levels or, in rare instances, reflect specific program needs. Of
    particular note, we wish to work with this subcommittee and the
    authorizing committees on identifying permanent funding solutions for
    wildfire funding, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Payment in
    Lieu of Taxes Program and Secure Rural Schools. The Conservancy is
    concerned about the increasing impacts of wildfire suppression funding
    on Interior funding levels and urges the subcommittee to adopt the
    bipartisan and widely supported Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (H.R.
    167; S. 235). This process of funding suppression for the Department of
    the Interior and the USDA Forest Service will create budgetary
    stability and accountability while liberating critically needed
    appropriations funds within the Interior allocation. We also strongly
    support the emphasis on funding for sage-grouse conservation in the
    fiscal year 2016 budget request.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).--The fiscal year 2016
    President's budget again proposes the establishment of a dedicated
    source of long-term funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
    In the proposal, the President's budget includes $400 million for LWCF
    activities through ``current authority'' or discretionary
    appropriations and then an additional $500 million in ``permanent
    authority'' or mandatory funding for LWCF. The budget then proposes to
    reach the $900 million funding level in fiscal year 2016 through this
    blend of current and permanent funding. The Conservancy supports this
    phased shift to mandatory funding for the LWCF Program. However,
    consistent with prior years and as noted above, we believe the
    administration must work closely with the relevant appropriations and
    authorizing committees to move this proposal forward. Additionally, the
    Conservancy supports the balanced approach in the budget on both
    ``core'' and ``collaborative'' LWCF projects. Projects in the Upper Rio
    Grande landscape in Colorado and New Mexico, Rivers of the Chesapeake
    in Maryland and Virginia, and the Island Forests at Risk landscapes of
    Hawaii will benefit greatly from the collaborative emphasis. Our core
    priorities this year include the Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire/
    Vermont/Connecticut/Massachusetts) and the working ranches and
    agricultural production areas of Florida's Everglades Headwaters NWR &
    Conservation Area, North Dakota and South Dakota's Dakota Grasslands
    Conservation Area, Utah, Idaho and Wyoming's Bear River Watershed
    Conservation Area and Kansas' Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area.
        Forest Legacy.--We support a minimum of $61 million for the Forest
    Legacy Program in current discretionary funding and the $39 million in
    permanent funding (with our aforementioned caveats).
        Endangered Species.--The Conservancy supports a funding level of at
    least $50 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
    Fund (CESCF), and also requests the subcommittee give consideration to
    the additional fiscal year 2015 President's budget request for
    permanent funding per our earlier request for negotiations to occur
    between the administration and relevant congressional committees on a
    path forward for this funding.
        Colorado River Basin Recovery Programs.--The Conservancy supports
    the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request of $5.05 million for
    USBR and $1.46 million for FWS for the Colorado River Basin recovery
    programs, including endangered species funding for the Upper Colorado
    River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, recovery funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, and fish hatchery needs
    associated with the recovery plans.
        Wildlife Planning.--The Conservancy continues to support the
    Western Governors' Association's (WGA) and this subcommittee's efforts
    to recommend Federal land management agencies utilize State fish and
    wildlife data and analyses to inform the land use, land planning and
    related natural resource decisions of those agencies. As an example of
    strong State-led data systems, WGA has partnered in recent years with
    State wildlife agencies and the Federal Government to develop statewide
    GIS mapping tools to identify crucial wildlife habitat and migratory
    corridors. These geospatial mapping tools, which provide access to
    credible, broad-scale scientific data--compiled and analyzed by the
    States--are designed to reduce conflicts and surprises while ensuring
    wildlife values are better incorporated into land use planning,
    particularly for large-scale linear projects.
        State and Tribal Wildlife Grants.--The Conservancy supports the
    fiscal year 2016 funding level--$70 million--for this program. Strong
    Federal investments are essential to ensure strategic actions are
    undertaken by State, tribal and Federal agencies and the conservation
    community to conserve wildlife populations and their habitats.
        Wildlife Conservation Programs.--The variety of wildlife
    conservation programs conducted by FWS continue a long and successful
    tradition of supporting collaborative conservation in the U.S. and
    internationally. We urge the subcommittee to fund the President's
    request for such established and successful programs as the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Fund (NAWCA), Neotropical Migratory Bird
    Conservation Fund (NMBCA), and the FWS Coastal Program. We support the
    President's request for the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures and the FWS
    Migratory Bird Management Program. For the latter, we are particularly
    supportive of FWS' efforts at developing updated eagle permitting
    regulations which will both support the development of renewable energy
    in our country and contribute to sustainable and growing populations of
    these iconic North American species. We support the President's fiscal
    year 2016 request for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and
    the requested funding for Cooperative Landscape Conservation and
    Adaptive Science ($17.87 million). The latter will help support DOI's
    overall commitment to Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and will
    contribute to collaborative problem solving for some of our Nation's
    most challenging issues. We also request strong funding this year for
    the National Fish Habitat Initiative.
        Resilience.--The Conservancy wishes to highlight three components
    of the President's budget focused on resilience: $50 million for a DOI
    competitive grant program modeled after the Hurricane Sandy Competitive
    Grant Program to expand the footprint of healthy ecosystems that
    deliver valuable ecosystem services, including flood attenuation and
    storm risk reduction, to nearby communities; $89 million for DOI's
    WaterSMART program, which promotes water conservation initiatives and
    technological breakthroughs; and $20 million to continue expanding and
    improving the recently-released online Climate Resilience Toolkit,
    which provides scientific tools and information to help tribes,
    communities, citizens, businesses, planners, and others understand and
    manage their climate-related risks and opportunities, and improve their
    resilience to extreme weather events. The Conservancy supports these
    requests.
        International Programs.--The international conservation programs
    appropriated annually within the Department of Interior are relatively
    small but are effective and widely respected. They encompass the U.S.
    Fish & Wildlife Service's (FWS) Multinational Species Conservation
    Funds, the FWS Wildlife Without Borders regional and global programs,
    the U.S. National Park Service International Program, and the U.S.
    Forest Service International Program (USFS-IP). We urge that fiscal
    year 2016 levels for these programs remain equivalent to fiscal year
    2015 levels at a minimum.
        National Wildlife Refuge System.--The Conservancy supports the
    President's budget request of $508.2 million for the Refuge System's
    Operations and Maintenance accounts. Found in every U.S. State and
    Territory, national wildlife refuges conserve a diversity of America's
    environmentally sensitive and economically vital ecosystems, including
    oceans, coasts, wetlands, deserts, tundra, prairie, and forests. This
    represents the funding necessary to maintain management capabilities
    for the Refuge System.
        USFS & DOI Wildland Fire Management.--The Wildfire Disaster Funding
    Act (WDFA) must be approved prior to an fiscal year 2016 appropriations
    package to adequately fund suppression and provide flexibility for
    activities that reduce fire risk and long-term suppression costs in
    fiscal year 2016. The Conservancy greatly appreciates the
    subcommittee's support of this much-needed fire funding fix.
        Hazardous Fuels and Restoration.--The Conservancy also appreciates
    Congress' emphasis on proactive hazardous fuels reduction and community
    preparedness along with a commitment to safe and cost-effective
    wildfire response strategies. In light of this approach and through the
    enactment of WDFA, the Conservancy recommends investing in Hazardous
    Fuels at levels of $479 million and $178 million for USFS and DOI,
    respectively, and repeating the subcommittee's fiscal year 2012
    instructions for allocating funds to priority landscapes in both WUI
    and wildland settings. The Conservancy appreciates the subcommittee's
    support of the Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) pilot with the
    expectation of increased restoration. The Conservancy recommends
    continuing the IRR pilot for another year. We recommend $86 million for
    the State Fire Assistance program. The Conservancy recommends
    increasing funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
    Program to $60 million for the existing 23 and new projects. This
    important program works to restore large forest landscapes, provide
    jobs that sustain rural economies, reduce the risk of damaging
    wildfire, improve wildlife habitat and decommission unused, damaging
    roads. The Conservancy also recommends supporting the Landscape Scale
    Restoration proposal funded at $24 million.
        Roads and Trails.--The National Forests have a legacy of unneeded
    roads that erode into streams and fragment wildlife habitat. Road
    maintenance and decommissioning is an essential restoration action that
    improves the health of lands and waters, while providing jobs. The
    Conservancy recommends the Legacy Roads and Trails program be funded at
    $45 million. Additionally, the Conservancy recommends report language
    that directs the agency to prioritize road and trail (construction,
    reconstruction, maintenance, and decommissioning) projects that would
    improve stream crossings for aquatic organisms and other important
    multiple benefits, such as flood mitigation.
        USFS Forest Health & Research.--The Forest Health program is a
    critical resource supporting efforts to prevent, contain, and eradicate
    dangerous pests and pathogens affecting trees and forests. Further,
    this program leads Federal efforts to counter forest pests which have
    become widespread. The Conservancy recommends funding the Federal and
    cooperative Forest Health programs at a combined level of $111 million.
    The Forest and Rangeland Research program provides the scientific basis
    for policies that improve the health and quality of urban and rural
    communities, by providing protection from fire, detecting and managing
    forest pests and the pathways, improving water and air quality, among
    many other benefits. For Forest and Rangeland Research, the Conservancy
    requests the fiscal year 2012 level of $304 million, separate from a
    request of $83 million for Forest Inventory and Analysis.
        Sage-Grouse Conservation.--This budget includes a much-needed
    infusion of funding toward the ongoing efforts to restore and conserve
    sagebrush habitat and the greater sage-grouse through the inclusion of
    $78 million for Interior agencies ($68.3 million--BLM, $5 million--FWS,
    $4.8 million--USGS) to implement BLM plans and to support the
    partnership and science necessary for effective conservation. The
    budget also contains $62.6 million for LWCF sage-steppe related
    conservation projects and $30 million in funding for the a new
    Resilient Landscapes program within the Office of Wildland Fire that
    the Department anticipates will support resilience work in the
    sagebrush ecosystem. This funding, combined with support for agency
    core budgets and partnership programs such as the State and Tribal
    Wildlife Grant Program and section 6 Cooperative Endangered Species
    Grant Program, resembles a ramped up effort by this administration to
    work in a more coordinated fashion with States and non-Federal partners
    toward on-the-ground conservation.
        BLM Landscape Approaches to Land Management and Renewable Energy
    Development.--The Conservancy supports the administration's recommended
    fiscal year 2016 funding for BLM's initiatives to implement landscape
    approaches to land management which include Rapid Ecoregional
    Assessments, Resource Management Planning and the Planning 2.0
    initiative, Regional Mitigation Planning, coordination with LCCs, and
    the Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) Strategy. Many BLM
    programs contribute to these cross-cutting initiatives including:
    National Landscape Conservation System--($11.2 million); Resource
    Management Planning program ($59.34 million); Wildlife and Fisheries
    management ($89.38 million request); and Threatened and Endangered
    species management ($21.6 million request). Additionally, the
    Conservancy supports continued funding for BLM's renewable energy
    development program at $29.3 million which includes implementation of
    the Western Solar Energy Program. Collectively, these efforts will help
    BLM manage its lands efficiently and effectively for energy
    development, species and habitat conservation, recreation, and other
    uses to maximize the public benefit from these lands.
                                     ______

        Environmental Protection Agency.--EPA's ``geographic'' programs
    including the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, Puget Sound
    and Mississippi River programs make a significant contribution to
    protecting habitat and water quality in the large landscapes where they
    work. The Conservancy urges the subcommittee to continue strong funding
    for these programs.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit The Nature Conservancy's
    recommendations for the fiscal year 2016 Interior, Environment and
    Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
           Prepared Statement of the New England Forest Policy Group
        Madam Chairman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, we
    are grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony today on behalf of
    the New England Forest Policy Group and the 102 conservation, forestry,
    and recreation interests listed at the end of my testimony.
        We respectfully request an increase in overall funding for the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to the Authorized level of $900
    million, including $100 million for the Forest Legacy Program, $556.879
    million for the Federal LWCF, $100.121 million for the State Grants
    Program, and $25 million for the Urban Park and Recreation Fund in the
    fiscal year 2016 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill. We also
    respectfully request a minimum of $5 million for the Community Forest
    and Open Space Conservation Program, $34.145 million for the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Act, $70 million for the State and
    Tribal Wildlife Grants Program, $10 million for the Recreational Trails
    Conservation Assistance Program, $31 million for Urban and Community
    Forestry, $48 million for the Cooperative Forest Health Program, and
    $29 million for the Forest Stewardship Program.
        These levels are based upon the established needs of the New
    England States and in consideration of the demands these Programs face
    across the Nation. These conservation and forestry programs provide
    great benefit to communities that depend upon our region's forests and
    to the Nation as a whole. Anything less than the requested funding will
    further impact these Programs' effectiveness, especially in light of
    notable funding declines over the past decade. Inscrutably, America is
    under-investing in its natural resources despite the clear economic,
    ecologic, and cultural value to our health, well-being, and future.
        The New England Forest Policy Group is an informal coalition of
    forestry, recreation, and conservation organizations and businesses
    united by efforts to conserve and utilize the forested landscapes that
    characterize our region. New England's forests are the backbone of our
    forest products and recreation economies, and they provide other
    services of incalculable value including clean water and biodiversity
    protection, climate mitigation, and flood resilience. As the most
    forested region in the country, New England's economy is strongly
    dependent on the health and integrity of its forests. New England's
    forests are 80 percent privately owned, mostly in relatively small
    parcels, and landowners are facing profound challenges from rising land
    prices, escalating development pressures, climate change, and
    associated threats that will significantly diminish this irreplaceable
    landscape without the support of the programs we list here.
        As the subcommittee crafts its Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations bill, there are several key points we respectfully
    request you to consider:

        1. Overall Funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
    at $900 million.--Funding at the recommended $900 million is critical
    for the conservation of the natural legacy of New England and the
    country. For 50 years, LWCF has protected our Nation's natural and
    historic treasures and is a vital tool for conserving working forests,
    wildlife habitat, and supporting State and local parks. It is paid for
    by a portion of receipts from offshore oil and gas drilling; it is not
    funded from taxpayer dollars. All six New England States will receive
    funding for critically important LWCF and Forest Legacy projects if the
    requested level of $900 million is provided in fiscal year 2016. But
    more than half of New England's fiscal year 2016 Forest Legacy projects
    are not likely to succeed unless full funding is appropriated.
        2. New England Needs for Federal Land Acquisition under LWCF.--In
    fiscal year 2016, New England's proposed Federal LWCF projects are
    found in the ``Discretionary'' sections of the administration's
    proposed budget; however if the full $400 million ``Discretionary''
    funding level is not funded, it is likely several of these important
    projects will not be completed.

              a. National Park Service LWCF Acquisitions--New England
            National Scenic Trail in Massachusetts at $875,000, part of the
            Collaborative Landscape Proposal for the National Trails
            landscape (#17, Discretionary).--The proposed fiscal year 2016
            LWCF funds are necessary for conserving and expanding the New
            England National Scenic Trail. New England's outdoor recreation
            economy is worth approximately $43 billion each year and
            supports more than 330,000 jobs, according to the Outdoor
            Industry Association.
              b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service LWCF Acquisitions--The
            Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge at $2 million
            (#11, Discretionary).--Securing protection of these
            ecologically rich watersheds and habitat corridors is a top
            regional priority. The Conte Refuge encompasses the spectacular
            Connecticut River watershed--a critical four-State habitat
            corridor and a treasure trove of ecological diversity,
            recreation, and economic opportunity.
              c. National Park Service LWCF Acquisitions--Acadia National
            Park at $2.476 million (#17, Discretionary).--Acadia National
            Park contributed $221.8 million to Maine's economy in 2014 and
            supported more than 3,485 jobs. This project will secure an
            inholding that provides high priority access and protection to
            the paddling gem, Round Pond.

        3. LWCF State Grants Program--$100.21 million (Programmatic,
    Discretionary and Mandatory).--The LWCF State assistance program
    provides matching grants to help States and local communities protect
    parks and recreation resources. This is the primary Federal investment
    tool to ensure that families have easy access to parks and open space,
    hiking and riding trails, and neighborhood recreation facilities.
        4. US Forest Service Programs of Special Importance to New
    England--USFS Forest Legacy and USFS Community Forest Programs.--These
    two programs in the Interior Appropriations bill are particularly
    important to New England given our region's high percentage of private
    forestland ownership and the intense development pressures on these
    lands.

              a. USFS Forest Legacy Program (FLP) needs full $100 million
            Appropriation to meet New England's needs.--The FLP has
            protected more than one million acres of forestland in New
            England since its establishment in the 1990 Farm Bill.
            Originally created to help address needs in New England and New
            York, this program has expanded to 53 States and Territories
            while funding levels remain static. New England has an
            outstanding group of FLP projects in the proposed fiscal year
            2016 budget, including 2 of the top 15 projects nationally. FLP
            must receive the full $100 million requested to ensure that all
            of New England's projects are funded. New England's full fiscal
            year 2016 interests include:

          -- $3.8 million for Big Six Forest in Maine (#6, Discretionary);
                $1.43 million for Whip-Poor-Will Woods in Connecticut (#12,
                Discretionary).
          -- $4 million for the Worcester Woods in Vermont (#20,
                Mandatory); $1.35 million for Groton Forest Legacy
                Initiative projects in Vermont (#28, Mandatory), $510,000
                for Oliverian Valley in New Hampshire (#32, Mandatory), and
                $820,000 for Arcadia Woodlands in Rhode Island (#41,
                Mandatory).

              b. USFS Community Forest Program needs a minimum of $5
            million.--The Community Forest Program (CFP) is a 50-50
            matching grant program to help local governments, tribes, and
            non-profit organizations expand the region's proud tradition of
            locally owned and managed lands, such as town forests. In the
            fiscal year 2014 round of CFP grants, project partners
            leveraged $2.3 million in Federal funds to secure $4.9 million
            in non-Federal funding. In our region, CFP grants have been
            awarded for economically important community forest projects in
            Barre and Dorset, Vermont; and in Easton, New Hampshire.
            Funding the Community Forest Program at the $5 million level
            will much better match demand than the administration's
            proposed level. This program is critical to New England's
            community character and economic vitality.

        5. North American Wetland Conservation Act (NAWCA) at $34.145
    million.--The Nation's premier conservation program for wetland habitat
    protection and restoration is critical to New England. Our remarkable
    marshes and coastal and estuarine habitats support commercial and sport
    fisheries and myriad wildlife species. These lands are also important
    for protecting coastal communities--a high regional priority given
    recent devastating events like Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy.
        6. State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program (SWG) at $70 million.--
    This important U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service program provides Federal
    grant funds for developing and implementing programs that benefit
    wildlife and their habitats and provides core funding for research,
    habitat restoration, and monitoring under the State Wildlife Action
    Plans. $70 million will reinvigorate the program and benefit landowners
    by keeping species off the Endangered Species list.
        7. Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA) at $10
    million.--RTCA partners with communities to protect 700 miles of
    rivers, create 1,300 miles of trails, and conserve over 60,500 acres of
    open space annually. RTCA allows the NPS to support private
    conservation organizations as well as local and State governments,
    usually in coalition, to foster important recreation, river protection,
    and land conservation efforts. This program is of high value to the
    populous New England States.
        8. Cooperative Forestry Program (including Urban & Community
    Forestry at $31 million, Cooperative Forest Health at $48 million,
    Forest Stewardship at $29 million).--These programs fund landowner
    services provided by State Foresters and Cooperative Extension
    Foresters. The proposed funding levels reflect the critical needs for
    private forestlands as endorsed by the National Association of State
    Foresters. The programs provide educational services to landowners and
    communities, and help ensure that our forested landscape remains
    healthy, resilient, and economically viable. Levels lower than those
    recommended will result in curtailing of vital services that help New
    England's family forest landowners sustainably manage their land.
        9. Urban Park and Recreation Fund (UPARR) at $25 million.--The
    President's budget proposes that UPARR, which provides matching grants
    and technical assistance to urban communities, be included within the
    LWCF umbrella and the proposal for full funding. It helps provide
    Federal assistance for rehabilitation of critically needed recreation
    facilities and for recreation planning in many New England communities.
        10. Wildfire Disaster Funding at $2.118 billion.--This funds
    wildfire suppression to protect the Nation's forest resources from
    wildfires. Our request reflects the modeled levels of suppression
    through the Interior bill and the wildfire budget cap adjustment to
    meet suppression needs in fiscal year 2016. Current spending levels for
    the suppression and FLAME accounts will not be sufficient for fiscal
    year 2016 and fighting fires will end up coming at the expense of other
    already constrained programs. We appreciate the subcommittee's support
    of the bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (WDFA--H.R. 167; S.
    235) and respectfully request that the language be highlighted in the
    bill.
        In closing, we thank the subcommittee for your continuing
    leadership on Federal land conservation and forest viability matters
    and for the opportunity to provide this testimony. Signatory
    organizations represented by this testimony:

    Androscoggin Land Trust (Maine)
    Appalachian Mountain Club
    Appalachian Trail Conservancy
    Aspetuck Land Trust (Connecticut)
    Audubon Connecticut
    Audubon Society of New Hampshire
    Audubon Society of Rhode Island
    Audubon Vermont
    Bear-Paw Regional Greenways (New Hampshire)
    Boxford Trails Association/Boxford Open Land Trust (Massachusetts)
    Cold Hollow to Canada (Vermont)
    The Compact of Cape Cod Conservation Trusts (Massachusetts)
    Connecticut Forest and Park Association
    Connecticut Fund for the Environment/Save the Sound
    Connecticut Land Conservation Council
    Connecticut River Watershed Council (New Hampshire, Vermont,
    Massachusetts, Connecticut)
    Conservation Collaboratives, LLC
    Conservation Law Foundation
    Cornwall Conservation Trust (Connecticut)
    East Haddam Land Trust (Connecticut)
    East Quabbin Land Trust (Massachusetts)
    Environmental League of Massachusetts
    Essex County Greenbelt Association (Massachusetts)
    Fairfield County Regional Conservation Partnership (Connecticut)
    Forest*Care (Vermont)
    Forest Society of Maine
    Franklin Land Trust (Massachusetts)
    Friends of Acadia National Park (Maine)
    Friends of Minuteman National Park (Massachusetts)
    Friends of the Moshassuck (Rhode Island)
    Friends of Pondicherry (New Hampshire)
    Friends of the Rachel Carson NWR (Maine)
    Friends of the Silvio O. Conte NWR (New Hampshire, Vermont,
    Massachusetts, Connecticut)
    Greater Lovell Land Trust (Maine)
    Green Mountain Club (Vermont)
    Harris Center for Environmental Studies (New Hampshire)
    High Peaks Alliance (Maine)
    Highstead Foundation
    Housatonic Valley Association (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York)
    Ipswich River Watershed Association
    Kennebec Estuary Land Trust (Maine)
    Kestrel Land Trust (Massachusetts)
    Land Conservancy of Ridgefield (Connecticut)
    Litchfield Hills Greenprint Collaborative (Connecticut)
    Littleton Conservation Trust (Massachusetts)
    Loon Echo Land Trust (Maine)
    Lyme Timber Company
    Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust
    Maine Coast Heritage Trust
    Maine Wilderness Guides Organization
    Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions
    Mass Audubon
    Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition
    Massachusetts Rivers Alliance
    MassConn Sustainable Forest Partnership (Massachusetts, Connecticut)
    Massachusetts Woodlands Institute
    Middlesex Land Trust (Connecticut)
    Mill River Greenway Initiative (Massachusetts)
    Monadnock Conservancy (New Hampshire)
    Mount Grace Land Conservation Trust (Massachusetts)
    Mt. Agamenticus to the Sea Conservation Initiative (Maine)
    National Audubon Society
    The Nature Conservancy
    Natural Resources Council of Maine
    New England Farmers Union
    New England Forestry Foundation
    New England Wild Flower Society
    New Hampshire Recreation and Parks Association
    Newtown Forest Association (Connecticut)
    North Woods Resource Group, Inc.
    Northeast Wilderness Trust
    Northern Forest Canoe Trail
    Northern Forest Center
    Northland Forest Products, Inc.
    Opacum Land Trust (Massachusetts)
    Open Space Institute
    Quabbin to Cardigan Partnership (New Hampshire, Massachusetts)
    Randolph Community Forest (New Hampshire)
    Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust (Maine)
    Redding Conservation Commission (Connecticut)
    Rensselaer Plateau Alliance (New York)
    Rhode Island Forest Conservators Organization
    Rhode Island Woodland Partnership
    Ridgefield, Connecticut Conservation Commission
    Salisbury Association Land Trust (Connecticut)
    Sandy River Land Trust (Maine)
    Sharon Land Trust (Connecticut)
    Shelburne Trails Club (New Hampshire)
    Sierra Club, Massachusetts Chapter
    Sierra Club, Vermont Chapter
    Society of American Foresters, Green Mountain Division
    Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests
    Southeastern Massachusetts Pine Barrens Association
    The Conservation Fund
    The Trust for Public Land
    The Wilderness Society
    Upper Valley Land Trust (New Hampshire, Vermont)
    Vermont Land Trust
    Vermont Natural Resources Council
    Vermont River Conservancy
    Vermont Woodlands Association
    Wildlands Trust (Massachusetts)

                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the New York State Assembly
        Dear Senator Murkowski:

        The Great Lakes are a vast natural resource, larger in area than
    the U.S. States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island,
    Massachusetts. Vermont, and New Hampshire combined. This international
    resource represents a massive economic engine generating nearly $35
    billion/year and is responsible for 75,000 jobs in fishing, tourism and
    related industries. Several independent sources estimate $7.0 billion/
    year is directly attributable to Great Lakes fisheries alone. The
    highest quality science possible is required to inform wise management
    decisions concerning conservation, water management, and fisheries
    resources throughout the Great Lakes Basin.
        Much of Lake Erie's coast is located in the 149th assembly
    district, the district I represent in the New York State Assembly. My
    district strongly supports the U.S. Geological Survey's Great Lakes
    Science Center (USGS GLSC) fisheries science because the products they
    develop are foundational to management decisionmaking on Great Lakes
    fisheries. The USGS GLSC conducts impartial, high-quality science
    essential to Federal, State, tribal, and provincial management programs
    throughout all five of the Great Lakes and in all eight Great Lakes
    States. Great Lakes management jurisdictions depend on the USGS GLSC
    Deepwater and Invasive Species Programs to provide data critical to
    understanding the long-term condition of the fish communities, and to
    development of tools and technologies needed to combat invasive species
    like the sea lamprey that threaten the valuable sport and commercial
    fisheries.
        USGS GLSC scientific research capabilities have been hit hard by
    back-to-back years of budget erosion, and worsened by a 6 percent cut
    from sequestration in 2013. Their budget in 2014 was at the same level
    it was 5 years ago in 2009. The ongoing budget impacts have led to an
    accumulation of more than 15 unfilled scientific/technical positions
    distributed throughout the Great Lakes Region. For several years now,
    USGS GLSC has been improvising to address the unfilled positions, but
    their capacity to deliver critical scientific information in a timely
    manner is in jeopardy. This high quality, impartial scientific
    information from USGS GLSC is absolutely essential for wise management
    of the fisheries and to protect them from invasive species. Now. for
    the first time since the President was elected, his 2016 budget
    highlights two areas where the USGS GLSC programs would experience
    relatively small budget increases. The President proposes: (1) a
    $250,000 increase for the Great Lakes Deepwater Assessments: and (2) a
    bureau-wide $2.0 million increase for Invasive Species which would
    likely result in a portion of those funds being directed to USGS GLSC.
    The language for the proposed funds for Great Lakes Fisheries
    Assessments (pg. C-52) and for New and Emerging Invasive Species (pg.C-
    26) can be found in the fiscal year 2016 USGS Budget Justification at:
    http://www.doi.gov/budget/appropriations/2016/upload/
    FY2016_USGS_Greenbook.pdf.
        Representing the 149th district, I greatly appreciate the
    subcommittees' ongoing support for programs that sustain and restore
    the Great Lakes. Herein, I join the Great Lakes Fishery Commission
    Council of Lake Committees in supporting $17.5 million in fiscal year
    2016 appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey's Great Lakes
    Science Center. Currently, the USGS GLSC receives approximately $8.5
    million in appropriated funding to support science programs critical to
    the management of these incredibly valuable resources. Compared to
    economic returns generated from the Great Lakes, this funding level
    only represents about 1.2 percent of the annual fisheries related
    revenue and less than 0.03 percent of the revenue attributable to
    closely related industries. Our request for $17.5 million in fiscal
    2016 appropriations represents an $8.75 million increase above the
    President's fiscal year 2016 request. The President's fiscal year 2016
    request for $250,000, combined with our requested increase of $8.75
    million, and the $8.5 million annual appropriation allocated to the
    GLSC reaches the $17.5 million, and reflects long-standing, well
    recognized needs for this chronically underfunded science program.
    These needs were previously detailed in a March 2010 bi-partisan letter
    authored by nine U.S. Senators and 21 U.S. House members wrote to their
    congressional appropriation leadership to request a total science
    budget of $15.0 million; and again 2 years later in April 2012, by the
    Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies describing the importance of
    the USGS programs to regional management decisions, and recommending an
    appropriated science budget of $15.0 million. The current requested
    increase to $17.5 million will address uncontrollable costs over the
    past 5 years and boost investments in advanced technology. Investments
    in technologies to assess the fishery have fallen well behind marine
    programs. GLSC scientists need to have access to 21st Century
    innovations like autonomous samplers that can provide critical resource
    information with greater spatial and seasonal coverage, and less
    overall cost than traditional hands-on measurements.
        The importance of the USGS information and the risks posed by
    budget cuts to their science has been well documented. The USGS
    scientific workforce has been particularly hard hit with unfilled
    permanent scientific/technical positions throughout the Great Lakes
    Region. The USGS has been improvising for several years to address the
    unfilled positions, but their capacity to deliver the critical and high
    quality scientific information in a timely manner is now in jeopardy.
        We urge you to embrace these requests in the President's budget;
    and respectfully ask you to increase these additions by $8.75 million
    for a total increase of $9.0 million for the USGS GLSC Deepwater
    Assessments.

        [This statement was submitted by Sean M. Ryan, Member of New York
    State Assembly.]
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Nez Perce Tribe
        The Nez Perce Tribe would like to provide the following testimony
    to this subcommittee as it evaluates and prioritizes the appropriations
    for the Indian Health Service (IHS), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Forest Service and the Fish
    and Wildlife Service in relation to the needs of tribal nations for
    fiscal year 2016.
        As with any government, the Nez Perce Tribe does a wide array of
    work and provides a multitude of services to the tribal membership as
    well as the community at large. The Nez Perce Tribe has a health clinic
    with a satellite office, a tribal police force, a social services
    department, a comprehensive natural resource program that does work in
    forestry, wildlife management, land services and land management,
    habitat restoration, air quality and smoke management, water quality
    and sewer service, and one of the largest fisheries departments of any
    tribe in the nation working on recovery of listed species under the
    Endangered Species Act. The Nez Perce Tribe conducts its extensive
    governmental functions and obligations through a comprehensive
    administrative framework, which is necessary for a sovereign nation
    that preserves and protects the treaty rights of the Nez Perce People
    in addition to providing the day to day governmental services to its
    members and the surrounding communities. The Nez Perce Tribe has long
    been a proponent of self determination for tribes and believes its
    primary obligation is to protect the treaty-reserved rights of the Nez
    Perce Tribe and its members. All of the work of the tribe is guided by
    this principle. As a result, the tribe works extensively with many
    Federal agencies and proper funding for those agencies and their work
    with, for and through tribes is of vital importance. This work cannot
    be accomplished unless the United States continues to affirm and follow
    through on its trust responsibility and properly fund programs.
                             indian health services
        The Nez Perce Tribe currently operates a healthcare clinic on the
    Nez Perce Reservation, Nimiipuu Health. The main clinic facility is
    located in Lapwai, Idaho with a satellite facility located 65 miles
    away in Kamiah, Idaho. Nimiipuu Health provided service to 3,820
    patients last year. These 3,820 patients represented 47,673 visits
    which does not include pharmacy and laboratory visits but only medical
    provider visits. Our expenditure total for fiscal year 2014 was
    $13,942,622. Our Purchased/Referred Care costs for outpatient services
    for fiscal year 2014 was $4,125,475.
        Although the Nez Perce Tribe supports the proposed $460.6 million
    increase in funding over the fiscal year 2015 levels proposed by the
    President, it is important to note that this increase still lags far
    behind where funding should be to offset the growing needs of the
    programs and medical inflation which is estimated to be another $297.2
    million. Also, the tribe supports the recommendation of a $50 million
    dollar increase in funding proposed for purchased and referred care,
    but it too falls well short of the true need in Indian Country as is
    illustrated by the spending needs of just the Nez Perce clinic. The
    National Congress of American Indians actually recommends an increase
    of 198.2 million. Additionally, the tribe supports $718 million to be
    allocated for Contract Support Costs.
        Because full funding of these obligations is so important to Indian
    Country, the tribe supports the administration's innovative proposal to
    reclassify contract support costs for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
    the Indian Health Service beginning in fiscal year 2017 but this
    reclassification should be permanent and not just for 3-year periods.
    Also, such a change in funding should not be accomplished or be off-set
    by reducing other funding for these agencies that would adversely
    affect services or programs. Nor should this funding be unnecessarily
    reduced by excessive set-asides for administration. The tribe also
    supports funding of the Special Diabetes Program at $150 million as
    that funding is set to expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
                            bureau of indian affairs
        The tribe supports the $277 million dollars for contract support
    costs proposed in the President's budget and the reclassification of
    these costs from discretionary to mandatory as well as the 12 percent
    increase in overall funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The tribe
    also supports the Presidential budget request to include a Carcieri fix
    to address legal issues that have arisen related to the transfer of
    land into trust and created uncertainty over the status of lands. This
    uncertainty will only stifle and impede economic development in Indian
    Country. A legislative amendment to restore the sovereign status of
    these lands is needed now.
        In relation to the Bureau of Indian Affairs Public Safety and
    Justice budget, the tribe advocates for at least the $364.4 million
    dollars in funding proposed in the President's budget. The Nez Perce
    Reservation covers 1,200 square miles and covers five counties and has
    a mixture of tribal and non-tribal residents. The tribe provides a full
    service law and justice program, beginning with a fully trained and
    staffed police force, tribal court, prosecutor and related
    administrative functions. Currently, the Nez Perce Tribe contributes
    over $1,497,626 per year to cover the shortfall in BIA funding for the
    tribe's law enforcement, $408,821 for judicial services/probation,
    $319,649 for prosecutorial services, $87,072 for public defender
    services and $400,000 for prisoner boarding. This funding comes from
    tribal taxes and tribal gaming revenues. The funding for these programs
    needs to be increased to account for the shortfalls in funding the
    tribe has to absorb to continue the operation of these vital services
    on the reservation.
        In relation to education, the tribe requests $42 million for
    Johnson O'Malley Funding, $5 million for tribal education departments
    and $89.1 million for tribal colleges that would support institutions
    such as the Northwest Indian College that operates a satellite campus
    on the Nez Perce Reservation. It should also be noted that scholarship
    funding provided by the BIA has remained static for the past decade
    while the cost of attending college has risen faster than can be
    accounted for by simple inflation. The tribe recently set up an
    educational endowment to supplement the BIA education funds but the BIA
    funds need to be increased.
        The tribe also relies on the BIA for funding for its work related
    to endangered species and protection of the tribe's treaty resources
    including Chinook and steelhead salmon. The funding has also been used
    to supplement the research efforts of the tribe relative to other
    sensitive species. The BIA Endangered Species Program should be funded
    at $3 million dollars as it provides tribes with the technical and
    financial assistance to protect endangered species on trust lands but
    funding of this program has declined significantly over the last 8
    years. Also, the BIA Natural Resource Tribal Priority Allocations
    should be increased to $10 million as this funding has remained flat
    for years at just under $5 million. This expenditure will help increase
    tribal land and management capabilities.
        In addition, the funding provided under the BIA Rights Protection
    implementation monies are critical to support the exercise of treaty
    reserved off-reservation hunting and fishing for tribes like the Nez
    Perce and it should be funded at $52 million dollars. The BIA single-
    line dollars do provide the foundation for core program administration
    and treaty rights protection activities, such as harvest monitoring and
    conservation enforcement. And of course, these efforts are central to
    the tribe's fisheries management responsibilities as established in the
    treaties and further delineated in litigation regarding implementation
    of hunting and fishing treaty rights. It is important to understand
    that this funding is not for equipment but is used for job creation and
    this funding has stayed static.
        The tribe also supports funding for the BIA Wildlife and Parks
    Tribal Priority Allocations of $3.3 million dollars and $6.5 million
    dollars as these funds allow for important work to be done on fish
    recovery through hatchery operation and maintenance. As stated earlier,
    the tribe has invested a large amount of its personnel and resources in
    the restoration and recovery of this important resource through its
    fisheries programs. The States of Oregon, Washington and Idaho directly
    benefit from this work as well through sports fisheries. These programs
    have been successful but more work needs to be done. The Tribal
    Management and Development Program also needs increased funding. The
    tribe recommends $20 million for base and programmatic funding. This
    program is critical for fish and wildlife management of the tribe.
       fish and wildlife service, forest service and cultural protection
        The tribe relies heavily on funding sources within the Fish and
    Wildlife Service and the Forest Service. First, the Tribal Wildlife
    Grants program administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is a
    cost effective expenditure for the Government. This small pot of money
    has resulted in huge returns from the tribe's perspective. Since 2005,
    we have received five such grants that have allowed us to work on such
    diverse issues as gray wolf monitoring, bighorn sheep research, and
    rare plant conservation. Continued funding for the Tribal Wildlife
    Grant program will allow recipient tribes to build capacity and
    maintain involvement in key conservation issues. It should be noted
    that this competitive grant does not simply dole out funds for projects
    but awards grants based on the quality of the proposal. As mentioned
    above, the tribe has received five grants under this program totaling
    $1 million based on the quality of our research work. Funding for these
    grants was reduced in previous fiscal years. The tribe strongly urges
    this subcommittee to increase this funding to $8 million as it provides
    a large return in work for a small investment. It is also one of the
    few sources of funds tribes can tap into for wildlife research.
        Related to forest management, the tribe supports wildfire disaster
    funding legislation that treats wildfires like other natural disasters
    and emergencies to help prevent funds from having to be diverted from
    forest management. The tribe also supports increasing BIA Forestry
    funding (TPA and Forestry Projects) by $25 million to an fiscal year
    2016 total of $76.9 million as a first step toward providing the $100
    million the BIA needs as minimum annual funding to achieve parity with
    other Federal forestry programs.
        The Nez Perce Reservation and its usual and accustomed areas are
    rich in natural resources and encompass eleven different national
    forests. The tribe works closely with each forest administration to
    properly manage its resources on behalf of the tribe. These range from
    protecting and properly managing the products of the forest to managing
    the vast wildlife in each one such as elk, deer, bighorn sheep and
    wolves. Increased funding is necessary so that the Forest Service can
    meet these trust obligations and continue to work with tribes such as
    the Nez Perce on a government to government basis.
        Finally, there should be $15 million dollars allocated for the
    Tribal Historic Preservation Office Program and $4 million dollars for
    repatriation to help ensure tribal remains and cultural properties are
    protected to the greatest extent possible.
                        environmental protection agency
        The Nez Perce Tribe currently implements, on behalf of the
    Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Air Rules for Reservations
    program (FARR) and receives funding from the State and Tribal
    Assistance Grants Program and Tribal General Assistance Grants. The
    Tribe supports a budget of $75 million for these grants because of the
    importance of these funds for tribal governance. The FARR program
    monitors air quality and regulates field burning throughout the Nez
    Perce Reservation. The tribe is located in Region 10 of the EPA and
    this increase in funding is needed for tribes to meet their air quality
    needs and operate programs under the delegation of the EPA.
        In addition to the air quality program, the Nez Perce Tribe is
    working with other Idaho tribes on surveying fish consumption rates
    which is an important tool in efforts to protect the health of tribal
    members. Funding for this work is important. The tribe also relies
    heavily on contract support dollars for our water resource programs
    such as storage tank remediation and watershed restoration.
        As you can see, the Nez Perce Tribe does a tremendous amount of
    work in a variety of areas. It is important that the United States
    continue to fund this work and uphold and honor its trust obligations
    to tribes. Thank you.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the North American Association of Food Equipment
                                 Manufacturers
        The North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers
    (NAFEM) is a trade association comprised of more than 525 foodservice
    equipment and supplies manufacturers. The association's members
    constantly seek opportunities to improve equipment, both in response to
    market demands and as an innovative means of product improvement.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NAFEM members helped develop and actively participate in ENERGY
    STAR in recognition of the role of voluntary, market-driven incentives
    for improving the efficiency of commercial foodservice equipment and
    supplies. NAFEM and its members support measures to limit the impact of
    ozone depleting substances and efforts to increase the energy
    efficiency of commercial foodservice equipment while continuing to
    provide the products, performance and reliability expected in the
    marketplace.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EPA SNAP Rule: Negative Policy Consequences
        The Environmental Protection Agency released a proposed rule on
    August 6, 2014 under its Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
    (SNAP), under which various HFC's and HFC-containing blends that were
    previously listed as acceptable alternatives to ozone-depleting
    substances will have their status changed to ``unacceptable'' as
    refrigerants for commercial refrigeration and foam blowing agents used
    in commercial refrigeration applications. The EPA believes that a
    limited number of new substitutes pose a lower risk overall to human
    health and the environment.
        The proposal and the assumptions made by EPA reveal a rulemaking
    process that fails to consider the technological and economic
    challenges of introducing these refrigerants into the North American
    market. The agency does not address the changes in manufacturing
    processes that will be required, the time period in which such changes
    can be made, the ability of current technology to utilize the proposed
    alternatives, and the safety issues raised by their application.
        Furthermore, the proposed delisting of currently acceptable
    refrigerants of January 1, 2016 will threaten the energy efficiency and
    performance of refrigeration products, as well as compromise the health
    and safety of employees involved in the manufacturing, distribution,
    service and end-user markets of commercial refrigeration. These dangers
    also could extend to the public at large as flammable refrigerants are
    introduced for certain market applications. In all applications, EPA's
    proposal does not provide adequate time to research, design, test,
    train and certify these commercial refrigeration products reliant on
    new alternative refrigerants.
        EPA's proposal also directly conflicts with recently promulgated
    energy efficiency standards established by the Department of Energy
    (DOE), which rely on some of the very refrigerants that EPA now
    proposes to ban. Manufacturers are finding that it is neither
    technologically nor economically feasible for them to develop products
    that meet both the energy conservation standards and also utilize
    acceptable alternatives to existing refrigerants and blowing agents.\2\
    In fact, the proposed alternative refrigerants are less energy
    efficient than the ones being banned. If less efficient refrigerants
    and insulation blowing agents are required by EPA, commercial
    refrigeration manufacturers face an impossible situation--manufacture
    more efficient products pursuant to DOE regulations using less
    efficient refrigerants pursuant to EPA regulations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ See DOE dockets affecting automatic commercial ice makers
    (EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037), commercial refrigeration equipment (EERE-2010-
    BT-STD-003), and walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers (EERE-2008-BT-
    STD-0015).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EPA SNAP Rule: Flawed Rulemaking Making Policies
        EPA's SNAP proposal violates the principles set out in Executive
    Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, Executive
    Order 13610, Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens, and Executive
    Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011, found at 76 F.R.
    3821 (January 21, 2011), Executive Order 13610 of May 10, 2012, found
    at 77 F.R. 28469 (May 14, 2012, and Executive Order 12866 of September
    30, 1993, found at 58 F.R. 51735 (October 4, 1993).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The value and strength of established principles of rulemaking
    addressed in these executive orders are in their actual application in
    active rulemaking and their ability to influence final rules. We find,
    however, that they are often ignored and given only a pro forma
    acknowledgement, rather than revealing themselves as elements that
    contribute to the agency's dialogue with stakeholders, influence the
    development of regulatory proposals and yield actual outcomes by way of
    final rulemaking.
        The SNAP rule as proposed is a prime example.\4\ The current
    proposal limits commercial refrigeration equipment to four refrigerant
    options: Ammonia, CO2, Isobutene and Propane,
    notwithstanding the known toxicity, flammability, and costs of these
    alternatives and the greater energy efficiency potential of the HFCs in
    use today. Furthermore, EPA's proposed timeline fails to take into full
    consideration the time and investments needed to retrofit manufacturing
    plants and processes and market dislocation that will occur. When
    compared to the resulting global warming benefit that EPA itself
    calculates, we believe the proposal violates the very core principles
    of American policymaking.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See NAFEM comments recently filed with EPA in the matter of
    ``Improving EPA Regulations'' (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As an example, meaningful input prior to publication of a proposed
    rule was lacking. For example, regarding the listing of substitutes for
    refrigeration, NAFEM member Hoshizaki America has questioned the test
    method used in assessing flammability and fire safety and also points
    out the need to test and evaluate the venting of flammable
    refrigerants.\5\ NAFEM member Traulsen questioned EPA's assumption that
    a trained service network will exist for flammable refrigerants and
    believes EPA's reliance on fire extinguishers in settings where such
    equipment will be in use is inappropriate and unrealistic.\6\ If taken
    up in dialogue with stakeholders prior to developing the proposal, such
    information gathering could result in more realistic and potentially
    more achievable proposals.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ See Comment submitted by Stephen Schaefer, Administrator
    Engineering Group, Team Leader, Hoshizaki America, Inc. at http://
    www.regulations.gov under docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748 and
    identification number RIN 2060-AS04.
        \6\ See Comment submitted by Mary Dane-Greenhow, Agency Approval
    Engineer, Traulsen--ITW Food Group, LLC at http://www.regulations.gov
    under docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748 and identification number RIN
    2060-AS04.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No Coordination between Agencies; No Consideration of Cumulative
            Regulatory Burden
        Executive Order 13563 acknowledges that the regulated community is
    subject to rules from various agencies and establishes the principle
    that agencies should seek to harmonize their rules and otherwise
    coordinate with each other in their rulemaking.\7\ Executive Order
    13610 further calls on agencies to simplify and harmonize regulations
    that impact small businesses. This order also emphasizes a hallmark of
    Executive Order 12866, calling on agencies to consider the cumulative
    effects of their regulations.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ See Section 3, Integration and Innovation, Executive Order
    13563 (January 18, 2011): Some sectors and industries face a
    significant number of regulatory requirements, some of which may be
    redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping. Greater coordination across
    agencies could reduce these requirements, thus reducing costs and
    simplifying and harmonizing rules. In developing regulatory actions and
    identifying appropriate approaches, each agency shall attempt to
    promote such coordination, simplification, and harmonization. Each
    agency shall also seek to identify, as appropriate, means to achieve
    regulatory goals that are designed to promote innovation.
        \8\ See Section 3, Setting Priorities, Executive Order 13610 (May
    10, 2012): Consistent with Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order
    12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), agencies
    shall give consideration to the cumulative effects of their own
    regulations, including cumulative burdens, and shall to the extent
    practicable and consistent with law give priority to reforms that would
    make significant progress in reducing those burdens while protecting
    public health, welfare, safety, and our environment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NAFEM believes this coordination includes intentional dialogue and
    communication among agencies. We believe this principle covers not only
    a review of existing regulations that may have over time become
    redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping, but also covers pending
    proposals, implementation timelines of rules already promulgated, and
    elements of an agency's regulatory agenda.
        EPA and DOE are simultaneously involved in imposing new
    requirements on manufacturers of certain types of refrigeration
    equipment that have significant cost, productivity and competitiveness
    consequences. Both agencies make assumptions about technology
    applications in the same equipment, independent of each other and
    towards different regulatory goals, despite the fact that manufacturers
    and their vendors have repeatedly told both agencies that the gains
    expected are not achievable.
        EPA should coordinate its current and planned regulatory agenda
    with DOE where the availability of HFC refrigerants plays a significant
    role in the regulatory propositions and conclusions made in multiple
    DOE proceedings. When raised by NAFEM within the public comment period
    for proposed energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and
    freezers, consider DOE's response in June 2014:

            [NAFEM] requested that DOE incorporate the phase out of HFCs in
            its analysis. NAFEM stated that alternative refrigerants could
            add to overall engineering costs and reduce energy savings . .
            . The use of alternative refrigerants is not a direct result of
            this rule and is not included in this analysis. Furthermore,
            there is no regulatory requirement to use alternative
            refrigerants at this time. DOE does not include the impacts of
            pending legislation or regulatory proposals in its analysis, as
            any impact would be speculative. For this final rule, DOE does
            not include the impact of alternative refrigerants in its
            analysis.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ See 79 F.R. 32050 at 32092 (June 3, 2014).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Conclusion
        The unrealistic timeline proposed by EPA for the application of
    alternative refrigerants in commercial refrigeration reveals a failed
    rulemaking process that ignores the negative impacts on the very public
    policy goals intended. The principle of coordination among agencies
    overseeing various regulatory regimes and rulemaking efforts, and its
    corollary principle of harmonizing regulations among the various
    agencies, cry out for an active dialogue of review, planning, and
    rollout of proposals, promulgation and implementation between EPA and
    DOE relative to allowable refrigerants and energy efficiency standards.
    Where a rulemaking agency fails to follow accepted principles of
    policymaking, Congress has an important role to play in its oversight
    and funding responsibilities.

        [This statement was submitted by Charlie Souhrada, CFSP, Director,
    Member Services.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
        The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) is comprised of
    the 20 tribes that are party to the United States v. Washington \1\
    (U.S. v. Washington). To meet the many natural resources management
    responsibilities required of the tribes, I submit the following
    requests for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ United States v. Washington, Boldt Decision (1974) reaffirmed
    Western Washington Tribes' treaty fishing rights.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              summary of fiscal year 2016 appropriations requests
    Bureau of Indian Affairs
      --Provide $17.146 million for Western Washington Fisheries
            Management.
      --Provide $3.082 million for Washington State Timber-Fish-Wildlife.
      --Provide $4.844 million for U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty.
      --Provide $2.4 million for Salmon Marking.
      --Provide $4.5 million for Climate Change.
      --Provide $6.582 million for Fish Hatchery Maintenance.
      --Provide $3.796 million for Fish Hatchery Operations.
      --Provide $272.0 million for Contract Support.
      --Provide $30.355 million for Tribal Climate Resilience.
      --Provide $830,000 for Watershed Restoration.
    Environmental Protection Agency
      --Provide $96.4 million for General Assistance Program.
      --Provide $50.0 million for Puget Sound.
      --Provide $5.0 million for Beyond GAP.

        We are generally pleased with the President's fiscal year 2016
    budget request, which includes and builds on many of the subcommittee's
    actions from the past few years. It contains funding to support the
    tribal treaty right, including research and analysis for sustainable
    management of our natural resources and climate adaptation. The treaty-
    reserved rights are at grave risk today as the resources they are
    dependent on are disappearing and the reason the western Washington
    treaty tribes brought to the Federal Government our Treaty Rights at
    Risk Initiative. On behalf of our 20 member tribes, I am here today to
    speak specifically to our fiscal year 2016 natural resources management
    and environmental program funding requests for the BIA and the EPA.
                           justification of requests
    Bureau of Indian Affairs
                Rights Protection Implementation Subactivity
        The 41 tribes in the Great Lakes and Pacific Northwest with similar
    treaty-reserved rights have collectively identified that no less than
    $52.0 million for Rights Protection Implementation (RPI) is necessary
    for essential tribal treaty rights management. The President's fiscal
    year 2016 budget includes $40.138 million for RPI, an increase of
    $4.718 million over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level of $35.420
    million. A summary of the accounts of interest to us within RPI are
    further identified below. However, a breakdown of these accounts in the
    BIA's Greenbook is not provided for fiscal year 2016.

        Provide $17.146 million for BIA Western Washington Fisheries
    Management.--We respectfully request $17.146 million, an increase of
    $8.614 million over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level of $8.532
    million. Funding for this program allows for continued treaty harvest
    management, population assessment, habitat protection and data
    gathering for finfish, shellfish, groundfish, wildlife and other
    natural resource management needs. Funds provide the necessary capacity
    for the treaty tribes to co-manage the resources with the State of
    Washington and to continue to meet court mandates and legal
    responsibilities.
        Provide $3.082 million for BIA Washington State Timber-Fish-
    Wildlife.--We respectfully request $3.082 million, an increase of
    $346,000 over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level of $2.736 million.
    Funding for this program is provided to improve forest practices on
    State and private lands while providing protection for fish, wildlife
    and water quality. This will provide the necessary funding for tribal
    TFW programs to fully participate in the TFW process.
        Provide $4.844 million for BIA U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty.--
    We respectfully request $4.844 million, an increase of $564,000 over
    the fiscal year 2015 enacted level of $4.28 million. The Pacific Salmon
    Treaty (PST) Act of 1985 charges the United States Section of the
    Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) with the responsibility for
    implementation of the PST, a bilateral treaty with Canada. Tribes
    assist in meeting the Federal Government's obligations in implementing
    the treaty by participating in cooperative research and data gathering
    activities. This will provide sufficient funding to ensure that the
    tribes can continue to participate effectively in the bilateral PST
    process.
        Provide $2.4 million for BIA Salmon Marking.--We respectfully
    request $2.4 million, an increase of $1.328 million over the fiscal
    year 2015 enacted level of $1.072 million. Funding for this program was
    mandated in 2003 by Congress that required all salmon released from
    federally funded hatcheries be marked so they could be identified for
    conservation purposes. This allows tribes to mark salmon at tribal
    hatcheries and to use these marked fish to scientifically monitor
    salmon populations and watersheds in western Washington.
        Provide $4.5 million for BIA Climate Change.--We respectfully
    request $4.5 million for Climate Change for our member tribes, an
    increase of $3.109 million over our fiscal year 2015 allocation. The
    fiscal year 2015 appropriations provided a total of $3.224 million, of
    which our member tribes received $1.391 million. Funding for this
    program will provide tribes the capacity to identify, respond and adapt
    to the impacts of our changing climate. There is a glaring need to
    assess the potential impacts to resources in the face of climate
    change, which brings different challenges for every tribal community.
    It is important that tribes be provided the maximum flexibility to
    develop specific science-based activities to meet their particular
    needs.
                Fish, Wildlife and Parks Projects
        Provide $6.582 million for BIA Fish Hatchery Maintenance.--We
    respectfully request $6.582 million, an increase of $82,000 over the
    fiscal year 2015 enacted level of $6.5 million. Tribal fish hatcheries
    in western Washington are part of the largest fish hatchery system in
    the world. Funding for this program is provided to tribes nationwide
    based on the ranking of annual maintenance project proposals.
    Hatcheries also play a large role in recovering pacific salmon, many of
    which are listed under the Endangered Species Act. A comprehensive
    needs assessment study was conducted in fiscal year 2006 by the BIA at
    the request of Congress which identified a need of over $48.0 million
    in necessary hatchery maintenance and rehabilitation costs.
        Provide $3.796 million for BIA Fish Hatchery Operations.--We
    respectfully request $3.796 million, an increase of $1.939 million over
    the fiscal year 2015 enacted level of $1.857 million. This increase
    reflects the needs of the western Washington treaty tribes. Funding for
    this program is provided to tribal hatcheries to support the rearing
    and releasing of salmon and steelhead for harvest by Indian and non-
    Indian fisheries in the U.S. and Canada. Hatcheries are a necessary
    part of fisheries management because of the lack of wild salmon
    production due to habitat degradation. They continue to play a vital
    role in supporting tribal fisheries and are now essential for
    maintaining the treaty right to harvest fish. Without hatcheries tribes
    would lose their most basic ceremonial and subsistence fisheries that
    are central to our tribal culture.
                Other Subactivities and Accounts
        Provide $272.0 million for BIA Contract Support.--We support the
    President's request of $272.0 million, an increase of $26.0 million
    over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level of $246.0 million. We also
    support the President's legislative proposal to reclassify CSC as
    mandatory funding beginning in fiscal year 2017. Funding for this
    function is provided to tribal organizations to ensure they have the
    capacity to manage Federal programs under self-determination contracts
    and self-governance compacts. These funds are critical as they directly
    support our governmental functions, which allow us to fully exercise
    our right to self-govern.
        Provide $30.355 million for BIA Tribal Climate Resilience.--We
    support the President's request of $30.355 million, an increase of
    $20.407 million over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level of $9.948
    million. Funding for this program will contribute to the tribal
    capacity needed to participate and provide input on climate change
    issues. It will assist tribes in being able to provide their
    perspective on climate change adaptation in the form of traditional
    ecological knowledge necessary to protect their treaty rights.
        Provide $830,000 for BIA Watershed Restoration.--We respectfully
    request $830,000, an increase of $455,000 over the fiscal year 2015
    operating plan. The fiscal year 2015 operating plan provided a total of
    $375,000 to western Washington treaty tribes. Funding is contained in
    the Forestry Subactivity--Forestry Projects--Watershed Restoration
    account and supports our Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and
    Assessment Program. This provides environmental data management,
    analysis, and reporting support and maintains on-going efforts to
    develop information sharing and exchange tools. It also supports our
    tribes' ability to adequately participate in watershed resource
    assessments and salmon recovery work.
    Environmental Protection Agency
        Provide $96.4 million for EPA General Assistance Program.--We
    support the President's request of $96.4 million, an increase of
    $30.924 million over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level of $65.476
    million. This funding has built essential tribal capacities and remains
    critical to the tribes' ability to sustain their important
    environmental protection programs. Funding for this program continues
    to provide the base capacity for tribal environmental protection
    programs nationwide.
        Provide $50.0 million for EPA Puget Sound.--We respectfully request
    $50.0 million, an increase of $20.0 million over the President's
    request of $30.0 million. The fiscal year 2015 appropriations provided
    a total of $28.4 million. The Puget Sound Geographic Program provides
    essential funding that will help protect, restore and enhance Puget
    Sound, an estuary of national significance. Funding for this program
    will allow the tribes to participate in the necessary scientific work,
    implementation measures, and policy discussions on issues that affect
    our treaty rights. It allows the tribes to participate in implementing
    the Puget Sound Action Agenda.
        Provide $5.0 million for EPA Beyond GAP.--We respectfully request
    $5.0 million. The President's fiscal year 2016 budget did not include
    any proposed funding for this new initiative. We request an annual
    increase to the EPA CWA 104 budget for a water pollution implementation
    program. Increasing the tribal allocation will allow for an immediate
    expansion and response to specific implementation needs. This will
    provide targeted funds to our member tribes for implementation of
    Federal environmental programs and to initiate our ``Beyond GAP''
    request. This initiative would move the EPA/tribal partnership from
    capacity building and limited programmatic support to a more
    comprehensive and consistent funding to achieve fully functional tribal
    environmental programs capable of implementing a broad range of
    necessary environmental activities.
                                   conclusion
        We respectfully urge you to continue to support our efforts to
    protect and restore our great natural heritage that in turn will
    provide for thriving communities and economies. Thank you.

        [This statement was submitted by Lorraine Loomis, Chairwoman.]
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Norton Sound Health Corporation
        The requests of the Norton Sound Health Corporation (NSHC) for the
    fiscal year 2016 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as follows:

      --Direct the IHS to fully fund the Village Built Clinic (VBC) leases
            in accordance with section 804 of the Indian Health Care
            Improvement Act and allocate an additional $12.5 million to VBC
            leases.
      --Shield the IHS from sequestration in fiscal year 2016 and beyond.
      --Place contract support costs on a mandatory funding basis.
      --Funding for built-in costs.
      --Place IHS funding on an advance appropriations basis.
      --Construction of clinics at Gambell and Savoonga on St. Lawrence
            Island, at a cost of $8.6 million, and clarify to IHS that
            Village Built Clinics are eligible for IHS construction funds.

        The Norton Sound Health Corporation is the only regional health
    system serving Northwestern Alaska. It is on the edge of the Bering
    Sea, just miles from the Russian border. We are not connected by road
    with any part of the State and are 500 air miles from Anchorage--about
    the distance from Washington, DC to Portland, Maine. Our service area
    encompasses 44,000 square miles, approximately the size of Indiana. We
    are proud that our system includes a tribally owned regional hospital
    which is operated pursuant to an Indian Self-Determination and
    Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) agreement, and 15 village-based
    clinics.\1\ The logistics and costs associated with travel and
    transportation are a daily challenge, to say the least.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ We serve the communities of: Brevig Mission, Council, Diomede,
    Elim, Gambell, Golovin, King Island, Koyuk, Mary's Igloo, Nome, St.
    Michael, Savoonga, Shaktoolik, Shishmaref, Solomon, Stebbins, Teller,
    Unalakleet, Wales, and White Mountain.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        End Chronic Underfunding Of Village Built Clinics.--The NSHC
    healthcare system includes 15 Village Built Clinics (VBCs). The VBCs
    are essential for maintaining the IHS Community Health Aide Program
    (CHAP) in Alaska, which provides the only local source of healthcare
    for many Alaska Native people in rural areas. The CHAP program is
    mandated by Congress as the instrument for providing basic health
    services in remote Alaska Native villages. The CHAP program cannot
    operate without the use of clinic facilities. This is a huge issue.
    Senator Murkowski noted in her hearing on the fiscal year 2016 IHS
    budget that when she is in rural Alaska she hears as much or more about
    this issue than any other.
        The IHS has for many years consistently under-funded the leases of
    VBCs even though the IHS has had available appropriations to fully fund
    the leases. Lease rental amounts for the VBCs have failed to keep pace
    with costs --the majority of the leases for VBCs have not increased
    since 1989. The IHS has instead shifted its statutory responsibilities
    onto the villages and NSHC, which does not have adequate financial
    resources to maintain and upgrade the VBCs for CHAP staff. As a result,
    many of the VBCs are unsafe or have had to be closed, leaving some
    villages in Alaska without a local healthcare facility.
        NSHC and many other tribal organizations in Alaska have discussed
    this issue with the IHS on several occasions, and have proposed
    solutions that the IHS continues to ignore. IHS continues to assert
    that it provides for VBC leases all of the funds that Congress has
    appropriated for the program. In our view, the amounts historically
    traceable to the VBC leases are not capped by statute and are not the
    only funds available for that program. The Indian Health Facilities
    appropriation is a lump-sum appropriation that can be used for
    construction, repair, maintenance, improvements and equipment, and
    includes a sub-activity for maintenance and improvement of IHS
    facilities. The VBCs are IHS facilities acquired by lease in lieu of
    construction and should thus be eligible for maintenance and
    improvement funding. The IHS can also access other IHS discretionary
    funds to fully fund its VBC obligations.
        For fiscal year 2016, we urge that an additional $12.5 million be
    appropriated to more fully fund VBC leases. We also ask that IHS in its
    budget recommendations: (1) identify the amount needed to fully fund
    VBCs; (2) request that amount in a separate line in the IHS budget; and
    (3) allocate that amount to the VBC lease program.
        Protect the IHS from Sequestration.--As you are well aware, the IHS
    was subject to a fiscal year 2013 sequestration of roughly 5 percent of
    the IHS's overall budget even though other health programs--notably the
    Veterans Administration, State Medicaid grants and most of Medicare--
    were exempted. We are heartened by comments made in Interior
    Appropriations hearings this year and last that the sequestration of
    IHS funds should not have taken place and a number of members--
    including our delegation--are committed to protecting the IHS from
    future sequestration. We are grateful that Congress took action to
    avert a sequestration in fiscal years 2014 and 2015, but, of course, we
    are faced with the prospects of it in fiscal year 2016 and beyond.
        We thus strongly urge the Congress to fully exempt the IHS from any
    future sequestration, just as the VA and other health programs are
    exempt.
        Contract Support Costs Mandatory Funding.--We support the
    administration's proposal to fund Contract Support Costs (CSC) on a
    mandatory basis, although we urge, along with many other tribes and
    tribal organizations, that Congress enable it to become effective with
    fiscal year 2016. The administration's proposal differs from our and
    others in Indian Country proposal that CSC be funded indefinitely and
    not capped, but we gratefully acknowledge this proposal as a huge step
    for the administration. We are hopeful that the $718 million proposed
    for CSC funds for IHS will be sufficient for full funding for fiscal
    year 2016--a lot of work has gone into the estimated calculation and
    that should bode well for future estimates as well.
        We so appreciate your support for full funding of CSC and your
    blunt statement accompanying the Fiscal Year 2014 Appropriations Act
    that the legal obligation to fully fund CSC had put the House and
    Senate Committees in the ``untenable position of appropriating
    discretionary funds for the payment of any legally obligated contract
    support costs.''
        We ask for your active help in working with the Budget Committee on
    this proposal for mandatory CSC funding. You have had a great deal of
    experience in talking with Indian and Alaska Native leaders about the
    frustrations and the inequity of tribes and tribal organizations who
    contract to assume administration of Federal programs not being paid
    for the costs to administer them. We know that member-to-member
    communications are of the utmost importance and you have much to offer
    others in Congress who will weigh in on this issue.
        Funding for Built-in Costs.--We appreciate the administration's
    fiscal year 2016 request of $147.3 million for built-in costs
    consisting of $71.2 million for medical inflation at a 3.8 percent
    rate; $19.4 million for a 1.3 percent pay raise; and $56.7 million to
    partially fund population growth ($70.3 million needed for full funding
    according to IHS) and urge Congress to fund this request.
        Built-in costs are often sacrificed in the budget negotiation
    process, but lack of them impacts all programs. Inflation--medical and
    non-medical; required pay raises, and population growth are real facts
    of life and affect our ability to provide sufficient healthcare
    services.
        While for fiscal year 2015 the administration requested $63 million
    for medical inflation and $2.6 million to partially fund pay raises,
    the final bill provided only $2.6 million for pay raises (estimated
    cost is $20 million) but no other built-in costs. For fiscal year 2014
    the only IHS built-in costs provided was $35 million for medical
    inflation for the Purchased/Referred Care program. In fiscal years
    2011-2013, appropriations for built-in costs were minimal.
        IHS Advance Appropriations.--As with our testimony last year, we
    ask that the IHS budget be transitioned to an advance appropriations
    basis. We know you are sympathetic to our frustrations caused by the
    funding of IHS and other Federal agencies via a series of start and
    stop Continuing Resolutions. We are appreciative of Representative Don
    Young's introduction of H.R. 395 to authorize IHS advance
    appropriations and for our entire Alaska delegation in the 113th
    Congress for introducing the same legislation.
        The current (fiscal year 2015) fiscal year funding was enacted 2\1/
    2\ months after the beginning of the fiscal year; in fiscal years 2013
    and 2014 it was 6 months and 3\1/2\ months, respectively, after the
    beginning of the fiscal year. Following enactment, there is a couple
    month process of clearance through the agency and the OMB and then
    allotment to the Area Offices and finally to the tribes. Both the
    tribal and IHS programs suffer under this situation. We want to do the
    best job possible in planning, decisionmaking and administering
    programs but are limited by not knowing how much funding will be
    available or when it will be available. It also requires constant re-
    working of our budget, resources better devoted to providing healthcare
    services.
        Congress has provided the authority for the Veterans Administration
    (VA) medical accounts to receive funding on an advance basis and the
    Budget and Appropriations Committees have provided the necessary
    support for that authority. We are struck by the justification in the
    proposed fiscal year 2016 budget (fiscal year 2017 advance
    appropriations) for the VA and we ask for parity:

            For 2017, the budget requests $63.3 billion in advance
            appropriations for the three medical care appropriations:
            Medical Services, Medical Support and Compliance, and Medical
            Facilities. This request for advance appropriations fulfills
            the administration's commitment to provide reliable and timely
            resources to support the delivery of accessible and high-
            quality medical services for veterans. This funding enables
            timely and predictable funding for VA's medical care to prevent
            our Nation's veterans from being adversely affected by budget
            delays, and provides opportunities to more effectively use
            resources in a constrained fiscal environment. (Appendix,
            Budget of the U.S. Government, p. 1058).

        Clinic Construction.--The NSHC has completed the final designs for
    replacement of the Village Built Clinics at Gambell and Savoonga on St.
    Lawrence Island. We are requesting $8.6 million in IHS construction
    funds for this purpose. The IHS does not have a definitive response to
    the question of VBC eligibility for construction funds and we ask that
    Congress clarify that they are eligible for these funds. There is no
    prohibition on it, and the VBCs are serving IHS beneficiaries the same
    as though those clinics in rural areas in the lower 48.
        We would like you to know what we have done thus far on this
    project. Working with Bettisworth North Architects (BNA) and the
    communities, we modified a prototype village clinic design BNA
    developed for the Maniilaq Association several years ago which was
    successfully constructed throughout the NANA region. The clinics are
    5,200 square feet with the floor plan having been slightly modified
    from the prototypical starting point in order to provide specific
    health programs delivered by NSHC in Gambell and Savoonga. The
    adaptation of the existing Maniilaq prototype design was cost effective
    with respect to design fees--totaling $400,000. The Denali Commission
    is supportive of our effort and contributed $120,479 under Project
    Authorization 1174-J.
        The NSHC Board is investing in the development of this project and
    plans to make it ``shovel ready'' this summer, having approved $1.4
    million from its 2015 Capitol Budget to complete site and foundation
    work
        Thank you for the consideration of the concerns and requests of the
    Norton Sound Health Corporation.

        [This statement was submitted by Angie Gorn, President and CEO.]
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
        The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) is concerned about
    continued reductions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
    (EPA) Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program (CWSRF) and is
    requesting that appropriations for this program be increased to at
    least $2 billion in fiscal year 2016. The CWSRF is an effective loan
    program that addresses critical water infrastructure needs while
    benefitting the environment, local communities, and the economy.
    However, OWRC is also concerned about efforts by EPA to increase
    regulatory authority and we urge the subcommittee to direct funding
    towards the CWSRF program and not towards implementing the
    controversial ``Waters of the U.S.'' rule drafted by EPA and the Army
    Corps of Engineers (ACOE). EPA's actions to increase its regulatory
    authority over water resources planning are counterproductive to
    collaborative planning and detract from the positive solutions achieved
    through the CWSRF program.
        OWRC was established in 1912 as a trade association to support the
    protection of water rights and promote the wise stewardship of water
    resources statewide. OWRC members are local governmental entities,
    which include irrigation districts, water control districts, drainage
    districts, water improvement districts, and other agricultural water
    suppliers that deliver water to roughly \1/3\ of all irrigated land in
    Oregon. These water stewards operate complex water management systems,
    including water supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and hydropower
    production.
                        fiscal year 2016 appropriations
        We recognize that our country is facing difficult economic times
    and that we must make strategic investments with scarce resources. The
    CWSRF is a perfect example of the type of program that should have
    funding increased because it creates jobs while benefitting the
    environment, and is an efficient return on taxpayer investment. Oregon
    is facing record levels of unemployment and the CWSRF funded projects
    provide much needed construction and professional services jobs.
    Moreover, as a loan program, it is a wise investment that allows local
    communities to leverage their limited resources and address critical
    infrastructure needs that would otherwise be unmet.
        Nationally, there are large and growing critical water
    infrastructure needs. In EPA's most recent needs surveys, The Clean
    Watersheds Needs Survey 2008: Report to Congress and Drinking Water
    Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: Fourth Report to Congress,
    the estimated funding need for drinking water infrastructure totaled
    $335 billion (in 2007 dollars) and wastewater infrastructure needs
    totaled $298 billion (in 2008 dollars). Appropriations for water
    infrastructure, specifically CWSRF, should not be declining but
    remaining strong in order to meet these critical needs. In 2014
    appropriations for the CWSRF program was approximately $2.021 billion
    and declined to $1.448 billion in fiscal year 2015. The President's
    fiscal year 2016 budget proposes only $1.116 billion for the CWRSF
    program; a $332 million reduction from fiscal year 2015 levels. We are
    concerned as we see this negative downward trend continuing while the
    infrastructure needs only become more critical.
        OWRC is supportive of the President's Climate Action Plan and
    related efforts to support actions that help address, mitigate, and
    adapt to severe weather events, like drought, that are related to
    climate change. It is important that climate issues are addressed
    through programs like the CWSRF, and to date, despite a direct
    connection to water infrastructure the CWSRF funding continues to
    diminish. In fact, there has not been an increase in funding for CWSRF
    since 2009; meanwhile, both infrastructure needs and the costs to
    address those needs continue to grow each year. Continued funding
    reductions has led to delaying repairs or upgrades which in turn
    increase the potential for catastrophic failure and is
    counterproductive to the administration's desire to encourage asset
    management and sustainable water infrastructure. To the extent
    practicable, funding for climate change should be incorporated into
    existing programs with proven successes like the CWSRF.
        We also continue to be highly supportive of the administration's
    desire to expand ``green infrastructure,'' in fact, irrigation
    districts and other water suppliers in Oregon are on the forefront of
    ``green infrastructure'' through innovative piping projects that
    provide multiple environmental benefits, which is discussed in greater
    detail below. However, continually reducing the amount of funds
    available for these types of worthwhile projects is counterproductive
    to the administration's desire and has created increased uncertainty
    for potential borrowers about whether adequate funding will be
    available in future years. CWSRF is often an integral part of an
    overall package of State, Federal and local funding that necessitates a
    stronger level of assurance that loan funds will be available for
    planned water infrastructure projects. Reductions in the CWSRF could
    lead to loss of grant funding and delay or derail beneficial projects
    that irrigation districts have been developing for years.
        Additionally, OWRC is pleased to see that EPA will continue
    ``strategic partnerships'' with the USDA's Natural Resources
    Conservation Services (NRCS) and other Federal agencies to improve
    water quality and address nonpoint source pollution. Oregon had two
    priority watersheds eligible for funding through the National Water
    Quality Initiative in 2014 and anticipates that additional watersheds
    will be included in the future. As Oregon is a delegated State, OWRC
    also feels strongly that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
    (DEQ) is best situated to develop and implement activities to improve
    these and other impaired waterways in the State. DEQ and its
    administration of the CWSRF has been an extremely valuable tool in
    Oregon for improving water quality and efficiently addressing
    infrastructure challenges that are otherwise cost-prohibitive.
                         cwsrf local success and needs
        Six OWRC member districts have successfully received loans from the
    CWSRF over the last several years and many more will apply if funds are
    available. Numerous irrigation districts and other water suppliers need
    to pipe currently open canals, thereby improving water quality by
    eliminating run-off into the canals and increasing water availability
    for fish and irrigators by reducing water loss from the delivery
    system. Four irrigation districts received over $11 million funding in
    Oregon from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
    funding through the CWSRF for projects which created valuable jobs
    while improving water quality. These four projects were essential to
    DEQ not only meeting but exceeding the minimum requirement that 20
    percent of the total ARRA funding for the CWSRF be used for ``green''
    projects. Those districts' applications had been on DEQ's list of
    eligible projects for many years and would probably still be on that
    list had the ARRA funding not been made available. We provide that
    comment not to complain, but to emphasize the need for additional
    funding for this program.
        What is being proposed for fiscal year 2016 is far short of what is
    needed to address critical water infrastructure needs in Oregon and
    across the Nation. This will lead to fewer water infrastructure
    projects, and therefore a reduction in improvements to water quality.
    The DEQ's most recent ``Proposed Intended Use Plan Update #1--State
    fiscal year 2015,'' lists 14 projects in need of a total of
    $144,926,822 in Oregon alone. The Federal capitalization grant funding
    awarded fiscal year 2014 will total $15,839,000, which is wholly
    inadequate to address and complete these much needed projects.
        Unfortunately, due to recent cutbacks and lack of availability of
    funds, only one water improvement district submitted an application for
    funding in 2015, Rock Creek District Improvement Company. Rock Creek
    requested $270,786 for the design and construction of HDPE piping along
    1.76 miles of main canal, and qualifies for water efficiency green
    project reserve funding. OWRC is hopeful that with an increase in money
    available, more districts will apply for funding to complete projects
    that will not only benefit the environment and the patrons served by
    the water delivery system, but also benefit the economy.
             the importance and success of local watershed planning
        Oregon's success in watershed planning illustrates that planning
    efforts work best when diverse interests develop and implement plans at
    the local watershed level with support from State government. Oregon
    has recently revised their CWSRF rules; thus making conservation easier
    and its benefits to be better achieved in the State. That is why OWRC
    is very concerned about EPA's recent efforts to increase regulatory
    authority under the Clean Water Act without appropriate public process
    or legislative oversight. The proposed ``Waters of the U.S.'' rule
    would greatly broaden EPA authority and illustrates an apparent desire
    to dictate watershed planning methods for the Nation using a top-down
    regulatory approach from a desk in Washington DC. This regulatory
    overreach will lead to uncertainty for landowners and water users,
    increased litigation and destroy collaborative efforts (including CWSRF
    projects) already underway in Oregon and across the Nation. OWRC would
    like to reiterate our request made in formal comment that the ACOE
    Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL 07-02 from July 4th, 2007) be codified
    in the final rule which would provide our members with better clarity
    about how and when the rule would be used in relation to district
    facilities.
        As the national model for watershed planning, Oregon does not need
    a new Federal agency or executive branch office to oversee conservation
    and restoration efforts. Planning activities are conducted through
    local watershed councils, volunteer-driven organizations that work with
    local, State and Federal agencies, economic and environmental
    interests, agricultural, industrial and municipal water users, local
    landowners, tribes, and other members of the community. There are over
    60 individual watershed councils in Oregon that are already deeply
    engaged in watershed planning and restoration activities. Watershed
    planning in Oregon formally began in 1995 with the development of the
    Oregon Plan for Salmon Recovery and Watershed Enhancement, a statewide
    strategy developed in response to the Federal listing of several fish
    species. This strategy led to the creation of the Oregon Watershed
    Enhancement Board (OWEB), a State agency and policy oversight board
    that funds and promotes voluntary and collaborative efforts that ``help
    create and maintain healthy watersheds and natural habitats that
    support thriving communities and strong economies'' in 1999.
                                   conclusion
        In conclusion, we applaud the CWSRF program for allowing Oregon's
    DEQ to make targeted loans that address Clean Water Act issues and
    improve water quality but also help incentivize innovative water
    management solutions that benefit local communities, agricultural
    economies, and the environment. This voluntary approach creates and
    promotes cooperation and collaborative solutions to complex water
    resources challenges. Conversely, regulatory overreach destroys
    cooperation, creates mistrust and has a very negative effect on jobs
    and local economies. We respectfully request the appropriation of at
    least $2 billion for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean
    Water State Revolving Loan Fund for fiscal year 2016.

        [This statement was submitted by April Snell, Executive Director.]
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of Partners for Conservation
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and members of the
    Appropriations Subcommittee: On behalf of myself and Partners for
    Conservation (PFC), thank you for the opportunity to provide comments
    on the fiscal year 2016 Interior appropriations bill. I am a rancher
    and consulting wildlife biologist from eastern Washington. PFC is a
    landowner-led non-profit organization for which I serve as a board
    member. As ranchers and farmers working cooperatively with the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, we respectfully request that the
    subcommittee support the following funding allocations for fiscal year
    2016:

      --Funding of $75 million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
            Program;
      --Funding of $50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation
            Fund;
      --Funding of $18.6 million for the Habitat Joint Ventures within the
            North American Waterfowl Management Plan Program;
      --Full funding of $900 million authorized for the Land and Water
            Conservation Fund; and
      --Funding of $70 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
            Program.

        As a board member of PFC, I want to share with you some background
    on the organization. We operate under the following principles:
    Collaboration gets work done; Local lessons have national impact;
    Voluntary and incentive-based programs create trust and foster success;
    and Sustainability is achieved by balancing ecological and economic
    needs.
        PFC is growing with the goal of landowner representation in all 50
    States. We currently have board member representation in States
    extending from Montana and South Dakota to New Mexico and from
    California to Florida. In 2013, under a partnership agreement with the
    National Wildlife Refuge Association, PFC hired an executive director
    to coordinate our efforts. We are also working hard to develop
    effective working relationships with Federal and State agencies, non-
    government conservation organizations and like-minded landowners
    nationwide. As an example, PFC annually hosts a Private Lands Partners
    Day event, this year set for late September in North Platte, Nebraska.
        As noted previously, I live and work in eastern Washington. My wife
    and I own and operate a ranch near Spokane, Washington where we raise
    cattle and sheep. Our goal is to sustain the livestock operation and
    enhance wildlife habitat on our property. In 2004, we voluntarily
    enrolled a portion of our ranch in a permanent conservation easement
    under the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
    Conservation Service (NRCS), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP).
              partners for fish and wildlife program ($75 million)
        So what motivates me to be involved with PFC and why am I writing
    in support of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife and other Federal
    programs named above? The simple answer is public and private partners
    need to work cooperatively to focus our energy and available funding on
    cost-effective programs to sustain agriculture while conserving our
    natural resources on private lands. This concept also recognizes the
    need to balance conservation programs with economics at the local
    community level. It is my firm belief that there is a ``sweet spot'' in
    which we can focus our collective efforts and leverage financial
    resources to sustain working agricultural lands while conserving our
    valuable natural resources. These objectives naturally fit together and
    PFC is all about getting it done through voluntary landowner support
    and working collaboratively with partners, including Federal Government
    agencies. In my area of eastern Washington, over 75 percent of the land
    is privately owned, so the Federal agencies cannot do the job of
    conserving fish and wildlife without willing landowner support. I think
    this model for voluntary, cooperative conservation on working
    agricultural lands is the best example of how the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service can leverage the funding you and your colleagues in
    Congress provide on behalf of your constituents.
        I want to share my story with you. Our ranch lies in what is known
    as the Channeled Scablands Wetland Focus Area. We are on the east side
    of the Columbia Basin, an area of continental significance for
    migratory birds and other wildlife. The ranch is adjacent to the 18,000
    acre National Wildlife Refuge. Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
    staff assigned to the refuge helped me complete a wetlands restoration
    project by providing technical assistance and native plants to enhance
    the wildlife habitat values within our wetlands and adjacent upland
    habitats. We were successful in integrating and leveraging the basic
    WRP conservation easement through USDA-NRCS with engineering by Ducks
    Unlimited, habitat restoration expertise by the Partners for Fish and
    Wildlife Program and technical assistance by the Washington Department
    of Fish and Wildlife. It is that level of cooperative conservation
    which, I think, makes the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program work
    extremely well for landowners. Success was the result of voluntary
    partnerships.
        Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program biologists have also helped
    several of my neighboring ranchers with wetlands restoration projects
    by cutting through the red tape involved in permitting processes,
    finding additional funding sources, including NRCS Farm Bill Programs,
    and developing restoration and management plans designed to achieve
    both ranching and natural resource conservation goals. In the last 25
    years, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has helped more than
    45,000 landowners restore and enhance over 1 million acres of wetlands,
    3 million acres of uplands and 11,000 miles of streams nationwide. It
    has leveraged each dollar of appropriated funds to generate over $8 in
    total project spending and over $15 in overall economic returns. The
    Program is supported by landowners as highly cost-effective.
      north american wetlands conservation act ($50 million); and habitat
                         joint ventures ($18.6 million)
        So why link the PFC and my request as a rancher increased funding
    of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program to a request for
    additional funding for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act
    (NAWCA) and Habitat Joint Ventures (JVs)? Simply stated, because they
    can be used as integrated tools to achieve voluntary conservation
    program goals on private lands in an efficient and cost-effective
    manner.
        I support funding for NAWCA at $50 million to help increase wetland
    restoration on private lands as an important tool in priority areas,
    including the Columbia Basin of eastern Washington. Wetlands are one of
    the most important habitats for fish and wildlife, but their abundance
    and quality has been greatly reduced by a number of factors. The highly
    competitive cost-share grant program provided under NAWCA is extremely
    valuable to government agencies, tribes, non-government conservation
    organizations and private landowners nationwide. It is just one of the
    tools the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program biologists use to
    leverage resources to accomplish landscape level cooperative
    conservation on private lands.
        With respect to the Habitat Joint Ventures (JV's), I support full
    funding of $18.6 million. Although the base funding for the JVs is
    provided through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's budget, these
    public-private partnerships are extremely effective in leveraging
    funding and staff resources specifically to conserve priority habitats
    for birds and other wildlife. I have experience working with the
    Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) with a footprint of nearly 500
    million acres in all or parts of 11 Western States. In general, the JVs
    are self-directed and guided by management boards made up of diverse
    interests including representatives of government agencies, non-
    government conservation organizations, industries and private
    landowners. The JVs are extremely effective in collaborating with
    government agencies and, in my experience, very efficient in delivering
    habitat conservation programs on private lands in cooperation with the
    Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. Together, the IWJV and Partners
    for Fish and Wildlife Program staff focus their efforts on Strategic
    Habitat Conservation, which means they focus their time and energy in
    priority fish and wildlife habitats, including those on private lands.
    I serve as the IWJV Washington Conservation Partners Coordinator and
    have seen first-hand how the ``Joint Venture Model'' can leverage
    funding for habitat conservation at a ratio of 5:1 or greater. Coupled
    with the Partners Program, JVs are very beneficial to ranchers and
    farmers not only in Washington, but throughout the Country.
     land and water conservation fund ($900 million); and state and tribal
                         wildlife grants ($70 million)
        On behalf of PFC and myself, I respectively request full funding of
    $900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). It can be
    used to match and leverage other conservation funding, and it is very
    valuable to cooperative conservation partners nationwide in conserving
    priority fish and wildlife habitats on a large landscape scale.
    Conservation easements take advantage of willing partners entering into
    mutually beneficial agreements to sustain natural resources and
    maintain existing agricultural land uses. A number of PFC Board members
    have first-hand experience from California to Florida and South Dakota
    to Kansas with extremely effective use of LWCF as a critical source of
    funding for voluntary large-scale conservation easement programs on
    private lands. With much of the most productive fish and wildlife
    habitat on private lands, flexible tools are needed to sustain these
    valuable resources while avoiding the need for the Federal Government
    to acquire fee title to land. By keeping these lands in private
    ownership, productive and contributing to local property tax bases, we
    can also support local economies and sustain both working agricultural
    operations and fish and wildlife populations in priority areas.
        Finally, I respectfully request funding of $70 million for the
    State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program. Along with the LWCF, the
    State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program provides cost-shared grants to
    implement the State Wildlife Action Plans designed to keep common
    species common and help avoid the need to list species under the
    Endangered Species Act. This proactive approach combined with voluntary
    and incentive based conservation programs leverage Federal, State and
    private landowner funds to conserve fish and wildlife on working
    ranches nationwide.
        I thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony.. We
    recognize the challenges you and your colleagues face in your decisions
    regarding the fiscal year 2016 budget. We also realize the value of
    sharing with you on-the-ground experiences using the proven and cost-
    effective programs in the Fish and Wildlife Service which work best for
    landowners willing to help conserve our natural resources while
    sustaining working agricultural lands nationwide.
        Board members of PFC welcome you to visit any of our ranches to see
    first-hand how voluntary and incentives based conservation programs can
    work to benefit ranchers and farmers as well local economies
    nationwide. In light of the significant fiscal challenges you and your
    colleagues in Congress face, we need to set priorities and support
    programs which return the greatest benefits to the American people. We
    need your leadership and support by investing in community based
    landscape conservation through partnerships with private landowners.
    Government agencies cannot do it alone, and PFC stands ready to help.
        Chairman Murkowski and subcommittee members, thank you for your
    consideration of this request.

        [This statement was submitted by Terry Mansfield, Landowner and
    Board Member of Partners for Conservation.]
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Partnership for the National Trails System
        Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee:

        The Partnership for the National Trails System appreciates your
    support over the past 20 years, through operations funding and
    dedicated Challenge Cost Share funds, for the national scenic and
    historic trails administered by the National Park Service. We also
    appreciate your increased allocation of funds to support the trails
    administered and managed by the Forest Service and for the trails in
    the Bureau of Land Management's National Landscape Conservation System.
    To continue the progress that you have fostered, the Partnership
    requests that you provide annual operations funding for each of the 30
    national scenic and historic trails for fiscal year 2016 through these
    appropriations:

      --National Park Service: $16.073 million for administration of 23
            trails and for coordination of the long-distance trails program
            by the Washington office. Construction: $673,000 for the Ice
            Age Trail and $200,000 for the Pacific Crest Trail.
      --USDA Forest Service: $7.996 million to administer 6 trails and $1.3
            million to manage parts of 16 trails administered by the NPS or
            BLM. $700,000 for Iditarod Trail construction.
      --Bureau of Land Management: $1.83 million to administer three trails
            and for coordination of the National Trails program and $7.14
            million to manage portions of 13 trails administered by the
            Park Service or the Forest Service and for operating five
            National Historic Trail interpretive centers. Construction:
            $300,000 for the Pacific Crest Trail, $300,000 for the Iditarod
            Trail, and $50,000 for the Nez Perce Trail.
      --We ask that you appropriate $4.5 million for the National Park
            Service Challenge Cost Share Program and continue to direct
            one-third ($1,500,000) for national scenic and historic trails
            or create a separate $1.5 million National Trails System
            Challenge Cost Share Program.
      --We ask that you add $500,000 to the Bureau of Land Management's
            Challenge Cost Share Program and allocate it for the national
            scenic and historic trails it administers or manages.

        We ask that you appropriate $66,038,500 from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund for the acquisition of 48 tracts along six national
    scenic and eight national historic trails described in the National
    Trails System Collaborative Landscape Planning proposal and allocate
    this funding to the:

      --Bureau of Land Management: $13,916,500 million.
      --U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $12,060,000 million.
      --U.S. Forest Service: $8,382,000 million
      --National Park Service: $31,680,000 million.
                             national park service
        The $16.073 million we request for Park Service operations includes
    increases for some of the trails to continue the progress and new
    initiatives made possible by the additional funding Congress provided
    several years ago. Increases of $172,000 for the Park Service to
    implement the New England Trail's Trail Management Blueprint and
    $369,000 for the Washington-Rochambeau Trail are included.
        We request an increase of $660,000 to expand Park Service efforts
    to protect cultural landscapes at more than 200 sites along the Santa
    Fe Trail, to develop GIS mapping, and to fund public educational
    outreach programs of the Santa Fe Trail Association. An increase of
    $780,000 for the Trail of Tears will enable the Park Service to work
    with the Trail of Tears Association to develop a GIS to map the Trail's
    historical and cultural heritage sites to protect them and to develop
    interpretation of them for visitors. We request an increase of $346,000
    to $879,000 for the Ala Kahakai Trail to enable the Park Service to
    work with E Mau Na Ala Hele, the Ala Kahakai Trail Association, and
    other community organizations to care for resources on the land and
    with the University of Hawaii to conduct archaeological and cultural
    landscape studies along this trail.
        We request an increase of $193,000 to $1,708,000 for the
    Appalachian Trail to expand the highly successful ``Trail to Every
    Classroom'' program of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy. The
    $1,020,000 we request for the 4,200 mile North Country Trail will
    enable the Park Service to provide greater support for the regional GIS
    mapping, trail building, trail management, and training of volunteers
    led by the North Country Trail Association. The $1,389,000 we request
    for the Ice Age Trail includes a $554,000 increase to build partner and
    citizen capacity for protecting the natural and cultural resources on
    the Trail and Ice Age Trail lands and to provide NPS with a property
    manager for NPS-owned lands.
        Construction: We request that you appropriate $673,000 for the Ice
    Age Trail and $200,000 for the Pacific Crest Trail for trail
    construction projects.
        Challenge Cost Share programs are one of the most effective and
    efficient ways for Federal agencies to accomplish a wide array of
    projects for public benefit while also sustaining partnerships
    involving countless private citizens in doing public service work. We
    request that you robustly fund the Park Service, Bureau of Land
    Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service Challenge Cost Share programs
    and appropriate $4.5 million in Challenge Cost Share funding to the
    Park Service for fiscal year 2016 as a wise investment of public money
    that will generate public benefits many times greater than its sum. We
    ask you to continue to direct one-third of the $4.5 million for the
    national scenic and historic trails to continue the steady progress
    toward making these trails fully available for public enjoyment. We
    suggest, as an alternative to this approach, that you create a separate
    National Trails System Challenge Cost Share program with $1.5 million
    funding.
                              usda--forest service
        We ask you to appropriate $7.996 million as a separate budgetary
    item specifically for the Arizona, Continental Divide, Florida, Pacific
    Crest, and Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trails and the Nez Perce
    National Historic Trail within the over-all appropriation for Capital
    Improvements and Maintenance for Trails. Recognizing the on-the-ground
    management responsibility the Forest Service has for 1024 miles of the
    Appalachian Trail, more than 650 miles of the North Country Trail, and
    sections of the Ice Age, Anza, Caminos Real de Tierra Adentro and de
    Tejas, Lewis and Clark, California, Iditarod, Mormon Pioneer, Old
    Spanish, Oregon, Overmountain Victory, Pony Express, Trail of Tears and
    Santa Fe Trails, we ask you to appropriate $1.3 million specifically
    for these trails.
        The Partnership's request of $7.996 million includes $1.5 million
    to enable the Forest Service and Florida Trail Association to continue
    trail maintenance, to control invasive species, do ecosystem
    restoration, and otherwise manage 4,625 acres of new Florida Trail
    land. The $7.996 million request also includes $2.1 million for the
    Pacific Crest Trail, $2 million for the Continental Divide Trail, $1
    million for the Pacific Northwest Trail, $826,000 for the Nez Perce
    Trail, and $570,000 for the Arizona Trail. Some of the additional funds
    requested will enable the Forest Service to develop Comprehensive
    Management Plans for the latter three trails. We also request $700,000
    of additional funding for construction and $100,000 for maintenance of
    sections of the Iditarod Trail.
                           bureau of land management
        Although considerably more money is needed to fully administer the
    National Conservation Lands System and protect its resources, we
    request that you appropriate $69.809 million in base funding for the
    System. We ask that you appropriate as new permanent base funding
    $250,000 for National Trails System Program Coordination, $1,000,000
    for the Iditarod Trail, $230,000 for El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro
    Trail, $350,000 for the Old Spanish Trail, and $4,000,000 for the
    Bureau of Land Management to manage 4,645 miles of thirteen other
    national scenic and historic trails. To maintain these trails we
    request: Pacific Crest Trail--$300,000, Iditarod Trail--$300,000, Nez
    Perce Trail--$50,000. We also request $3,140,000 to operate five
    historic trails interpretive centers.
        We ask you to provide $5 million for the Bureau's Challenge Cost
    Share program and to direct $500,000 for National Trails System
    projects as you have done with the Park Service's CCS program.
        To promote greater management transparency and accountability for
    the National Trails and the whole National Landscape Conservation
    System, we urge you to request expenditure and accomplishment reports
    for each of the NLCS Units for fiscal year 2015 and to direct the
    Bureau to include unit-level allocations within major sub-activities
    for each of the scenic and historic trails, and wild and scenic
    rivers--as the Bureau has done for the national monuments, wilderness,
    and conservation areas--within a new activity account for the National
    Landscape Conservation System in fiscal year 2016. The Bureau's lack of
    a unified budget account for National Trails prevents the agency from
    efficiently planning, implementing, reporting, and taking advantage of
    cost-saving and leveraging partnerships and volunteer contributions for
    every activity related to these national resources.
                        land and water conservation fund
        The Partnership strongly supports the President's budget proposal
    to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund at the authorized
    $900 million, with $400 million from discretionary sources and $500
    million in mandatory funds for the component programs funded under
    LWCF. Within this amount we request that you appropriate $66,038,500
    for the National Trails System Collaborative Landscape Planning
    proposal to acquire 48 parcels along 14 national scenic and historic
    trails detailed here:

    Bureau of Land Management
    $13,916,500 million
    17 parcels
    16,779 acres
        Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (New Mexico): $2,300,000
    to close the largest critical trail gap in New Mexico.
        Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (Montana): $6,000,000 for
    trail, landscape, habitat and recreation protection along the Upper
    Missouri National Wild and Scenic River.
        Nez Perce National Historic Trail (Idaho): $3,100,000 for trail and
    resource conservation at one of the last remaining working ranches at
    Henry's Lake.
        Oregon National Historic Trail (Idaho): $144,000 to acquire land
    for trail development along historic trail route.
        Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (Oregon, California):
    $1,872,500 for trail and resource protection within the Cascade
    Siskiyou National Monument in Southern Oregon and in the Mojave Desert
    in Southern California.
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    $12,060,000 million
    3 parcels
    3,763 acres
        Appalachian National Scenic Trail (Pennsylvania): $4,000,000 to
    connect conservation habitats along the Kittatinny Ridge.
        California National Historic Trail (Idaho): $2,500,000 to protect
    the largest breeding concentration of Sandhill Cranes, as well as, a
    haven for other waterfowl from a current farming threat.
        Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (Virginia):
    $5,560,000 to protect the Bower's Parcel that includes migratory
    wildlife habitat, priority wetlands, forest and uplands and a
    historical site.
    U.S. Forest Service
    $8,382,000 million
    8 parcels
    3,024 acres
        Appalachian National Scenic Trail (North Carolina): $1,100,000 to
    complete the acquisition of the Grassy Ridge ecosystem.
        Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (Montana): $255,000 to
    achieve uninterrupted trail corridor enabling wildlife migration and
    human recreation.
        Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (California, Washington):
    $7,027,000 to provide critical scenic protection to the hiker
    experience, improve trail location and protect wildlife habitats,
    including Donner Summit in California.
    National Park Service
    $31,680,000 million
    20 parcels
    7,565 acres
        Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail (Hawaii): $4,750,000 to protect
    endangered species, preserve 26 cultural sites and ensure undisturbed
    view sheds, soundscapes, and wilderness for users of the trail in an
    area with prehistoric lava flows.
        Appalachian National Scenic Trail (New York, Massachusetts):
    $2,940,000 to extinguish the threat of imminent development, ensure
    connectivity of forested habitats and improve route away from
    threatened species.
        Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (Virginia):
    $6,000,000 to permanently protect and open for public education a
    nationally significant American Indian site, and to continue public
    archaeological research.
        Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (Colorado, New Mexico):
    $5,608,000 to remove motorized use of the trail and restore habitat, to
    acquire the last unprotected portion of the trail in New Mexico and to
    protect significant cultural sites.
        Ice Age National Scenic Trail (Wisconsin): $3,930,000 to provide
    urban access to the trail in the city of St. Croix, protect critical
    view sheds, provide interpretative opportunities of unique geological-
    cultural features and close gaps in the trail.
        New England National Scenic Trail (Connecticut, Massachusetts):
    $1,875,000 to protect ecosystem, historic and cultural resources, in
    addition to, enhancing users recreational experience.
        Nez Perce National Historic Trail (Oregon): $355,000 to provide a
    better interpretative site and visitor proximity to Clearwater
    Battlefield.
        North Country National Scenic Trail (Michigan, Pennsylvania):
    $2,892,000 to connect Moraine and McConnell's Mill State Parks in
    Pennsylvania and protect riparian habitats in Southern Michigan.
        Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail (Tennessee): $330,000
    to protect the historically significant Shelving Rock Encampment site.
        Washington Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail
    (New York): $3,000,000 to protect the Revolutionary War's single
    largest cemetery from destruction.
             private sector support for the national trails system
        Public-spirited partnerships between private citizens and public
    agencies have been a hallmark of the National Trails System since its
    inception. These partnerships create the enduring strength of the
    Trails System and the trail communities that sustain it by combining
    the local, grass-roots energy and responsiveness of volunteers with the
    responsible continuity of public agencies. They also provide private
    financial support for public projects, often resulting in a greater
    than equal match of funds.
        The private trail organizations' commitment to the success of these
    trail-sustaining partnerships grows even as Congress' support for the
    trails has grown. In 2014 the trail organizations fostered 1,053,896
    hours of documented volunteer labor valued at $23,765,355 to help
    sustain the national scenic and historic trails. The organizations also
    raised private sector contributions of $11,228,029 for the trails.

        [This statement was submitted by Gary Werner, Executive Director.]
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
        Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal year 2016 appropriations
    for American Indian and Alaskan Native programs. My name is David Z.
    Bean, Tribal Council Member for the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. The
    Puyallup Tribe is an independent sovereign nation having historically
    negotiated with several foreign nations including the United States in
    the Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854. This relationship is rooted in
    Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution, Federal laws
    and numerous Executive orders. The governing body of the Puyallup Tribe
    of Indians is the Puyallup Tribal Council which upholds the tribe's
    sovereign responsibility of self-determination and self-governance for
    the benefit of the 4,875 Puyallup tribal members and the 25,000 plus
    members from approximately 355 federally recognized tribes who utilize
    our services. The Puyallup Reservation is located in the urbanized
    Seattle-Tacoma area of the State of Washington. The 18,061 acre
    reservation is a ``checkerboard'' of tribal lands, Indian-owned fee
    land and non-Indian owned fee land. Our reservation land includes parts
    of six different municipalities (Tacoma, Fife, Milton, Puyallup,
    Edgewood and Federal Way).
        The following written testimony documents the Puyallup Tribe's
    views concerning the President's fiscal year 2016 Federal budget. My
    written testimony will focus on the proposed budget for the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS). Within the
    BIA budget, $2.7 billion is proposed for fiscal year 2016, an increase
    of $231.4 million above the fiscal year 2015 levels. For the IHS, $5.1
    billion is proposed, an increase of $460.6 million over the fiscal year
    2015 enacted level. Included in both budgets the President proposes to
    fully fund Contract Support Costs (CSC) in fiscal year 2016. The budget
    provides $277 million for BIA CSC and $718 million for IHS CSCs. We
    appreciate the increased funding being proposed for the BIA and IHS,
    and funding CSCs at 100 percent. However, the years of inadequate
    funding and the effects of inflation have impacted the tribe's ability
    to fully exercise self-determination and self-governance. As
    negotiations proceed on the fiscal year 2016 budget and future
    appropriations, efforts to insure adequate funding is provided for
    Indian programs will be paramount. To preserve the increased funding
    levels realized in recent years and contained in the proposed fiscal
    year 2016 budget for the BIA and IHS, the increases should be viewed by
    Congress and the administration as new ``base funding'' amounts with
    annual increases to meet actual need. Specific issues and needs are:
              department of the interior--bureau of indian affairs
        Public Safety and Justice: The fiscal year 2016 budget request
    includes $364.4 million for BIA Public Safety and Justice. This
    represents a $11.5 million increase over the fiscal year 2015 enacted
    level which is fully supported by the Puyallup Tribe. The $93.3 million
    for tribal and BIA detention and corrections funding is of great
    importance to the Puyallup Tribe. While this increase is supported by
    the Puyallup Tribe, it is of concern that there is no requested
    increase for the operation of tribal detention facilities that came
    online last year and that were not fully funded by fiscal year 2015
    appropriations. In fiscal year 2009, the Puyallup Tribe received a
    Department of Justice ARRA grant, in the amount of $7.9 million to
    construct a 28 bed adult corrections facility. Construction on the
    facility was completed in February 2014 and came online in May 2014.
    Over the past 3 years the Puyallup Tribe has worked closely with the
    BIA Office of Justice Services National and Regional staff on
    identifying the operating and staffing costs associated with the
    Puyallup Tribe's new adult corrections facility. The Puyallup Tribe
    submitted a Public Law 93-638 contract request to the BIA for
    Operations and Maintenance funding for the new facility, including Pre-
    Award, Start-up, Transitional funding, Staffing and O&M funding. The
    agreed upon estimated cost of operating the facility was set at $2.6
    million annually. The BIA base funding offered to the tribe in fiscal
    year 2015 was $704,198 or 27 percent of actual need. Due to current
    budget realities, we support the President's proposed fiscal year 2016
    funding of $95.3 million, for Detention and Corrections. However, we
    are requesting support from the subcommittee to fund the tribe's Adult
    Corrections facility at the established true cost of operations,
    estimated at $2.6 million annually. Further, the Puyallup Tribe
    requests the subcommittee's support to increase funding for BIA
    Detention/Corrections by $32.2 million to reflect actual funding need.
        In addition, we operate a Tribal Court program through a Public Law
    93-638 contract with the BIA. In fiscal year 2015, our base funding was
    increased from $45,000 to $194,996 and remains at this amount for
    fiscal year 2016. While this increase to our Tribal Court Base funding
    is appreciated, it does not equal the amount of tribal funds necessary
    to fully operate the Tribal Court program. In fiscal year 2015, the
    tribe has allocated $1.172 million of tribal funds for the Tribal Court
    budget. Since its enactment in 1993, the Indian Tribal Justice Act has
    remained unfunded. Originally authorized to provide $50 million for
    base funding increases to assist with expanding judicial systems,
    tribes are left with no option than to utilize tribal revenues to fully
    implement legislative acts, such as the Tribal Law and Order Act and
    the Violence Against Women Act. We are requesting support from the
    subcommittee to fund the Indian Tribal Justice Act at $82 million.
        Natural Resources Management: The Puyallup Tribe, as stewards for
    land and marine waters in the Usual and Accustomed fish, shellfish, and
    wildlife areas, has treaty and governmental obligations and
    responsibilities to manage natural resources for uses beneficial to the
    tribal membership and the regional communities. Despite our diligent
    program efforts, the fisheries resource is degrading and economic
    losses are incurred by Native and non-native fishermen and surrounding
    communities. Our resource management responsibilities cover thousands
    of square miles in the Puget Sound region of the State of Washington
    with an obligation to manage production of anadromous and non-
    anadromous fish, shellfish and wildlife resources. Existing levels of
    support are inadequate to reverse the trend of resource/habitat
    degradation. For fiscal year 2016, a minimum funding level of $8.562
    million is necessary for BIA Western Washington (Bolt Decision)
    Fisheries Management program, and we agree with the Northwest Indian
    Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) that increased funding is needed. The
    increase in funding would provide new monies for shellfish, groundfish,
    enforcement, habitat, wildlife and other natural resource management
    needs. As the aboriginal owners and guardians of our lands and waters,
    it is essential that adequate funding is provided to allow tribes to
    carry-out our inherent stewardship duties.
        The Puyallup Tribe continues to operate a number of salmon
    hatcheries that benefit Indian and non-Indian commercial and sport
    fisheries in the Pacific Northwest/Puget Sound. We work cooperatively
    with the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, neighboring tribes,
    Federal agencies, and State fishery managers to insure the success and
    sustainability of our hatchery programs. The Puyallup Tribe will
    continue to advocate and secure increased funding for Fish Hatchery
    Operations and Maintenance funding. We are in agreement with the NWIFC
    recommendation that additional funding is necessary for the Fish
    Hatchery Operations and Maintenance programs, and request the
    subcommittee's support to fund fiscal year 2016 Fish Hatcheries
    Operations and Fish Hatchery Maintenance at $3.35 million and $6.582
    million, respectively.
        The Timber, Fish and Wildlife (TFW) Supplemental and U.S./Canada
    Pacific Salmon Treaty programs have allowed for the expansion of tribal
    participation in the State forest practice rules and regulations and
    participation in inter-tribal organizations to address specific
    treaties and legal cases which relate to multi-national fishing rights,
    harvest allocations and resource management practices. We request
    subcommittee support for the funding recommendations of the NWIFC for
    the fiscal year 2016 TFW Supplemental program and the U.S./Canada
    Pacific Salmon Treaty program.
        The Puyallup Wildlife Management program has been the lead agency
    in management activities to benefit the South Rainier elk herd since
    2004. The South Rainier elk herd is the primary stock of elk harvested
    by the Puyallup Tribe. The tribe has not only established more reliable
    methods for population monitoring, but has also been proactive in
    initiating habitat enhancement projects, research and land acquisition
    to ensure sustainable populations of elk for future generations. Funds
    that are available to the tribe have been on a very competitive basis
    with a limited amount per program via USFWS Tribal Wildlife grants and
    the BIA Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights grant program. We request
    subcommittee support to provide base funding to the Tribe's Wildlife
    Management Program in the amount of $150,000 through the BIA Unresolved
    Hunting and Fishing Rights program in fiscal year 2016.
        Education: The Puyallup Tribe operates the pre-K to 12 Chief Leschi
    Schools which included a verified 2014-2015 school student enrollment
    of 910 + students, including ECEAP and FACE programs. With an
    increasing number of pre-kindergarten enrollment, Chief Leschi Schools
    will soon exceed design capacity. Additional education facility space
    will be necessary to provide quality educational services to the
    students and tribal community. In addition, the cost of operation and
    maintenance of the Chief Leschi Schools' facilities continues to
    increase in the areas of supplies, energy and student transportation
    costs. The fiscal year 2016 budget request for the Bureau of Indian
    Education (BIE) is $904 million, an increase of $93.9 million over the
    fiscal year 2015 enacted level. While this increase is appreciated,
    once again the funding level does not meet the actual operational needs
    of tribal education programs. The tribe will continue to work with
    Congress, BIE and the National Congress of American Indians to increase
    funding in fiscal year 2016, including; Tribal Grant Support Cost for
    Tribally Operated Schools--$73 million; Student Transportation--$73
    million; School Facilities Accounts--$109 million in facilities
    operations and $76 million in facilities maintenance; and Indian School
    Equalization Formula (ISEF)--$431 million.
        Operations of Indian Programs and Tribal Priority Allocations: The
    BIA Operations of Indian Programs budget is in drastic need for
    increased funding. Within the Operations of Indian Programs is the
    Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA). The TPA budget functions include the
    majority of funding used to support on-going services at the ``local
    tribal'' level, including; natural resources management, child welfare,
    other education, housing and other tribal government services. These
    functions have not received adequate and consistent funding to allow
    tribes the resources to fully exercise self-determination and self-
    governance. Further, the small increases ``TPA'' has received over the
    past few years have not been adequate to keep pace with inflation. The
    Puyallup Tribe is requesting support from the subcommittee to fund the
    Operation of Indian Programs at the fiscal year 2016 request of $2.7
    billion, an increase of $231.4 million over the fiscal year 2015
    enacted level, and TPA at $982.6 million for fiscal year 2016, an
    increase of $56.2 million over the fiscal year 2015 level. We further
    request support from the Subcommittee to increase funding for Indian
    Child Welfare (TPA) by $45 million; Increase Urban Indian Child Welfare
    programs by $15 million; and increase BIA Child Welfare Assistance by
    $55 million.
         department of health and human services--indian health service
        The inadequate funding of the Indian Health Service is the most
    substantial impediment to the current Indian Health system. The
    Puyallup Tribe has been operating healthcare programs since 1976
    through the Indian Self-determination Act, Public Law 93-638. The
    Puyallup Tribal Health Authority (PTHA) operates a comprehensive
    ambulatory care program to the Native American population in Pierce
    County, Washington. The current patient load exceeds 9,000, of which
    approximately 1,700 are tribal members. There are no IHS hospitals in
    the Portland Area, so all specialties and hospital care have been paid
    for out of our contract care allocation. The Purchased/Referred Care
    (PRC) allocation to PTHA remains inadequate to meet the actual need. In
    fiscal year 2004, the Puyallup Tribe subsidized PRC with a $2.8 million
    dollar contribution. In fiscal year 2015, the tribal subsidy has grown
    to $6.2 million. Given that the PTHA service population is only
    comprised of 17 percent Puyallup tribal members, tribal budget
    priorities in fiscal years 2011-2015 have made continued subsidies to
    the PTHA financially difficult for the Puyallup Tribe. The fiscal year
    2016 budget requests $5.1 billion in discretionary budget authority for
    the IHS. This represents a $460.6 million increase over the fiscal year
    2015 enacted level. For Health Services programs, the fiscal year 2016
    budget requests funding for Clinical Services ($4.4 billion),
    Purchased/Referred Care ($984.4 million), Medicaid/Medicare ($1
    billion) and Contract Support ($718 million). The Puyallup Tribe fully
    supports funding increases for existing IHS programs and will work
    Congress to continue efforts to increase funding for IHS and the
    critical programs administered by this Agency.
        Thank you for affording the Puyallup Tribe the opportunity to
    testify.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the PVC Pipe Association
        The Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association is a not-for-profit organization
    representing 95 percent of the manufacturing capacity of the North
    American PVC pipe industry. Our pipe producing members operate over 90
    facilities in the U.S. and our associate members (suppliers) hundreds
    more. PVC pipe extrusion facilities are found in 32 States across the
    United States: California has the most plants (9), followed by Texas
    (6), Arizona (5) and Pennsylvania (5).
        The PVC pipe industry serves a vast and complex market including
    54,000 drinking water systems, 10,000 wastewater facilities and 15,000
    sewer and wastewater contracting firms. PVC water and sewer pipe
    producers contribute in excess of $14 billion annually to the U.S.
    economy and support over 25,000 jobs.
        The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) manages taxpayer dollars
    under the State Revolving Fund's (SRF's) for water and wastewater
    projects in every State. It is important for all States and
    municipalities receiving Federal money to use open and free bidding
    processes and to consider all approved piping materials so that the
    most cost effective, longest lasting and best performing piping is
    used.
        According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, underground pipes
    represent 60 percent ($2.28 trillion) of the $3.8 trillion needed in
    investments for water and wastewater infrastructure over the next 20
    years. As a result, it is here that open procurement policies and
    practices should be focused.
        Since the 1970s the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural
    Development Program has required that the funding it provides rural
    municipalities for water and sewer projects be spent in an open and
    competitive manner. It is time for the EPA to have similar
    requirements.
        Richard Anderson, Ph.D., Senior Advisor to U.S. Conference of
    Mayors Water Council, who is also a proponent of procurement reform for
    underground infrastructure, reports that water and sewer pipelines are
    deteriorating faster than the rate at which they can be replaced
    because of corrosion, which is the leading cause of the water main
    break epidemic in North America (estimated at some 300,000 breaks
    annually). According to a 2002 congressional study, corrosion is also a
    drag on the economy, costing U.S. drinking water and wastewater systems
    over $50.7 billion annually. As a result, any comprehensive and truly
    sustainable underground infrastructure strategy must address corrosion.
        Today's corrosion crisis is due to the materials used in America's
    piping networks over the last 100 years. At first, cast iron was used,
    with ductile iron gradually replacing it as the material of choice.
    Both now suffer from corrosion. In fact, studies have shown that newer
    iron pipes do not last as long as older versions because of their
    thinner walls.
        The burden of old technology materials is not limited to the cost
    of repairing and replacing failed pipelines. It includes the cost of
    losing treated water from leaking systems. Leaking pipes made from old
    technology materials lose an estimated 2.6 trillion gallons of drinking
    water annually, or 17 percent of all treated water pumped in the United
    States.
        The solution to these problems begins with sustainability,
    durability and corrosion resistance, and this is why more utilities
    must actively consider all approved piping materials like PVC in their
    bidding processes. Increased durability means fewer leaks, better water
    conservation and lower costs. As a result, any comprehensive action
    plan for water and wastewater infrastructure renewal must also include
    reform of municipal procurement practices that limit competition,
    shackle innovation and increase costs.
        We believe that to get the most efficient and sustainable use of
    Federal money for water and wastewater projects, free and open
    competition must be the operating standard. Federal grants provided to
    municipalities should have open competition stipulations similar to
    those required by the USDA Rural Development Program for water and
    sewer projects. In this way Federal dollars obtain maximum value for
    taxpayers. When products are excluded from bidding, taxpayers suffer as
    does the efficiency of our infrastructure.
        With over 2 million miles in service, PVC pipe has been celebrated
    by Engineering News Record as one of the top 20 engineering
    advancements of the last 125 years. A study by the American Water Works
    Research Foundation recently quantified the life expectancy of PVC pipe
    at more than 110 years--making it excellent for long-term asset
    management and sustainability. Furthermore, PVC pipe is more efficient
    to manufacture, taking four times less energy to make than concrete
    pressure pipe, and half that used for iron pipe.
        As well, PVC pipe is cost effective, has watertight joints and its
    lightweight reduces transportation and installation costs, yielding
    additional greenhouse gas reductions. It is also totally recyclable,
    though most of it has yet to enter the recycling stream given its great
    durability.
        Numerous organizations have published studies on the need to update
    procurement practices to more cost effectively finance our underground
    infrastructure. Below are links to some of these reports:

      --Procurement Process Improvements Yield Cost-Effective Public
            Benefits
      --Reforming Our Nation's Approach to the Infrastructure Crisis: How
            Competition, Oversight, and Innovation Can Lower Water and
            Sewer Rates in the U.S.
      --Lowering Costs in Water Infrastructure through Procurement Reform:
            A Strategy for State Governments
      --Fixing America's Crumbling Underground Water Infrastructure:
            Competitive Bidding Offers a Way Out

        Also please find links to water main break rate and pipe longevity
    studies by Utah State University's Buried Structures Laboratory, which
    determined that PVC has the lowest break rate of all water piping
    materials and the longest lifespan:

      --Water Main Break Rates in the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study
      --PVC Pipe Longevity Report: A Comprehensive Study on PVC Pipe
            Excavations, Testing, and Life Cycle Analysis

        The PVC pipe industry thanks you for letting us submit a statement
    for this important hearing and we will be pleased to answer any
    questions you may have.

        [This statement was submitted by Bruce Hollands, Executive
    Director.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Emily Renzel of the Baylands Conservation
                        Committee, Palo Alto, California
        Our refuge system is vital to wildlife throughout the United
    States--especially as urban development continues to crowd wildlife out
    of their habitat in many areas. Recent extreme weather events make the
    need for refuges even more important. Please support the refuge
    system's full budget appropriation in a bill that is rider-free.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Resource Development Council
        Dear Chairmen Rogers and Cochran and Ranking Member Lowey and Vice
    Chairwoman Mikulski:

        I am writing on behalf of the Resource Development Council for
    Alaska (RDC), to encourage appropriation language to limit the adverse
    impacts of the administration's National Ocean Policy (Executive Order
    13547) on the Alaskan and U.S. economy.
        RDC is an Alaskan non-profit, membership-funded organization
    founded in 1975. The RDC membership is comprised of individuals and
    companies from Alaska's oil and gas, mining, timber, tourism, and
    fisheries industries, as well as Alaska Native corporations, local
    communities, organized labor, and industry support firms. RDC's purpose
    is to link these diverse interests together to encourage a strong,
    diversified private sector in Alaska and expand the State's economic
    base through the responsible development of our natural resources.
        Alaskans, with 34,000 miles of coastline, 3,000 rivers, and over 3
    million lakes, have a significant stake in National Ocean Policy, and
    will be impacted more than other States by the Policy. Coastal and
    rural Alaskan communities may become financially devastated by National
    Ocean Policy implementation.
        With efforts soon to commence to draft legislation funding the
    Federal Government for fiscal year 2016, I write to urge the inclusion
    of language in all appropriations bills to help ensure that continued
    implementation of the July 2010 National Ocean Policy Executive Order
    does not create any additional uncertainty or result in new regulatory
    hurdles.
        The National Ocean Policy directs dozens of Federal entities to
    participate in ``Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning'' (CMSP) across
    the United States. CMSP is described as a process ``to better determine
    how the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes are sustainably used and
    protected,'' and the Interior Department has likened CMSP to a
    ``national zoning plan'' that ``will serve as an overlay'' in Federal
    decisions.
        Concerns are further heightened given that the geographic coverage
    of CMSP includes inland bays and estuaries, and upland areas as new
    ``Regional Planning Bodies'' established to create these plans deem
    appropriate, and since Federal entities will ``address priority . . .
    ocean management issues associated with marine planning as described in
    the Executive Order'' even in regions like Alaska that choose not to
    participate.
        In addition to CMSP, the National Ocean Policy requires the Federal
    Government to implement ``Ecosystem-Based Management'' (EBM), which is
    described as a ``fundamental shift'' in how the U.S. manages ocean,
    coastal, and Great Lakes resources. Among other things, the National
    Ocean Policy requires dozens of Federal entities to ``[i]ncorporate EBM
    into Federal agency environmental planning and review processes'' by
    2016.
        Language adopted by the Executive order states that ``effective''
    National Ocean Policy implementation would ``require clear and easily
    understood requirements and regulations, where appropriate, that
    include enforcement as a critical component,'' and acknowledges that
    the policy ``may create a level of uncertainty and anxiety among those
    who rely on these resources and may generate questions about how they
    align with existing processes, authorities, and budget challenges.''
        In order to ensure that further implementation of the most
    concerning aspects of an initiative that has not been authorized by
    Congress does not create additional regulatory uncertainty, result in
    new regulatory hurdles, or siphon away scarce Federal dollars from
    critical and authorized activities, I respectfully request that all
    appropriations bills include language stating that ``None of the funds
    made available by this Act may be used to further implementation of the
    coastal and marine spatial planning and ecosystem-based management
    components of the National Ocean Policy developed under Executive Order
    13547.''
        RDC's broad and diverse membership is aligned in its concern over
    the negative consequences of unchecked implementation of Executive
    Order 13547. Alaska and our Federal partners have successfully managed
    the diverse and important uses of marine waters without the need of the
    additional layer of planning and regulatory oversight envisioned in
    this Executive order. Diverse activities including: logistics and
    shipping; well managed renewable fisheries which are the envy of the
    world; off shore oil and gas development and mining; and remarkable
    tourism and sport fishing opportunities all contribute greatly to the
    economy of Alaska and our Nation.
        Including this language will importantly provide Congress with an
    opportunity to more closely examine the National Ocean Policy and the
    full range of its potential impacts before it is fully implemented. In
    closing, I appreciate your attention to this important matter and
    respectfully request inclusion of the proposed language in all fiscal
    year 2016 appropriations bills.

        [This statement was submitted by Rick Rogers, Executive Director.]
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of Restore America's Estuaries
        Restore America's Estuaries is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
    organization that has been working since 1995 to restore our Nation's
    greatest estuaries. Our mission is to restore and protect estuaries as
    essential resources for our Nation. Restore America's Estuaries is an
    alliance of community-based coastal conservation organizations across
    the Nation that protect and restore coastal and estuarine habitat. Our
    member organizations include: American Littoral Society, Chesapeake Bay
    Foundation, Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, Save the Sound--a
    program of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Conservation Law
    Foundation, Galveston Bay Foundation, North Carolina Coastal
    Federation, EarthCorps, Save The Bay--San Francisco, Save the Bay--
    Narragansett Bay, and Tampa Bay Watch. Collectively, we have over
    250,000 members nationwide.
        As you craft your fiscal year 2016 Interior, Environment and
    Related Agencies appropriations bill, Restore America's Estuaries and
    our members encourage you to provide the funding levels below within
    the Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and
    the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for core programs
    which greatly support coastal community economies:

      --$15 million for USFWS Coastal Program.--(Interior: USFWS: Resource
            Management: Habitat Conservation: Coastal Program)
      --$50 million for Department of Interior, Coastal Resilience Fund.--
            (Interior: Office of the Secretary: Departmental Operations:
            Coastal Resilience Fund)
      --$27.2 million for USEPA National Estuary Program.--(USEPA: Water:
            Ecosystems: National Estuary Program/Coastal Waterways)

        These non-regulatory investments strengthen and revitalize
    America's coastal communities by improving habitat and local water
    quality. Healthy coastlines protect communities from flood damage and
    extreme weather, improve commercial fisheries, protect vital
    infrastructure, and support tourism and recreational opportunities.
                             usfws coastal program
        The Coastal Program (CP) is a voluntary, incentive-based program
    that provides technical and financial assistance to coastal communities
    and landowners to protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat on
    public and private lands in 24 priority coastal ecosystems, including
    the Great Lakes. The Coastal Program works collaboratively within the
    USFWS to coordinate strategic priorities and make landscape-scale
    progress with other Federal, State, local, and non-governmental
    partners and private landowners. Since 1985, the Coastal Program has:

      --Partnered with more than 5,000 Federal, tribal, State, and local
            agencies, non-governmental organizations, corporations, and
            private landowners.
      --Restored 334,796 acres of wetland habitat; 148,160 acres of upland
            habitat; and 2,176 miles of stream habitat.
      --Protected more than 2 million acres of coastal habitat.
      --Provided technical assistance to a diverse range of conservation
            partners.

        Our coastal communities and ecosystems are on the front lines of
    changing and more extreme weather, and support for the USFWS Coastal
    Program helps interested communities and partners address the new set
    of challenges facing coastal communities. The Coastal Program has been
    a key conservation delivery tool within the USFWS aimed at on-the-
    ground habitat restoration and technical assistance. Despite the
    program's relatively small cost, it is having a huge impact on the
    ground. A recent estimate by USFWS Coastal Program staff shows that the
    program leverages $8 non-Federal dollars for every Federal dollar
    spent. This makes the Coastal Program one of the most cost-effective
    habitat restoration programs within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        The Coastal Program stimulates local economies by supporting jobs
    necessary to deliver habitat conservation projects; positions supported
    include environmental consultants, engineers, construction workers,
    surveyors, assessors, and nursery and landscape workers. These jobs
    also generate indirect economic activities that benefit local hotels,
    restaurants, stores, and gas stations. The Coastal Program estimates
    that the average project supports 60 jobs and stimulates 40
    businesses--this represents major local economic returns on the Federal
    investment.
        In Puget Sound, Washington, the Coastal Program invested $20,000 to
    support a project to clean up and remove old and abandoned fishing gear
    from the waters, resulting in a direct economic impact to the local
    economy of $51,000 from just $20,000 in Federal funds. Around Puget
    Sound abandoned gear like nets, lines, crab and shrimp traps pose many
    problems for people, fish and marine animals. Just one lost net is
    estimated to result in 4,400 crabs trapped which results in a lost
    value to the crab fishery of $20,000. This project removed over 84
    gillnets--returning an estimated value well over $1.5 million in value
    to just the crab fishery.
        Restore America's Estuaries urges your continued support and
    funding for USFWS Coastal Program and asks that you provide $15 million
    for fiscal year 2016.
                department of interior, coastal resilience fund
        The Department of Interior's newly proposed Coastal Resilience Fund
    will provide much-needed support for the restoration and conservation
    of key coastal natural systems, such as beaches, dunes, and wetlands
    that protect communities and infrastructure from the impacts of coastal
    storms. In collaboration with State, local, and tribal governments,
    non-government organizations, universities or other stakeholders, the
    program's goals are to mitigate the impacts of climate change on
    coastal and inland communities from storm wave velocity, erosion,
    flooding, sea-level rise and associated natural threats; to strengthen
    the ecological integrity and functionality of coastal and inland
    ecosystems to protect communities; and to enhance the ability of
    Federal lands to support important recreational, wildlife and cultural
    values.
        Restore America's Estuaries urges Congress to fund the Coastal
    Resilience Fund and recommends that USFWS' Coastal Program administer
    the program with the Office of the Secretary to ensure the funding
    leverages existing staff biologists, science capacity, and expertise
    within the USFWS and further advances the mission of the agency. The
    USFWS Coastal Program has experience working to strategically direct
    resources for greatest impact on the landscape scale and is the best
    program aligned to meet the Department's Coastal Resiliency objectives.
        This proposed funding is modeled after the Department of Interior's
    Hurricane Sandy Coastal Resiliency Competitive Grants Program that
    Congress established after Hurricane Sandy. The previous funding
    successfully provided funds to the Hurricane Sandy affected region with
    great success, and should be continued and expanded before more costly
    efforts are needed down the road.
        In New Jersey, American Littoral Society received funding to
    restore 50 acres of Delaware Bay's wetlands and 6 miles of beach in
    Cape May and Cumberland Counties, New Jersey. Still in implementation,
    the project will improve horseshoe crab spawning, provide shorebird
    stopover area, and improve ecological and economic community
    resilience. The project will also enhance the understanding of the
    impacts of extreme weather events and the benefits of nature-based
    infrastructure and ecosystem services, and will identify cost-
    effective, resilience tools that help mitigate for future events.
        We are encouraged by Congress' past support for resiliency project
    funding within the Department of Interior and urge that you provide $50
    million for fiscal year 2016. This will help advance resiliency efforts
    in areas that still have time to prepare their coastal communities for
    future extreme weather.
                         usepa national estuary program
        The National Estuary Program (NEP) is a non-regulatory network of
    voluntary community-based programs that safeguards the health of
    important coastal ecosystems across the country. The program utilizes a
    consensus-building process to identify goals, objectives, and actions
    that reflect local environmental and economic priorities.
        Currently there are 28 estuaries located along the Atlantic, Gulf,
    and Pacific coasts and in Puerto Rico that have been designated as
    estuaries of national significance. Each NEP focuses its work within a
    particular place or boundary, called a study area, which includes the
    estuary and surrounding watershed.
        Each National Estuary Program demonstrates real environmental
    results through on-the-ground habitat restoration and protection. Their
    efforts reflect local environmental and economic priorities and involve
    the community as equal partners throughout the decisionmaking process.
    Collectively, NEPs have restored and protected more than 1.5 million
    acres of land since 2000.
        Restore America's Estuaries urges your continued support of the
    National Estuary Program and asks that you provide $27.2 million for
    USEPA National Estuary Program/Coastal Waterways. Within this amount
    for fiscal year 2016, no less than $600,000 should be directed to each
    of the 28 NEPs in the field.
                                   conclusion
        Restore America's Estuaries greatly appreciates the support this
    subcommittee has provided in the past for these important programs.
    These programs help to accomplish on-the-ground restoration work which
    results in major benefits:

        1.  Economic Growth and Jobs.--Coastal habitat restoration creates
    between 17 and 33 direct jobs for each million dollars invested,
    depending on the type of restoration. That is more than twice as many
    jobs as the oil and gas sector and road construction industries
    combined. The restored area supports increased tourism and valuable
    ecosystem services.
        2.  Leveraging Private Funding.--From 2005 to 2012, Federal
    investment in the USFWS Coastal Program leveraged non-Federal dollars
    at a ratio of 8 to 1. The NEPs leveraged non-Federal dollars at a ratio
    of 15 to 1. In a time of shrinking resources, these are rates of return
    we cannot afford to ignore.
        3.  Resiliency.--Restoring coastal wetlands can help knock down
    storm waves and reduce devastating storm surges before they reach the
    people and property along the shore.

        We greatly appreciate you taking our requests into consideration as
    you move forward in the fiscal year 2016 appropriations process, and
    thank you for doing so. We stand ready to work with you and your staff
    to ensure the health of our Nation's estuaries and coasts.

        [This statement was submitted by Jeffrey R. Benoit, President and
    CEO.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian
                                  Health, Inc.
        I am Brandie Miranda Greany and I am a member of the Pechanga Band
    of Luiseno Indians and the Treasurer of Riverside-San Bernardino County
    Indian Health, Inc. Thank you for the opportunity to testify about the
    2016 appropriations for the Indian Health Service.
        Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health is a consortium of
    nine tribes located in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Our
    member tribes are the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, the Cahuilla
    Band of Indians, the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Ramona
    Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, the
    Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, the Agua-Caliente Band of
    Cahuilla Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, and the San
    Manuel Band of Mission Indians. We operate several health centers under
    a self-governance compact with the Indian Health Service and we are
    very proud of the vast array of services offered at our clinics,
    including medical, dental, optical, behavioral health, pharmacy,
    laboratory, environmental health, community health representative, and
    nutrition services.
        We serve over 15,000 Native Americans and 3,000 related family
    members, and experience over 100,000 patient visits each year. Our
    service area includes two of the largest counties in the contiguous
    United States, so our member tribes have joined together to develop a
    way to economically and efficiently provide healthcare services for our
    people. We also provide healthcare for three other local tribes: the
    Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, the Cabazon Band of Mission
    Indians, and the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians. Almost two-thirds
    of our patients come either from these three local tribes or from
    members of other non-consortium tribes who reside in our two-county
    service area.
        Given the number of patients we treat, our IHS dollars can only go
    so far. But we are thankful for the support of Congress and the funding
    provided to ensure our people are healthy. We also cannot thank you
    enough for listening to the tribal representatives that appear at these
    hearings to share their experiences. We were pleased that last year's
    appropriations signaled that Congress heard our voice and we hope you
    will continue to pressure IHS to honor the Government's trust
    responsibility to provide culturally-competent and high-quality
    healthcare for Native Americans.
        Mandatory Contract Support Costs (CSC) Appropriations.--Last year,
    I thanked the subcommittee for its hard work in achieving full funding
    for our compact with IHS. This year we have a lot more to be thankful
    for due to the support of this subcommittee. Not only did Congress's
    instructions to IHS ensure that our contract support costs were paid in
    full, but Congress encouraged the agency to reverse the hostile
    position it had taken with tribes in the past. And perhaps more
    importantly, the agency has committed to working with tribal leaders to
    develop long-term solutions to ensure our contracts are never
    underfunded again. We are extremely appreciative of your support and
    your efforts to bring about this long-overdue change.
        I had hoped to report that despite extremely contentious
    negotiations, we were finally able to reach a settlement of our prior
    year claims against the agency. And while we did reach a tentative
    settlement with the agency back in September following several rounds
    of in-person negotiations, our settlement agreement has yet to be
    signed by the Government. We are ready to put these claims behind us,
    so we cannot understand the cause for this seemingly endless delay in
    just signing our agreement.
        All that said, 2014 was a truly historic year. But, our gains came
    at a price, because when the agency realized it had not accurately
    estimated the total contract support cost need for 2014, it was forced
    to reprogram service funds to cover its obligations. This meant that
    while self-governance tribes received full contract funding for the
    first time ever, our brothers and sisters that receive direct services
    at IHS facilities faced program reductions due to IHS's faulty
    predictions. Tribes made clear that we wanted our contracts paid in
    full, but not at the expense of reducing services for other tribes. And
    throughout the year of consultation on long-term solutions, tribes made
    clear the way to prevent this situation was with a permanent mandatory
    appropriation for CSC. Only that vehicle would separate CSC payments
    from the IHS services budget, protecting vital program funds, while
    also ensuring our contracts are always paid in full. There really could
    be no better solution to this predicament than a mandatory
    appropriation.
        The agency listened to tribal requests and included a proposal to
    move CSC to a mandatory appropriation beginning in 2017. We believe the
    details of the proposal could use some improvement, but the message is
    right on--CSC must be moved to a mandatory appropriation. The Supreme
    Court has already ruled that the Government must fulfill its statutory
    and contractual obligation to pay CSC in full, so these amounts must be
    paid regardless of the type of appropriation. A mandatory appropriation
    will meet this goal and also ensure service funds are not reduced to
    cover this obligation.
        The agency proposed a 3-year appropriation, but we believe the
    measure should actually be permanent. A permanent appropriation would
    obligate the Government to fund only the amounts necessary to pay the
    full requirement each year, and no more; however, if the appropriation
    has a limited duration, IHS would have to estimate the total cost to
    fully fund CSC each year, and like any estimates these totals will
    necessarily be imprecise. Erring on the high side uses more money than
    is necessary in a tight budget climate.
        Lastly, the administration's proposal sets aside up to 2 percent of
    the appropriation for program administration. This provision should be
    eliminated. The appropriation is meant to cover CSC and provide funds
    for tribes, not the agency. Additionally, if the agency adopts the
    instruction from Congress to simplify CSC calculations, these changes
    will reduce bureaucracy, eliminating the need for this set aside. Our
    goal is to simplify this process, not build up a large monitoring
    bureaucracy that requires us to devote even more administrative
    resources to CSC calculations, negotiations and reconciliations.
        In any event, the proposal is a historic first step. And we ask
    this subcommittee to ensure this proposal becomes law--a law that will
    complete the fight for CSC that tribes have been waging for decades.
        Medicare-like Rates For Outpatient Services.--Our IHS dollars can
    only go so far. However, they would go much farther if we were able to
    pay Medicare-like rates through the Purchased and Referred Care program
    (contract care) for the non-hospital outpatient and specialty services
    our patients need and that we are unable to provide in our clinics. The
    regulation at 42 C.F.R. 136 part D limits the amounts tribes pay for
    hospital services to the amount Medicare would pay for these same
    services (the Medicare-like rate provision). For years, tribes have
    been fighting for the implementation of a similar provision that covers
    outpatient services--the other half of the services we must send
    patients out to access, such as cardiology, pain management,
    nephrology, endocrinology and dialysis. Without such a provision, our
    contract care dollars are drained to pay the full billed charges, which
    are often several times higher than the Medicare rates.
        Congress can fix this issue. Congress has already done so for the
    health programs administered by the Department of Defense, and the
    Department of Veterans Affairs issued a final rule to limit the amount
    its health programs pay for comparable services. Similarly, this past
    year IHS proposed a regulation to try and fix this issue and extend
    Medicare-like rates for outpatient services. However, IHS's proposal--
    while better than nothing--had some issues. First, the proposed
    regulation was mandatory, meaning it may interfere with contracts that
    tribes have already negotiated. Second, the proposal did not have any
    flexibility, so tribes could never negotiate a higher rate in case of
    emergency or the absence of providers willing to provide services at
    these lower rates. While we truly appreciate the agency's willingness
    to tackle this issue in response to tribal concerns, we believe a
    legislative fix is necessary because only legislation can address the
    enforcement mechanisms that will be needed to implement this reform.
        In summary, a provision to extend Medicare-like rates for all
    contracted services could increase tribal buying power between an
    estimated $100 million to $340 million nationwide. For our program
    alone, access to Medicare-like rates for our outpatient referrals would
    save us on average 33 percent of the charges we are currently billed--
    an amount which would translate into approximately $500,000 in savings
    each year that could be used for additional healthcare. This
    legislation would expand and enhance tribal access to care and improve
    the health status of all served. It is therefore no surprise that
    support for this legislation has been affirmed by a variety of
    organizations that are familiar with our programs, including the IHS
    California Area Office; National Congress of American Indians; National
    Indian Health Board and the IHS Office of Tribal Self Governance. We
    also note this change would be ``budget neutral'' to the Federal
    Government, so we ask you to take action on this measure as swiftly as
    possible.
        YRTC Funding.--The IHS 2016 budget includes $17.8 million for
    staffing and operating costs for newly-constructed facilities and Youth
    Regional Treatment Centers (YRTC). In 2014, the California Area Office
    finally started construction on the Southern California YRTC. That
    construction is scheduled to be completed in December 2015, so full
    funding for fiscal year 2016 staffing needs are essential to ensure the
    facility opens on time and can serve a maximum number of patients.
    Additionally, the agency plans to start construction of the Northern
    California YRTC and this facility, too, will need funds for staffing
    and operation. Together, these facilities will provide much-needed care
    for our Native youth.
        For example, when our Native children need this care we currently
    have to send them out-of-State for intensive care services. These
    programs are costly and we pay up to $10,000 per month for these
    intensive care services. Even worse, our families are forced to travel
    long distances to places like St. George, Utah for family visits. Large
    distances also impact the continuity of care because there are few
    opportunities for medical providers and families to interact on an
    ongoing basis. The California YRTCs will provide these crucial services
    locally in an environment where families and children can work
    together. These opportunities will allow the whole family to heal
    together.
        For instance, the California YRTCs will provide residential
    chemical dependency treatment for Native youth from 12 to 17. Each
    facility offers comprehensive 3 to 4 month treatment programs, which
    incorporate mental health services, medical care, education, aftercare
    planning, and family therapy. They are also designed to respond to the
    unique cultural needs of our youth. These facilities will be critical
    for treating youth that are struggling, ensuring they can get back on
    track and lead healthy productive lives as adults. But, our new
    facilities will be meaningless without the talented professionals that
    will be needed to staff them. Therefore, we ask that Congress fully
    fund this line item and ensure our YRTCs live up to their potential.
        Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear in front of this
    distinguished subcommittee and share our concerns.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Sac and Fox Nation
        On behalf of the Sac and Fox Nation thank you for the opportunity
    to present our requests for the fiscal year 2016 budgets for the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS). The Sac
    and Fox Nation is home of Jim Thorpe, one of the most versatile
    athletes of modern sports who earned Olympic gold medals for the 1912
    pentathlon and decathlon.
        The Sac and Fox Nation supports and appreciates the President's
    fiscal year 2016 budget proposal for an overall increase of 12 percent
    for BIA over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level, the largest increase
    in more than a decade (excluding Recovery Act funding). The IHS would
    receive a 9 percent increase.
        In general, all tribal programs including BIA and IHS line items
    should be exempt from any budget recessions and discretionary funding
    budget reductions. Further, the Sac and Fox Nation is extremely
    concerned about the consequences of the 2013 sequestration and similar
    future reductions to tribal program funding. We strongly urge Congress
    to fully restore sequestration cuts from fiscal year 2013 since it
    threatens the trust responsibility and reduces portions of the budget
    that are not major contributors to the deficit.
                            tribal specific requests
    I. TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUEST
        $4.95 Million to Fully Fund Operations and Maintenance of the Sac
    and Fox Nation Juvenile Detention Center (SFNJDC)--Bureau of Indian
    Affairs--Public Safety and Justice--Office of Justice Services--
    Detention/Corrections Facility Operations and Maintenance Account.--The
    Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) requires Department of the Interior
    (DOI) Indian Affairs to develop guidelines for approving correction
    centers for long term incarceration, as well as work with the
    Department of Justice on a long-term plan for tribal detention centers.
    In the absence of appropriations to fully fund and fully implement
    TLOA, the intent of Congress and the effectiveness and benefits of TLOA
    to tribal courts, law enforcement and detention programs in Indian
    Country are less of a reality and more of what tribes have experienced
    in the past--an unfulfilled trust obligation.
    II. NATIONAL REQUESTS--BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
        1.  Authorize mandatory funding and fully fund Contract Support
    Costs (CSC).--The President's budget request for contract support costs
    is $277.0 million, an increase of $26.0 million above the fiscal year
    2015 enacted level. Based on the most recent analysis, the requested
    amount will fully fund 2016 tribal contract support costs. The budget
    also includes--for the first time ever--a new proposal to fully fund
    BIA and Indian Health Service contract support costs as mandatory
    funding, beginning in fiscal year 2017.
        2.  Public Safety and Justice--Law and Order--Detention/
    Corrections.--Fully fund all provisions of the Tribal Law and Order Act
    of 2010 and the Tribal Provisions in the Violence Against Women Act
    Reauthorization.
        3.  Restore 2013 Sequestered Cuts ($119 million) to Tribal Program
    Funding.
        4.  + $319 million over fiscal year 2015 for Tribal Priority
    Allocations Account.--We support an increase of $139 million in fiscal
    year 2016 and that these increases be provided via tribal base funding
    agreements.
        5.  Office of Self-Governance (OSG).--Provide increased funding to
    the OSG to fully staff the office for the increase in the number of
    tribes entering self-governance.
     III. NATIONAL REQUESTS--INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
        1.  Authorize mandatory funding and fully fund Contract Support
    Costs (CSC).--The President's fiscal year 2016 budget proposal fully
    funds the estimated need for CSC at $718 million, an increase of $55
    million above fiscal year 2015. The estimated increase includes funding
    for new and expanded contracts and compacts. The budget also requests
    that CSC be reclassified to a mandatory appropriation beginning in
    fiscal year 2017;
        2.  Restore 2013 Sequestered Cuts ($220 Million) to Tribal Health
    Services;
        3.  +$368.9 million over the fiscal year 2015 President's proposal
    budget for IHS Mandatory Funding (maintain current services).--
    Mandatories are unavoidable and include medical and general inflation,
    pay costs, contract support costs, phasing in staff for recently
    constructed facilities, and population growth;
        4.  +$70.3 million for Purchased and Referred Care.--The
    President's fiscal year 2016 budget includes $25.5 million increase, in
    addition to $43.6 million in Purchased and Referred Care (PRC) medical
    inflation and $1.2 million for staffing/operating costs (total PRC
    increase of $70.3 million). The PRC program pays for urgent and
    emergency and other critical services that are not directly available
    through IHS and tribally operated health programs; and
        5.  Restore $6 million to the Office of Tribal Self-Governance
    (OTSG) to fulfill legal requirements under Title V of Public Law 106-
    260 which increased the responsibilities of OTSG.
    TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUEST--$4.95 Million to Fully Fund Operations of the
            Sac and Fox Nation Juvenile Detention Center (SFNJDC)--Bureau
            of Indian Affairs--Public Safety and Justice--Office of Justice
            Services--Detention/Corrections Account
        In 1996, the Sac and Fox Nation Juvenile Detention Center (SFNJDC)
    opened its doors as the first regional juvenile facility specifically
    designed for American Indians/Alaska Natives, as well as the first
    juvenile facility developed under Public Law 100-472, the Self-
    Governance Demonstration Project Act.
        At that time, the Bureau of Indian Affairs made a commitment to
    fully fund the SFNJDC operations; however this commitment was never
    fulfilled. Even though the Sac and Fox Nation continues to receive and
    use Federal dollars to address the issue of juvenile delinquency and
    detention for tribes in the Southern Plains Region and Eastern Oklahoma
    Region, it has never received sufficient funds to operate the facility
    at its fullest potential.
        Full funding would allow the Sac and Fox Nation to provide full
    operations including (but not limited to):

      --Juvenile detention services to the 46 tribes in Oklahoma, Kansas
            and Texas;
      --Rescue more of our at-risk youth and unserved youth in need of a
            facility like the SFNJDC;
      --Re-establish programs we have lost due to inadequate funding such
            as: On-site Mental Health Counseling; Transitional Living,
            Vocational Training, Horticulture, Life Skills, Arts and
            Crafts, Cultural Education and Activities, Spiritual Growth and
            Learning;
      --Offer job opportunities in an area that is economically depressed;
            and
      --Fully staff and expand staff training to address high volume of
            staff turnover which will allow for continuity in operations
            and service delivery.

        At the fiscal year 2016 Regional Budget Formulation Session, these
    tribes continue to support and endorse full funding for operation of
    the SFNJDC and included it as a priority in their ``Top 10 Budget
    Increases'' for the fiscal year 2016 BIA budget.
        The current funding level represents only approximately 10 percent
    of what is needed to fully fund the Juvenile Detention Center
    Operations and Maintenance. Additional funding in the amount of $4.95
    million, over what Sac and Fox already receives in base funding
    ($508,000), would fully fund the facility at a level to address the
    need of juvenile delinquency in the tri-State area and create
    opportunities for employment for more tribal members.
        The SFNJDC is a 50,000+ square foot, full service, 24 hour, 60 bed
    (expandable to 120 beds) juvenile detention facility that provides
    basic detention services to all residents utilizing a classification
    system based on behavioral needs to include special management, medium
    and minimal security. Our facility was designed to provide programs
    including behavioral management, alcohol and substance abuse, spiritual
    and cultural growth and learning, self-esteem, arts and crafts, health
    and fitness, horticulture, nutrition, life skills, vocational technical
    training, counseling, educational programs and a Transitional Living
    Center.
        Through a partnership with the local High School, students are
    afforded an education at the public school level, including a
    graduation ceremony and issuance of a certificate upon successfully
    achieving the State requirements. Additionally, the Sac and Fox Nation
    has an on-site Justice Center providing Law Enforcement and Tribal
    Court services and the Sac and Fox Nation also operates an on-site
    health clinic which provides outstanding medical services that include
    contract service capabilities for optometry, dental and other health-
    related services.
        The lack of adequate funding from the BIA and decreases in base
    funding have mushroomed into underutilization and erosion of the
    programs our facility was built to offer. Our current funding levels
    only allow us to provide an alcohol and substance abuse program, some
    health and fitness activities and a basic education program. We have
    lost our programs for vocational training, horticulture, life skills,
    arts and crafts, on-site counseling and transitional living. The
    passage of the 2010 Tribal Law and Order Act was applauded by the Sac
    and Fox Nation because we saw this as an opportunity for the Federal
    government to finally step up to its pledge to fully-fund the SFNJDC
    and honor its treaty and trust obligations to our people. However, the
    lack of funding is also impeding the implementation of TLOA!
        In 1996, the SFNJDC was built as a model facility in Indian
    Country. And nearly 20 years later there is still a need for such a
    facility to help our youth return to their traditional healing and
    spiritual ways. As a self-governance tribe we operate our tribal
    government on the premise that we are the best provider of the services
    and know which services are most needed in our communities. We saw the
    increasing need in the 1990's for a facility like the SFNJDC and we
    acted on our instincts to help our youth by giving them a place to turn
    their lives around and the access to programs, services and holistic
    care they needed to recover and heal. Sadly, the number of Native
    American youth, and juveniles overall requiring detention has not
    decreased. The Sac and Fox Nation Juvenile Detention Center was built
    with the same intentions as the Tribal Law and Order Act Long-Term Plan
    to Build and Enhance Tribal Justice Systems today. The SFNJDC has the
    facility, staffing, ability, commitment and capacity to provide
    superior detention and rehabilitation services to Native American
    youth, as well as any youth in the tri-State area in need of our
    services. We do not understand the Federal Government's desire to fund
    the construction of more detention facilities while our beds remain
    empty.
        Thank you for allowing me to submit these requests on these fiscal
    year 2016 budgets.

        [This statement was submitted by Hon. George L. Thurman, Principal
    Chief.]
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Seattle Indian Health Board
        Chairman Cole, Ranking Member DeLauro and Representatives of the
    Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), Education, and
    Related Agencies, my name is Aren Sparck. I am the Government Affairs
    Officer for the Seattle Indian Health Board (SIHB), which is a
    contractor and grantee with the Indian Health Service (IHS), and one of
    the largest of the 33 Subchapter IV of the Indian Health Care
    Improvement Act (IHCIA) funded Urban Indian Health Programs (UIHP). We
    provide primary care services as a Health Resources Services
    Administration 330 program, offer outpatient services on-site, and
    operate the Thunderbird Treatment Facility, a 65-bed inpatient chemical
    dependency treatment center. We also create, analyze, and report on
    urban Indian health data through our Urban Indian Health Institute
    (UIHI), the only IHS Tribal Epidemiology Center (TEC) in the country
    with a national purview. We are asking for $5 million for urban
    American Indian/Alaska Native (Al/AN) health research funds over 5
    years.
        I am requesting that the subcommittee increase their investment in
    monitoring the health status of the urban Al/AN population. Since 1970,
    the urban Al/AN population has grown from 45 percent \1\ of all Al/ANs
    to 71 percent \2\ in 2010. The urban Al/AN health line item was less
    than 1 percent \3\ of the overall IHS budget in fiscal year 2015, with
    a flat increase in the President's fiscal year 2016 budget. There were
    negligible allocations from other Federal trust obligation areas of
    housing and education to address the needs of the urban population.
    Considering this, it is easy to see that the urban Al/AN population
    suffers alarmingly high rates of disparities, notably in poverty,
    unemployment, a lack of health insurance, etc.\4\ Despite UIHPs and
    urban Al/AN serving institutions receiving legislative authority in
    Subchapter IV \5\ (formerly Title V) of the IHCIA, as amended in 2010
    in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), a lack of
    inclusion in program and resource planning committees at the HHS level
    has resulted in the majority of funds going to tribes where
    approximately two out of every 10 Al/ANs live in tribal lands.\2\ The
    fiscal year 2015 IHS budget urban line item was $46.3 million
    dollars,\3\ again less than 1 percent of the total IHS budget, despite
    7 out of every 10 Al/ANs living in urban areas.\2\ We feel that the
    almost discriminatory lack of resource and administrative attention the
    urban ALAN population receives can be attributed to a lack of inclusion
    in program-planning at the Federal level, and a lack of quality data
    for reference. This is the reason we are asking the subcommittee to
    invest not just in funds, but administration-wide, so a more complete
    picture of Al/AN community health can be achieved. We feel that with
    increased investment from HHS, the IHS budget shortfall for the urban
    population will be better addressed with sound science and data.
        We recently had a conversation with the Director of the Office of
    Minority Health (OMH) about the importance of increasing their
    monitoring investment for urban AVANs. What we heard from the director
    was, unfortunately, what we have heard from every department head in
    HHS. They absolutely do understand the overrepresentation in population
    and underrepresentation in research dollars allocated to the urbans,
    but the resources are just not there to address the disparities.
        Because the urbans receive so little attention from HHS and the
    OMH, we have very little baseline data concerning where the 71 percent
    of urban Al/ANs are accessing healthcare and what types of services
    they are utilizing. We know that our urban Al/AN population suffers
    from high rates of health disparities in multiple chronic conditions,\4
    6\ but the UIHPs that are tasked with delivering healthcare to the 3.7
    million Al/ANs living in urban areas are only in 19 States and 100
    counties.\7\ In the UIHP catchment areas, there are one million Al/ANs
    we can have potential access to,\8\ but the reality is, we see a small
    fraction of that. In SIHB's catchment area of King County, the most
    urban and populated county in the State of Washington, there are
    approximately 40,000 Al/ANs,\9\ and we see only 3,889.
        Knowing where our population is going for healthcare, and what
    types of services they are utilizing pre- and post-healthcare reform
    implementation will help us understand whether: (1) the quality of
    national data sets, such as the Epi Data Mart, UDS and CMS data are
    creating a comprehensive picture of urban Al/AN health; (2) chronic
    conditions are being treated; (3) primary and preventative care are
    being accessed; (4) access to the IHS, Tribal Health and UIHP (I/T/U)
    system of culturally relevant care make a difference in health status;
    and (5) the policy intervention the PPACA implemented is truly making a
    difference in the Al/AN population.
        To do this, we are asking that the subcommittee allocate $5 million
    in research funds over 5 years to the OMH specifically for the analysis
    of where urban Al/ANs are accessing care throughout the country and
    what types of services they are utilizing. This is the baseline data
    that will allow us to make better policy decisions about where research
    and program funds go in Indian Country to end the high health
    disparities our urban population experiences. We also ask that the
    funds go to an Al/AN research organization such as the TECs that have
    experience collecting and analyzing national data. This will help build
    the scientific and infrastructure capacity within our Al/AN community
    necessary to create a trusting partnership between HHS and Indian
    Country by legitimizing quality research and data analysis for AVANs by
    Al/ANs. This is preferable to seeing research dollars build the
    capacity of academic institutions whose primary focus is not in Indian
    Country.
        Aside from the $5 million for urban Al/AN healthcare access and
    service utilization analysis, we ask that funding priorities reflect
    less understood and emergent issues our urban population is facing.
    Because our urban population is by and large highly mobile and low-
    income, social and health pressures are exerting themselves in our
    urban Al/AN youth that are vulnerable to conditions of mental health
    and chemical dependency problems, violence and an alarming incidence of
    prostitution and human trafficking. Our youth are very susceptible to
    gang violence, as the family and cultural dynamic is often disparate
    and inconsistent due to a lack of any dominant Al/AN culture in the
    city. A special funding emphasis needs to be made addressing dental
    health and access to specialty care for our population. With these
    funds, we can create coalitions between the UIHPs and Marketplace and
    Medicare/Medicaid purchasers, both private and public. These coalitions
    can create a system that understands that our population is in
    immediate need of specialty care to stabilize chronic conditions, which
    will lead to primary care use for preventative medicine purposes. With
    a push towards capitation for public health purchasing, this type of
    dialog is essential to eliminate health disparities in our urban Al/AN
    population instead of sustaining a chronic state of health.
        It is unfortunate that the urban AI/AN population finds itself
    suffering from almost constant disparity. Many factors have led us
    here: lack of representation (no urban voice in HHS Secretary's Tribal
    Advisory Committee or the OMH's Al/AN Health Research Advisory Council;
    lack of a single Federal definition of Al/AN (five different
    definitions of Al/AN used in IHCIA); \10\ a general acceptance of the
    Federal Government that conferring with and allocating almost entirely
    to tribes is addressing the health and human service needs of the
    entire Al/AN population, etc. We know that the Al/AN population is
    overrepresented in urban areas, yet severely lacks access to the
    Federal trust. An Al/AN does not cease to be Al/AN just because they
    have left tribal lands. By geographically limiting the reach of the
    Federal trust only to those Al/ANs who reside on tribal lands, we are
    forcing AVANs to think they cannot keep their identity by leaving the
    geographical boundaries of their tribe. Congress has acknowledged that
    the Federal trust obligation does not end at the reservation
    boundary.\11\ We need to follow the lead of the 1921 Snyder Act, which
    gives Congress broad discretion in allocating funds for the ``care,
    benefit, and assistance of Indians throughout the United States.'' \12\
    That there is no tribal or geographical caveat in this legislation
    proves that the Government does indeed have an obligation to all Al/AN
    people, regardless of where they choose to live.
        By dedicating funds to address our data needs, understanding our
    healthcare access and utilization patterns, stabilizing our chronic
    conditions to lead to preventative care utilization, and addressing the
    emergent health and social threats, HHS can demonstrate that they are
    dedicated to ending the health disparities our Al/AN population faces.
    I want to be very explicit that in no way am I advocating for taking
    money from the tribes to fund these urban initiatives, as they are
    woefully underfunded as it is. I am asking that the subcommittee
    increase their investment in Indian Country to a level that reflects
    actual need, thereby fulfilling the Federal trust obligation the
    Federal Government has to our Al/AN population.
    ----------

                                    Endnotes
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \1\ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1970 Census
    of Population: Subject Report--American Indians.
        \2\ U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. ``Census 2010 American Indian and
    Alaska Native Summary File; Table: PCT2; Urban and rural; Universe
    Total Population; Population group name: American Indian and Alaska
    Native alone or in combination with one or more other races.''
        \3\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2016.
    Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, Indian Health
    Service Fiscal Year 2016. pgs. CJ-23, CJ-27.
        \4\ Urban Indian Health Institute, Seattle Indian Health Board.
    (2011) Community Health Profile: National Aggregate of Urban Indian
    Health Organization Service Areas. Seattle, Washington: Urban Indian
    Health Institute.
        \5\ Subchapter IV of Chapter 18 of Title 25 of the United States
    Code (25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1651 et seq.).
        \6\ Castor ML, Smyser MS, Taualii M, Park A, Lawson SA, Forquera R.
    (2006). A nationwide population-based study identifying health
    disparities between American Indians/Alaska Natives and the general
    populations living in select urban counties. American Journal of Public
    Health, 96(8), 1478-84.
        \7\ The Urban Indian Health Institute. About Urban Indian Health
    Organizations. 2015. http://www.uihi.org/about-urban-indian-health-
    organizations/.
        \8\ Testimony of Donna Keeler, President of the National Council of
    Urban Indian Health to the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Native
    American Witness Day Hearing, March 25, 2015. http://docs.house.gov/
    meetings/AP/AP06/20150325/102900/HHRG-114-AP06-Wstate-KeelerD-
    20150325.pdf.
        \9\ United States Census, 2010. 2010 Demographic Profile Data, King
    County, Washington. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/
    jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk.
        \10\ National Indian Health Board. The Definition of ``Indian''
    Under the Affordable Care Act Approved by the Tribal Technical Advisory
    Workgroup. 2010.
        \11\ Senate Report 100-508, Indian Health Care Improvement Act
    Amendments of 1987, September 14, 1988, page 25.
        \12\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 13,1921.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley
                                  Reservation
        Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the
    subcommittee, my name is Lindsey Manning. I am Chairman of the
    Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. I am
    pleased to submit testimony concerning the fiscal year 2016 budget for
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
    Indian Health Service (IHS). The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes are grateful
    for this subcommittee's long standing support of Indian tribes and for
    sharing its understanding of Indian Country with your colleagues so
    that this Congress can continue to empower tribal governments and
    promote the bipartisan national goals of local control and Indian self-
    determination.
        The Duck Valley Reservation is a large, rural reservation that
    straddles the Idaho-Nevada border along the east fork of the Owyhee
    River. It encompasses 450 square miles in Elko County, Nevada and
    Owyhee County, Idaho. The reservation is 140 miles from Boise, Idaho,
    and 100 miles from Elko, Nevada. Many of our 2000 tribal members make
    their living as farmers and ranchers, though a number of them are
    employed by the tribes. We assume most duties of the BIA and IHS under
    self-governance compacts, although the BIA continues to provide law
    enforcement and detention services on the reservation.
        Building and maintaining tribal infrastructure is our greatest
    challenge:

      --We are replacing our administration buildings contaminated by mold;
      --We have renovated a detention center to create a modern facility
            that can house treatment programs and implement ``alternatives
            to incarceration'' programs to reduce recidivism;
      --We are undertaking road safety improvements and reconstruction of
            existing roads to make our community safer;
      --We are building our Cultural Resources Protection and Greenhouse/
            Native Plant Programs to employ and train the next generation
            of tribal members to protect cultural resources sites and, in
            partnership with BLM, restore native plants indigenous to the
            region following damaging wildfires;
      --We are working to restore salmon to the reservation for the first
            time in over 80 years; and
      --We continue to look for economic development opportunities.

        In too many instances, however, our success in these areas is
    largely dependent on Federal appropriations which, in turn, determine
    whether economic and social conditions on the Duck Valley Indian
    Reservation improve or worsen. While we contribute tribal resources to
    these endeavors as best we can, we look to our Federal partner for
    support. As a remote reservation, we cannot turn to a nearby
    jurisdiction for help in providing essential services. The tribal
    government is the only local government available. If we fall short,
    our members suffer. For this reason, we support the President's fiscal
    year 2016 budget request for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of
    Land Management and Indian Health Service. Without sustained growth in
    these Federal programs, we cannot meet the needs of our reservation. We
    encourage this subcommittee to build on the proposed increases in the
    President's budget for these essential tribal programs. Our priorities
    for fiscal year 2016 include:
        1. Increase funding for the BIA Public Safety and Special
    Initiatives Program.--To provide alternatives to incarceration for
    adult and juvenile offenders from Duck Valley and alter the ``detention
    first, treatment second,'' mentality, we urge the subcommittee to build
    on the President's modest $11.5 million increase (3.2 percent) for
    BIA's Public Safety and Justice Programs. We receive $250,000 in
    additional recurring funding to participate in a pilot program with the
    BIA's Office of Justice Services (OJS) to reduce recidivism on the Duck
    Valley Reservation by creating an ``alternative to incarceration''
    model program. Housing shortages limit our ability to hire and place
    substance abuse counselors, mental health professionals and detention
    personnel on the reservation to kick start our pilot program.
        For that reason, we also urge the subcommittee to expand the
    greatly reduced Housing Improvement Program (HIP) above its $8 million
    budget. If we can access HIP funds, it would free up other resources to
    address the need for housing health and law enforcement/detention
    professionals on the reservation where housing is simply not available.
        I also urge the subcommittee to support the President's $4 million
    increase for the BIA's ``Special Initiatives'' subaccount for fiscal
    year 2016 and include statutory language to make clear that such funds
    may be used for the purchase or lease of temporary trailers or modular
    units to house personnel associated with law enforcement, corrections,
    probation, tribal courts and other professionals serving adult and
    youth offenders. For rural communities, housing is often the linchpin
    that enables key personnel to locate to the reservation and make a
    difference.
        2. Fund the Owyhee Initiative within the Bureau of Land Management
    (BLM).--The Owyhee Initiative is a joint effort by ranchers,
    recreationalists, County and State officials, and the Shoshone-Paiute
    Tribes to protect, manage and appropriately use public lands in Owyhee
    County, Idaho. In 2009, Congress passed the Omnibus Public Land
    Management Act, Public Law 111-1. In 2010, we entered into a 5-year
    agreement with BLM to protect cultural resources and increase public
    understanding and appreciation of these resources. Increased
    recreational use and encroachment within the Owyhee River Wilderness
    Area and other Federal lands place these resources under stress. This
    year we seek to enter into another 5-year agreement with BLM. As the
    Department has noted, urban growth and off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on
    public lands continues to increase and place increased demand on public
    health and safety and natural and cultural resource protection
    programs. We have been a good partner with BLM.
        BLM funding several years ago allowed us to purchase two Cessna
    planes and ATV equipment and hire one Chief Ranger and a Cultural
    Resources Director to patrol public lands and report violations of
    cultural and religious sites to BLM officials. We work closely with BLM
    and Owyhee County officials to coordinate compatible recreation use
    within BLM lands in Owyhee County, especially within the wilderness
    areas where we seek to protect cultural resource sites important to our
    tribes. The Ranger and Director also spot and report wildfires to BLM
    officials before the fires can do great damage to sensitive, remote
    areas.
        We seek recurring BLM funds to continue this important work to
    protect cultural sites and establish a Reserve Ranger Program to engage
    tribal youth in cultural and related activities during the summer. The
    Chief Ranger and Cultural Resources Director are near retirement and it
    is essential that we hire and train replacement staff, including a
    pilot, to continue their important work for our tribes. We seek BLM
    funds to hire an Assistant Director, one adult Tribal Ranger and two
    part-time Youth Rangers, train a qualified applicant as an additional
    pilot, purchase two more ATVs and two camp trailers to permit tribal
    personnel to remain in the field and overhaul the two Cessna planes per
    FAA regulations and construct a hanger at the Owyhee Airport to
    centralize our operation and increase surveillance flights over Owyhee
    County. We contribute nearly 50 percent of the required budget but
    cannot sustain this important program without Federal support. Our plan
    requires $600,000 to fully fund the above activities.
        We also support the administration's $2.0 increase for BLM Cultural
    Resources Management and other BLM accounts used to manage and protect
    archaeological and historic properties on public lands. Scattered
    across millions of acres of high desert in southwest Idaho and northern
    Nevada are the remnants of campsites, villages, hunting blinds and rock
    inscriptions that tell the story of the Shoshone-Paiute and other
    tribes. After speaking with Shoshone-Bannock tribal officials, together
    with northern tier Nevada tribes (including the Te-Moak, Battle
    Mountain, South Fork and Goshute tribes), we seek BLM funds to form a
    tribal cultural resources work group to spread best practices for
    cultural resources management and protection that we have learned over
    the last 20 years. We would be a good candidate for a BLM grant. We
    request a special appropriation to create a multi-tribal task force to
    propose and design strategies for on the ground protection of Native
    American cultural resources for the Upper Great Basin and High Plateau
    of the tri-State area of Nevada, Oregon and Idaho.
        3. Telecommunications (fiber optics).--The tribes continue to need
    fiber infrastructure over 5 miles for connectivity among Fish, Wildlife
    and Parks, Tribal Headquarters, Juvenile Services Center, Fire Station
    and the Owyhee Community Health Facility. The health center serves as
    the Wide Area Network (WAN) hub for the tribes' and health center's
    computer network. Connectivity among these facilities and programs
    would alleviate the long-term monthly recurring cost we pay to an
    Ethernet Circuit provider ($96,000 annually). We require $500,000 to
    construct new fiber networks and cover construction inspection fees. We
    urge the subcommittee to increase appropriations so that remote, rural
    communities like Duck Valley can improve telecommunications networks
    and break down communication barriers to promote education and job
    opportunities for our members.
        4. East Fork Owyhee Salmon Steelhead Recovery and Reintroduction
    Project.--We seek to return Chinook salmon and steelhead trout to Duck
    Valley and the State of Nevada through an innovative ``trap-and-haul''
    program. Dam construction along the Columbia and Snake Rivers
    eliminated salmon from the State of Nevada. Duck Valley is unique in
    that it supports two major tributaries to the Snake River. Last year,
    we financed a pilot study that found that habitat in the East Fork of
    the Owyhee River may support a summer rearing capacity of between 3,300
    and 43,000 juvenile steelhead trout and from 3,600 to 41,000 Chinook
    salmon. With additional funding of approximately $210,000 for the next
    3 years, we can complete our habitat surveys of the East Fork Owyhee
    River, including obtaining data on non-summer river conditions, as well
    as an assessment of the Bruneau River habitat.
        We propose to transport adult fish from Lower Granite Dam or Hells
    Canyon Dam and release the fish above China Dam into the East Fort
    Owyhee River to spawn. Emigrating juvenile fish would later be captured
    and released downstream from passage carriers on the Snake River to
    complete their migration to the Pacific Ocean. Adult salmon originating
    from the East Fork Owyhee River would later be captured in the lower
    Snake River and transported back upstream.
        We urge the subcommittee to support the President's $48 million
    increase to the BIA's Trust-Natural Resources Management program
    budget, including the Fish, Wildlife and Parks program. Tribes contract
    a significant part of the Natural Resources program funds. An increase
    to the BIA's Trust-Natural Resources budget can help us with this
    innovative project to restock the reservation with salmon and steelhead
    trout.
        5. Quagga Mussel Issue (invasive species).--The fiscal year 2016
    budget proposes to maintain funding at essentially the fiscal year 2014
    funding levels for invasive species ($6.7 million). This is penny wise
    and pound foolish. We seek funds to add an additional boat-washing
    station at the Wildhorse Reservoir near the reservation for the boat
    launch we lease. This will ensure that boaters who then transport their
    boats to tributaries of the Columbia and Snake Rivers do not transfer
    invasive species into those rivers. We are also working with Nevada
    State officials to improve existing State laws concerning this issue.
    Ignoring invasive species is only asking for trouble. Please augment
    the fiscal year 2016 budget for invasive species above the President's
    request.
        6. Native Plant Program/Greenhouse.--In cooperation with the Idaho
    Bureau of Land Management, the tribes gather, propagate and make
    available seed and other native plant materials that are indigenous to
    the region. Through a series of assistance agreements with BLM, we
    built a greenhouse and are growing seedlings (including sagebrush and
    bitterbrush seedlings) for planting on adjacent public lands. This
    assists BLM and other agencies in their efforts to restore lands
    damaged by wildfires and helps employ tribal members. This year, we are
    completing construction of three greenhouses, plus installation of
    equipment, walk-in-cooler and workshop. We plan to hire a greenhouse
    manger and have tribal members collect seeds. For fiscal year 2016, we
    seek funding to build a facility to house equipment to dry, clean and
    store seed and hire part-time greenhouse staff to focus on marketing
    and finances. We plan to have 40,000 containerized grasses and shrub
    seedlings available for sale, together with willow and other riparian
    plant cuttings and local vegetables for sale and distribution through
    our ``Honor Our Elders'' program. We seek Interior Department
    appropriations of $205,000 over the next 5 years to expand our program
    and be a reliable supplier of native plants and seedlings for BLM.
        7. IHS.--We fully support the President's fiscal year 2016 budget
    increases to the Indian Health Service (IHS) budget, especially in the
    area of clinical services, including Purchased/Referred Care and
    Contract Support Costs (CSC). We also support the administration's
    request to shift CSCs to a ``mandatory'' appropriation beginning in
    fiscal year 2017, but would want to ensure that the shift is permanent
    in nature. This funding must be paid. We are pleased to report that
    after years of litigation, the tribes recently settled unpaid CSC
    claims with the IHS. The settlement will allow us to augment our
    available health services for the benefit of our members.
        Please build on the President's budget request to meet tribal
    health and safety needs that strengthen our community. Thank you for
    affording me the opportunity to testify.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Society for Historical Archaeology
        Our Request.--$89.91 million for the Historic Preservation Fund

      --$46.925 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs)
      --$9.985 million for the Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs)
      --$500,000 in grants for underrepresented populations
      --$30 million for the Civil Rights competitive grants initiative
      --$2.5 million for competitive grants for Historically Black Colleges
            and Universities (HBCUs)

        These programs are funded through withdrawals from the U.S.
    Department of the Interior's National Park Service Historic
    Preservation Fund (16 U.S.C. Sec. 470h) (HPF).
            society for historical archaeology (sha) and its members
        With more than 2,300 members, SHA is the largest organization in
    the world dedicated to the archaeological study of the modern world and
    the third largest anthropological organization in the United States.
    Most members are professional archaeologists who teach, work in museums
    or consulting firms, or have government posts. Through SHA's close
    relationship with the Advisory Council for Underwater Archaeology, our
    members also include many of the world's underwater archaeologists.
       funding shpos and thpos is critical to protecting u.s. archaeology
        In 1966, Congress, recognizing the importance of our heritage,
    enacted the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 470, et
    seq.) (NHPA), which established historic preservation as a Federal
    Government priority. Historic preservation recognizes that what was
    common and ordinary in the past is often rare and precious today, and
    what is common and ordinary today may be extraordinary in the future.
        Instead of using Federal employees to carry out the Act, the
    Department of Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic
    Preservation opted to partner with the States and use SHPOs and THPOs
    to, among other tasks, review all Federal projects for their impact on
    historic properties. In order for the review process to work smoothly
    and for historical archaeological sites to be protected, SHPOs and
    THPOs must have adequate funding. Proper financial support for their
    work allows SHPOs and THPOs to review and approve projects in a timely
    basis, moving projects forward in an efficient manner and protecting
    irreplaceable cultural and historical resources and sites. SHA
    appreciates the administration's efforts to support preservation and
    the HPF, and applauds the addition of funding for the Civil Rights
    initiative; however, we ask that the subcommittee also consider
    increasing funding to SHPOs and THPOs given chronic underfunding of
    their activities.
        The budget request does include a $1 million increase for THPOs.
    THPOs are chronically underfunded; the additional $1 million is a start
    to solving that challenge for tribes working to preserve and protect
    their culture and history. The request also includes $30 million for
    Civil Rights initiatives and $2.5 for HBCUs in recognition of the
    anniversary of the Civil Rights movement. SHA supports these funding
    pieces, as well, and hopes that such funds will help diversify the
    sites preserved under the HPF.
                                   conclusion
        On behalf of its 2,300 members, SHA would like to thank the
    subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony. SHA also thanks
    the subcommittee for its commitment to historic preservation and
    heritage management.

        [This statement was submitted by Dr. Charles Ewen, President.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium
        My name is Michael Douglas and I serve as the Vice-President and
    Chief Legal Officer to the SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium
    (SEARHC). I am honored to be here to testify before this subcommittee
    about SEARHC's priorities and I thank Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking
    Member Udall, and all members of the subcommittee for the opportunity
    to do so.
        SEARHC is an inter-tribal consortium of 15 federally recognized
    tribes situated along the southeast panhandle of Alaska. Our service
    area stretches over 35,000 square miles, and with no roads connecting
    many of the rural communities we serve, we work hard to provide quality
    health services to our communities. These services include medical,
    dental, mental health, physical therapy, radiology, pharmacy,
    laboratory, nutritional, audiology, optometry and respiratory therapy
    services. We also provide supplemental social services, substance abuse
    treatment, health promotion services, emergency medical services,
    environmental health services and traditional Native healing. We
    provide these services through a network of community clinics and the
    Mt. Edgecumbe Hospital located in Sitka, Alaska.
        The urgent healthcare needs across Indian Country are well known
    and the challenges in meeting those needs are heightened in areas like
    Southeast Alaska where communities are isolated and transportation and
    facilities costs are high. SEARHC applauds the administration for
    recognizing these needs by increasing the Indian Health Service (IHS)
    budget. It is vital that these increases be preserved. But even these
    increases will not be enough to allow SEARHC and other tribal
    organizations to meet the healthcare needs of the people we serve. We
    will meet these challenges, but to do so we will need your help.
    Facilities Funding
        Our greatest need is for increased facilities funding. We reported
    to this subcommittee last year on this topic and another year of use
    has only increased those needs. At 67 years old, the Mt. Edgecumbe
    Hospital is the oldest facility in Alaska and one of the oldest in the
    Nation. According to IHS's Facilities Engineering Deficiency System,
    the cost to update SEARHC's facilities is $29,600,000. This results in
    potential health telecommunications and electric outages, which
    translates into potential interruptions in critical care services
    including emergency services. Further, the funding deficiency delays
    many necessary improvements, impacts physician staffing, and hurts
    SEARHC's ability to expand and enhance services, such as tele-health.
    And we are not unique. Estimates place IHS facilities funding needs at
    $8.13 billion, a number that keeps on rising because IHS lacks
    sufficient funding to maintain these facilities. We do our best to
    patch the problem, but the bottom line is that without adequate
    facilities, SEARHC cannot provide adequate services.

        We request the subcommittee do four things.

        Replace aging IHS facilities. We need a commitment from Congress to
    start replacing aging IHS facilities. This will require reordering the
    current facilities priority list, which was created on a first come,
    first served basis. All rankings should be based on true need.

        Increase facilities funding in the current budget proposal. The
    President's budget contains modest funding increases for facilities
    needs, totaling $179 million. While we applaud the administration for
    taking this first step, it is only a first step, addressing only 2
    percent of the $8.13 billion needed. Similarly, the President's budget
    proposes for the first time in years, an increase in Maintenance and
    Improvement funds of $35 million, for a total of $89 million in M&I
    funding. That said, there is a critical maintenance backlog of $467
    million. This means that $378 million of critical maintenance is not
    going to be addressed. We strongly encourage the subcommittee to
    increase the facilities funding in the IHS budget.

        Joint Venture Projects. The JV project provides IHS funds to staff
    facilities built with tribal funds. SEARHC submitted a proposal in the
    most recent Joint Venture project funding round. Despite receiving a
    very high score, our proposal to build a facility on Prince of Wales
    Island was not selected. And in fact, of the 37 applications submitted,
    only 13 were put on a list to eventually receive funding. The fact that
    qualified projects were not selected is evidence of the fact that the
    need for such facilities far outstrips IHS's willingness to enter into
    these agreements.
        Our situation is a good example. Currently, our hospital in Sitka
    serves people living as far away as Klawock. Travel to Sitka requires a
    lengthy combination of automobile, ferry, and airplanes and takes at
    least a day and often is an overnight trip. If weather is bad, as it
    often is in Southeast Alaska, it can take even longer. The only
    alternative are costly air ambulance flights. We proposed to construct
    a Critical Access Hospital in Klawock. This would have strengthened the
    primary care service in the area, while first the first time also
    offering complex diagnostic services and acute and emergency care to
    one of the remotest, most rural area of the Nation. Despite the
    overwhelming need for these services, our project was rejected.
        In order to provide funding for this project, as well as the other
    JV projects that were not selected this year, we urge this subcommittee
    to direct IHS to enter into more Joint Venture Agreements.

        The Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) renovation program.
    Finally, we recommend the subcommittee provide funding for tribally
    renovated IHS buildings, pursuant to section 1634 of the IHCIA. The
    IHCIA allows tribes to renovate IHS facilities and authorizes IHS to
    provide staffing and equipment for the newly renovated structure,
    mirroring the JV program. But Congress has never funded this program.
    We strongly urge the subcommittee to realize the promise of this
    program by providing $10 million to fund it. We would be delighted to
    do an Alaska demonstration project for this new initiative.
    Contract Support Costs
        In recent years, much progress has been made on the issue of
    contract support costs, thanks in large part to this subcommittee.
    First, Congress's decision to fully fund contract support costs in 2014
    recast the issue from one of contention to one of cooperation. And
    Congress's continued support for full CSC funding has continued to
    strengthen the relationships between tribal organizations and the
    Federal Government.
        Now we see a new opportunity for your leadership on this issue. The
    President has requested that, starting in 2017, CSC be funded as a
    mandatory 3-year appropriation. While SEARHC supports the idea of
    mandatory CSC appropriations, we strongly believe that it should not be
    limited to 3 years. As the President's budget request reflects, CSCs
    are amenable to a mandatory appropriations scheme because they are
    recurring every year and are required to be added to all new programs
    that tribal organizations contract from the Indian Health Service (IHS)
    or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Plus, mandatory appropriations
    would ensure that neither IHS nor the BIA ever has to redirect funding
    from direct programs to CSC funding, as the IHS did this year. All
    these reasons will apply equally 5 years from now as they do today, and
    there is no reason to only implement mandatory appropriations for 3
    years. We therefore urge the subcommittee to work with other relevant
    committees to support a permanent mandatory appropriation for CSC.
        We also hope the subcommittee will address the administration's
    apparent plan to now keep each tribal organization's contract open for
    5 years after the end of the contract year for reconciliation purposes.
    This approach is simply unworkable. Even now, IHS struggles to get
    funding out on time, when it is only facing reconciling 1 year back
    while also working on the current year funding issues. Trying to
    reconcile 5 years of contracts plus the current year will frankly be an
    unnecessary and avoidable disaster. Plus, neither IHS nor our tribal
    organizations can afford the considerable time such a reconciliation
    process would demand. It is in al the parties' interest to quickly
    finalize the amounts needed under the last year's contract so that we
    can focus on the current year. We therefore request this subcommittee
    direct IHS to finalize contract support cost payments to all tribes
    within 60 days of the end of each contract period.
        We also urge the subcommittee to include language in the
    appropriations act making clear that IHS must pay contract support
    costs on the Methamphetamine and Suicide Prevention Initiative (MSPI)
    and Domestic Violence Prevention Initiative (DVPI) program funds.
    Despite years of acknowledging that CSC are due on these program funds,
    IHS recently reversed course and required tribes to cover CSC costs
    with program funds. This is contrary to Congress's clear directive in
    the Indian Self-Determination Act and should be addressed immediately.
    Rural Communities Hospital Demonstration Program
        SEARHC renews our request from last year that the subcommittee
    members support the extension of the Rural Community Hospital
    Demonstration Program (RCHD). This program supports hospitals like Mt.
    Edgecumbe that are located in rural areas but do not qualify as
    critical access hospitals. Because these hospitals do not qualify as
    critical access hospitals, they would generally be required to bill at
    the standard Medicare and Medicaid rates. But in rural areas, the costs
    of providing services are much higher than in other areas of the
    country and thus the standard rates undercompensate rural providers.
    The RCHD remedies this problem by allowing qualifying hospitals to use
    cost-based reimbursement rates for billing Medicare and Medicaid.
        Over the past 3 years, 2012 through 2014, SEARHC recovered $8
    million more for inpatient services provided to Medicare-eligible
    individuals. Without this program, SEARHC would lose money on inpatient
    Medicare services. As a rural hospital, SEARHC is the least able to
    absorb such negative margins. We already pay more in every step of the
    healthcare delivery chain, from increased cost for providers, to
    increased transportation costs, to increased food and shipping costs.
    We simply cannot afford to subsidize treatments to Medicare-eligible
    individuals.
        As important as the RCHD program is, it is due to sunset at the end
    of this fiscal year. It is vitally important to SEARHC, as well as many
    other tribal organizations that run rural hospitals, that this program
    be extended. We hope you will become advocates for this program so that
    hospitals like Mt. Edgecumbe can continue to provide services in remote
    areas.
    Communities Health Center Funding
        SEARHC also urges the subcommittee members to support adding
    additional monies to the Community Health Center (CHC) Fund in 42
    U.S.C. Sec. 254b-2. This Fund, which provided critical dollars to fund
    CHCs, is due to run out at the end of this fiscal year.
        Eleven of SEARHC's clinics are Communities Health Centers. This
    program allows us to provide vital services to remote and underserved
    communities. Without the CHC Fund, we will have to reduce our services
    and perhaps even close some of our health centers, leaving individuals
    without access to primary care in their home communities. A trip to the
    doctor would mean traveling hundreds of miles by boat or plane.
    Important care will be foregone, routine care will be deferred, and
    health outcomes will worsen.
        We therefore encourage all subcommittee members to support
    appropriating more funds to the CHC Fund.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present to the subcommittee on
    SEARHC's priorities.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Squaxin Island Tribe
        Good morning distinguished members of this subcommittee and special
    congratulations to Congressman Derek Kilmer, a new member from the
    State of Washington. On behalf of the tribal leadership and citizens of
    the Squaxin Island Tribe, it is an honor to provide our funding
    priorities and recommendations for the fiscal year 2016 budgets for the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS). Squaxin
    Island Tribe requests that tribal program funding throughout the
    Federal Government be exempt from future sequestrations, rescissions
    and disproportionate cuts.
        We support the President's fiscal year 2016 proposal to fully fund
    the BIA and IHS contract support costs (CSC) as a mandatory funding
    line item beginning in 2017. And, for the first time ever a new
    proposal in the fiscal year 2016 budget to request $277 million, which
    based on the most recent analysis, will again fully fund tribal
    contract support costs in 2016 which is consistent with the full
    funding for CSC in both fiscal year 2014 and 2015.
    THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS:
        1.  $500,000 Shellfish Management Program--BIA.
        2.  $2 Million to build and operate an oyster and clam nursery for
    Southern Puget Sound--BIA.
        3.  $1.5 Million increase for Northwest Indian Treatment Center
    (NWITC) Residential Program in IHS.
    THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 SQUAXIN ISLAND REGIONAL REQUESTS:
        1.  +$4.7 Million increase for Rights Protection.
        2.  Fully support the budget requests from the Affiliated Tribes of
    Northwest Washington (ATNI) and the Northwest Portland Area Indian
    Health Board (NPAIHB) and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
    NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS--BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS:
        1.  Restore 2013 sequestered cuts ($119 million) to Tribal Program
    Funding.
        2.  +26 percent increase for Natural Resources; $48 million over
    fiscal year 2015.
        3.  +$139 million increase for Tribal Priority Allocations to be
    provided via tribal base funding agreements.
        4.  Fully fund all the provisions of the Tribal Law and Order Act
    of 2010.
    NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS--INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE:
        1.  Restore 2013 sequestered cuts ($220 Million) to Tribal Health
    Services.
        2.  +$368.9 million increase for IHS Mandatory Funding (maintain
    current services).
        3.  +$70.3 million support proposed increase for Purchased and
    Referred Care (PRC).
    OTHER:
        Provide Funding Increases.--Office of Tribal Self-Governance (IHS)
    and the Office Self-Governance (DOI) to fully staff and support the
    number of tribes entering Self-Governance.
    SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE BACKGROUND:
        We are native people of South Puget Sound and descendants of the
    maritime people who lived and prospered along these shores for untold
    centuries. We are known as the People of the Water because of our
    strong cultural connection to the natural beauty and bounty of Puget
    Sound going back hundreds of years. The Squaxin Island Indian
    Reservation is located in southeastern Mason County, Washington and the
    tribe is a signatory to the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty. We were one of
    the first 30 federally recognized tribes to enter into a Compact of
    Self-Governance with the United States.
        Our treaty-designated reservation, Squaxin Island, is approximately
    2.2 square miles of uninhabited forested land, surrounded by the bays
    and inlets of Southern Puget Sound. Because the Island lacks fresh
    water, the tribe has built its community on roughly 26 acres at
    Kamilche, Washington purchased and placed into trust. The tribe also
    owns 6 acres across Pickering Passage from Squaxin Island and a plot of
    36 acres on Harstine Island, across Peale Passage. The total land area
    including off-reservation trust lands is 1,715.46 acres. In addition,
    the tribe manages roughly 500 acres of Puget Sound tidelands.
        The tribal government and our economic enterprises constitute the
    largest employer in Mason County with over 1,250 employees. The tribe
    has a current enrollment of 1,040 and an on-reservation population of
    426 living in 141 homes. Squaxin has an estimated service area
    population of 2,747; a growth rate of about 10 percent, and an
    unemployment rate of about 30 percent (according to the BIA Labor Force
    Report).
    TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS JUSTIFICATIONS:
        1. $500,000--SHELLFISH MANAGEMENT.--The Squaxin Island Tribe faces
    a budget deficit to maintain and operate the shellfish program at the
    current level. To effectively grow and develop the program, an annual
    minimum increase of $500,000 to address the shortfall and ensure the
    continuance of this program is requested.
        Shellfish have been a mainstay for the Squaxin Island people for
    thousands of years and are important today for subsistence, economic
    and ceremonial purposes. The tribe's right to harvest shellfish is
    guaranteed by the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty. It is important to
    remember that these rights were not granted by the Federal Government.
    They were retained by the tribe in exchange for thousands of acres of
    tribal lands. On December 20, 1994 U.S. District Court Judge Edward
    Rafeedie reaffirmed the tribe's treaty right to naturally occurring
    shellfish. Rafeedie ruled that the tribe(s) has the right to take up to
    50 percent of the harvestable shellfish on Washington beaches.
        The Squaxin Island Natural Resources Department (SINRD) is charged
    with protecting, managing and enhancing the land and water resources of
    the tribe, including fish and shellfish habitat and species. In so
    doing, the Department works cooperatively with State and Federal
    environmental, natural resources and health agencies. The shellfish
    management work of the SINRD includes working with private tideland
    owners and commercial growers; surveying beaches; monitoring harvests;
    enhancing supply (prepping, seeding, monitoring beds) and licensing and
    certifying harvesters and geoduck divers. We estimate that 20 percent
    of treaty-designated State lands and 80-90 percent of private tidelands
    are inaccessible to us due to insufficient funding.
        In fiscal year 2011, the shellfish program represented only
    $250,000 of the $3.3 million budget. The result is we are unable to
    fully exercise our treaty rights due to lack of Federal support for
    shellfish.

        2. $2 Million--Build and Operate an Oyster and Clam Nursery for
    Southern Puget Sound.--In the past few years, problems with seed
    production have developed in the shellfish industry. These problems
    have been primarily caused by weather and or other environmental
    factors, and their effects on the industry have resulted in the lack of
    viable and large enough seed for growers. The Squaxin Island Tribe
    recognizes that it is uniquely positioned to develop a new nursery to
    serve the shellfish growers of the South Puget Sound region. A
    shellfish nursery is a capital project that is both proven and a cost
    effective technology that takes small oyster and clam seeds and
    provides a safe and controlled environment for the seeds to grow to a
    size that can survive integration onto a regular beach placement. We
    have an ideal location for a nursery because it will not be disturbed
    by residents or recreational boaters.
        Our efforts will be an extension of another project that was
    created through a U.S. Department of Agriculture appropriation nearly
    two decades ago for the Lummi Tribe, which created an oyster and clam
    hatchery in Northern Puget Sound. The Lummi project over years has been
    very successful and they have supplied not only their own beaches but
    other tribes' in their region as well. The project would benefit not
    just Squaxin Island Tribe. It would further improve the quality and
    quantity of seed and make the seed process more effective for tribal
    and non-tribal growers. The users of the facility would be the Squaxin
    Island Tribe, other tribes, and non-tribal clam and oyster businesses
    that have been largely unable to find sites for this type of operation.
        The tribe's project will be a joint venture with the Lummi Nation,
    in that Lummi would be a primary larvae supplier. The project, with the
    expected grow-out and expansion of the industry attributable to the
    improved supply of seed, would offer jobs in a depressed employment
    area. Once established, the venture would be fully self-sustaining
    through sales of the product grown and at the nursery.
        This project would be a capital cost of approximately $2 million.
    The tribal in-kind contribution to the efforts would include land and
    shoreline and operating costs. Comparable land and shoreline, if
    privately owned, would be easily valued in the millions.

        3. $1.5 Million Increase for Northwest Indian Treatment Center
    (NWITC) Residential Program in IHS ``D3WXbi Palil'' meaning ``Returning
    from the Dark, Deep Waters to the Light''--NWITC has not received an
    adequate increase in its base Indian Health Service budget since the
    original congressional set-aside in 1993.--The Squaxin Island Tribe has
    been operating the Northwest Indian Treatment Center (NWITC) since
    1994. Ingenious in creativity, the center offers a wide variety of
    cultural activities and traditional/religious ceremonies, making it a
    natural place to heal--body, mind and soul. Fittingly, the center was
    given the spiritual name ``D3WXbi Palil'' meaning ``Returning from the
    Dark, Deep Waters to the Light.'' Since the original congressional set-
    aside in 1993, NWITC has not received an adequate increase in the base
    Indian Health Service budget. It is critical to increase the NWITC's
    annual base in order to sustain the current services to the tribes of
    the Northwest. An increase of $1.5 million would restore lost
    purchasing power and meet the need to add mental health and psychiatric
    components to the treatment program through other funding agents. This
    increase would allow NWITC to continue its effective treatment of
    Native Americans.
        NWITC is a residential chemical dependency treatment facility
    designed to serve American Indians from tribes located in Oregon,
    Washington and Idaho who have chronic relapse patterns related to
    unresolved grief and trauma. NWITC is unique in its integration of
    tribal cultural values into a therapeutic environment for co-occurring
    substance abuse and mental health disorders. It is a 28 bed, 30-60 day
    residential facility.
        Welcomed and hailed by tribal leaders who felt the urgent need for
    such a facility, NWITC is centrally located in Grays Harbor County
    between Olympia and Aberdeen, on 2.5 acres in the small rural town of
    Elma, Washington. NWITC accepts patients that are referred through
    outpatient treatment programs, parole and probation services,
    hospitals, assessment centers and child and family service centers.
    Medical care is provided through local Indian Health Service clinics
    and other medical service providers. NWITC has responded with an
    overwhelming success rate of nearly 65 percent.
        In 2011, the NWITC served 225 patients from 28 tribes and added
    intensive case management and crisis support to alumni in order to
    continue to promote positive outcomes for clients. Despite funding
    challenges, NWITC has continued to develop and deliver innovative,
    culturally appropriate services to meet increasingly complex demands.
        The Treatment Center's traditional foods and medicines program is
    supported through a partnership with the Northwest Indian College and
    is funded through grants from the Washington Health Foundation, the
    National Institute of Food and Agriculture, The Potlatch Fund and
    several tribes. Weekly hands-on classes focus on traditional foods and
    medicines, including methods for growing, harvesting, processing, and
    preparation. Twice a month, tribal elders, storytellers, and cultural
    specialists speak as part of the program. A monthly family class allows
    patients to share what they are learning with their loved ones.
    Patients gain hands-on experience by working in three on-site teaching
    gardens. This program serves as a model for other tribal communities.
        It is ironic that we were forced into a lifestyle and to give up
    our land, and that which we retained or have since regained is
    threatened by the promises you made and have since recanted!
        Thank you.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
        On behalf of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, I am here to discuss
    appropriations for fiscal year 2016. The tribe greatly appreciates the
    work of this subcommittee and your efforts to address the needs of
    Indian Country. Progress is being made, and your support makes a
    difference in the lives of our people. At the same time, we continue to
    face great challenges which cannot be met in a single appropriations
    cycle. We look forward to continuing to work with the subcommittee in
    seeking a better future for Indian Country.
        This past year has in many ways been a remarkable year for the
    Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, and especially for our youth. In June,
    several of our outstanding youth had an opportunity to meet with
    President Obama and the First Lady on our reservation--as the President
    and First Lady honored us with their historic trip to Standing Rock.
    For these young tribal members, this was no ordinary ``meet and greet''
    with a public official. Instead, it was a chance for these youth to sit
    down in a private setting for a meaningful discussion with the
    President and First Lady, regarding the many challenges they face
    growing up on the reservation, and their hopes and dreams for the
    future. Our youth told the President and First Lady about the wide
    range of economic and social problems that are so prevalent in their
    communities--as poverty, violence, drug use, and suicide are all too
    common. Every one of these kids has faced circumstances in their
    families or their neighborhoods that no child should have to endure.
    And yet, each of these courageous youth had confidence and high
    aspirations for the future.
        The President was clearly moved by the stories of our young tribal
    members--and he said he would not forget our youth. As a first step, he
    invited an even larger group of Standing Rock youth to come to visit
    him in the White House. This group of 18 youth came to DC this past
    fall. They met with a broad range of high level Federal officials,
    including spending a couple of hours with Interior Secretary Jewell.
    And everywhere they went, our youth told their stories about the
    realities of reservation life, the challenges they face and the vast
    unmet needs on the reservation. Of course, it was not all business, as
    the President and First Lady also took our youth to a pizza place for
    lunch.
        I was extremely proud of the courage, maturity and wisdom of these
    tribal youth--and I think we all can learn from them. I mention these
    events today because I believe the most important question the
    subcommittee can address is this--what can we do to address the needs
    of Indian youth? This is not a partisan issue--we all owe it to our
    children to do all we can to see that they have positive opportunities
    for the future. After meeting with our youth, the President included in
    his budget proposal several key initiatives specifically regarding
    Native Youth. We ask for the subcommittee's support of these
    initiatives. In addition, we hope that the subcommittee will support
    the full range of programs and initiatives--including education, law
    enforcement and healthcare--that will enable our youth to thrive.

        Native Youth.--The President's budget proposes a youth initiative
    that he calls ``Generation Indigenous,''--a comprehensive approach to
    addressing the barriers to success faced by Indian youth. This includes
    supporting Native Youth in community development projects and
    leadership training, convening a White House conference on Native Youth
    and more. The Generation Indigenous initiative will raise the profile
    of Native Youth issues nationwide, and will provide a framework for
    supporting the good work of Native Youth in their communities. We need
    to encourage a new generation of Native leaders, and Gen-I provides a
    positive and thoughtful approach to doing just that.
        One part of Gen-I is the President's Tiwahe initiative--which is a
    program to strengthen Indian families and promote family stability--
    focusing in large measure on the delivery of services to children in a
    coordinated and comprehensive way. The concept is to bring together the
    expertise of different agencies to provide a working partnership that
    leads to more effective services.
        One of the greatest needs in this regard is for more child
    protection workers and child welfare workers to assist children whose
    families are in crisis. Many of the children on our reservation--
    including some who met with the President--face unstable situations at
    home and need the support of professional social workers to ensure
    their safety and well-being. Providing more funding for the Tiwahe
    initiative and for social service programs affecting Native Youth will
    have a lasting impact in Indian Country. We urge the subcommittee to
    support these initiatives and programs, including the requested $122
    million for Tiwahe, to help our Native Youth.

        Education.--As the subcommittee is well aware, high quality
    education is a fundamental requirement for success in today's world. To
    provide our youth with the education they deserve, we must do two
    things. First, we must provide the resources necessary to make quality
    education possible. Indian students should no longer be housed in
    crumbling and unsafe school buildings, with limited programs, outmoded
    equipment and last century's technology. Let's level the playing field
    and provide excellent teachers and modern programs in effective spaces
    for our children. And second, we must empower tribes to decide the best
    way to educate their own children. Federal dictates are not the answer.
    Each tribe must be enabled to bring the richness of its culture and
    local knowledge to the education of its children. Both components--
    adequate resources and true tribal self-determination--are vitally
    important to providing effective education in Indian Country.
        Historical patterns of Indian education have not been successful.
    We know that the conventional models of education have simply not
    worked. The data indicates that only about 15 percent of Indian
    children in the United States are reading at grade level, and the
    dropout rate for Indian students is over 50 percent. These facts are
    unacceptable, and they signal a need for a new direction. We all might
    do well to look for an example to the Cut Wood School in Browning,
    Montana, where only the Blackfoot language is spoken up to 8th Grade.
    Cohort studies show that these students have a 95 percent graduation
    rate from high school. The Cut Wood School shows that we can do better
    for our students in Indian Country.
        As far as resources needed for education in Indian Country, the
    President's budget provides some much-needed increases, totaling $94
    million. A portion of these funds would help tribes enhance their
    educational programs, including for language immersion schools. We are
    very proud of our own language immersion program at Standing Rock--and
    young students from our program sang traditional songs for the
    President on his visit to our reservation. The budget also includes an
    increase of $4.5 million for higher education scholarships and adult
    education, and an increase of $34.2 million for modern technology for
    remote BIE schools--like those at Standing Rock. We urge the
    subcommittee to fully fund all of these programs, which will help
    provide vitally needed resources.
        I believe in the fundamental principle of self-determination. But
    in the area of Indian education, there remain some major impediments.
    The testing associated with ``Adequate Yearly Progress'' from the
    Federal No Child Left Behind statute has been imposed on tribes and we
    have seen how much this adversely impacts our students. Tribes need the
    flexibility to develop and implement their own learning systems, with
    appropriate tribally designed measurements of progress. We know that
    amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act are needed--
    and we will be seeking action by Congress in this regard. But other
    impediments to our goals in Indian education are found in the Interior
    Appropriations Act--particularly the language that generally prohibits
    tribal charter schools. We urge you to delete that language, so that
    tribes can move forward to establish their own tribally run charter
    schools, as a vehicle to implement true self-determination regarding
    Indian education.
        In seeking the best education for our children, we are asking for
    your help. According to Albert White Hat, one of our esteemed elders
    who recently passed away, we use the Lakota word ``Unsica'' which means
    to ask someone for assistance. Each of us needs assistance in some way,
    and it is an honorable thing to request assistance from one another. In
    this spirit, we request your assistance regarding Indian education.

        Public Safety and Justice.-- Many of the challenges faced by our
    youth stem from violence and crime in our communities. We need the
    resources to address these challenges--including increased law
    enforcement staff and court staff, and more modern and efficient
    detention facilities. We urge the subcommittee to support the
    President's proposed increase of $11.5 million for public safety and
    justice.
        Standing Rock is a large, rural reservation in North and South
    Dakota, covering 2.3 million acres. The reservation's population--about
    8,500 tribal members and 2,000 non-members--resides in eight widely
    scattered communities. Law enforcement staffing is simply inadequate to
    address the situation. And even among the law enforcement positions
    that are authorized on our reservation, more than half of the positions
    are vacant--a result of our isolated location and the lack of adequate
    housing. As matters stand, there are typically only 4 officers on duty
    per shift--and at times, this number is reduced to 2. These officers
    must cover the entire reservation. Drive times are extensive--as it
    takes an hour or more to drive from one community to the next, even
    when the weather is good. The result is that response times can be
    lengthy, and it is all too often the case that by the time police
    arrive on the scene of an incident, the suspects have fled. And, given
    the lack of staff and the great distances involved, there is certainly
    no opportunity for law enforcement to work with local communities on
    crime prevention or community outreach. The kinds of community policing
    that are the foundation of safe communities and positive police-
    community relations are simply out of reach with the resources
    available.
        While law enforcement officers and staff do their best, we still
    have rising crime patterns on the reservation. Uniform Crime Reporting
    data from the BIA shows an alarming trend regarding crime--aggravated
    assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft and forcible or attempted rape
    have all shown significant increases over the three most recent years
    for which data is available. There are significant drug and alcohol
    problems on the reservation, and the vast majority of crime we face is
    associated with substance abuse. We need to address these problems with
    more effective law enforcement, but also with substance abuse treatment
    programs, community healing resources, and a tribal judicial process
    that emphasizes the cultural importance of addressing these issues. All
    of this requires more robust funding.
        Tribal courts also need additional resources. At Standing Rock, our
    tribal court cannot carry out all the required criminal proceedings,
    let alone civil cases, with the small allocation of funds we receive
    from the BIA. The result is that the tribe has been forced to heavily
    subsidize our tribal court with tribal funds that are so desperately
    needed to address social programs and the ill effects of poverty
    suffered by our people. This is not a choice we should be forced to
    make. The President's budget includes additional funding under the
    Tiwahi Initiative to address alternatives to incarceration and tribal
    family courts. We urge the subcommittee's support.

        Healthcare.--In addition to public safety, our youth need proper
    healthcare to thrive. Many of our youth suffer from behavioral problems
    that result from the poverty and other adverse conditions they find in
    their communities. In the most extreme cases, this can lead to the
    ultimate tragedy of youth suicide--something that is all too prevalent
    in our communities and that must be addressed in a more comprehensive
    and culturally appropriate way. The President's budget calls for the
    IHS and SAMSHA to work together on a Tribal Behavioral Health
    Initiative for Native Youth. This important initiative would expand a
    Methamphetamine and Suicide Prevention Initiative, which has proven
    effect where it has been implemented. We urge the subcommittee to
    support full funding (a $25 million increase) for this initiative.
    Providing these services more broadly throughout Indian Country would
    be a compassionate and wise investment in the future of our youth.
        We also urge the subcommittee to support the proposed increase of
    $70 million in Purchased/Referred Care. At Standing Rock, the types of
    healthcare that can be provided on the reservation in our clinics are
    limited--and most healthcare must be secured off the reservation. Each
    year, many of our tribal members are forced to go without needed
    healthcare services because Purchased/Referred Care funds are depleted
    before the fiscal year ends. Whether our tribal members receive the
    health services they so desperately need should not depend upon the
    time of year when those services are needed.

        Contract Support Costs.--We strongly support the President's
    proposal to establish a mandatory appropriation for the payment of
    contract support costs. These are funds that are promised to tribes in
    exercising self-determination, and they should no longer be the subject
    of annual shortfalls, appropriations struggles or litigation.
    Establishing a mandatory appropriation would alleviate a longstanding
    problem and assure fair treatment of the tribes.
        Thank you to the subcommittee for your work in addressing the needs
    of Indian Country.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Supporters of St. Vincent, National Wildlife
                                     Refuge
        Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee:

        On behalf of the Supporters of St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge
    and its membership of current and former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    (Service) professionals, Refuge Friends organizations and concerned
    citizens, thank you for your support for the National Wildlife Refuge
    System (NWRS), particularly for the funding increase for fiscal year
    2015. We appreciate the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal
    year 2016 Interior Appropriations bill and respectfully request:

      --$508.2 million for the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) accounts of
            the NWRS, including $5 million for the Pacific Marine
            Monuments;
      --$900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), with
            $173.8 million allocated for the FWS, including $10 million for
            Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area (Florida); $3
            million for Silvio O. Conte NFWR (Connecticut, New Hampshire,
            Vermont, Massachusetts); $3 million for Cache River NWR
            (Arizona); $3 million for Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area
            (Kansas); $2 million for Bear River Watershed Conservation Area
            (Wyoming, Idaho, Utah); $3.4 million for Blackwater NWR
            (Maryland); and $1 million for the Clarks River NWR (Kentucky);
      --$60 million for the Refuge Fund;
      --$75 million for the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program;
      --$14 million for the FWS Coastal Program;
      --$60 million for FWS for Preparedness and Hazardous Fuels Reduction
            (under DOI);
      --$70 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program;
      --$50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund;
      --$5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund;
      --$11 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund.

        We understand our Nation's challenging fiscal constraints but
    cutting funding to programs that are economic drivers and job creators
    in local communities only exacerbates an already difficult situation.
    For example, the NWRS averages almost $5 in economic return for every
    $1 appropriated and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program returns
    nearly $16 for every $1 spent on projects. Unfortunately, just when
    these public lands and programs could return economic output to
    communities and help them through the recession, funding fell
    dramatically. Budgets have not kept pace with rising costs, and the gap
    between the funding needed to maintain these programs and the funding
    appropriated has widened dramatically. The Refuge System is
    approximately $72 million below what would be needed to keep pace with
    inflation relative to the fiscal year 2010 level ($545.8 million
    inflation-adjusted).
        To begin bridging that gap, the Supporters of St. Vincent, NWR
    urges Congress to fund these critical programs that leverage Federal
    dollars and serve as economic drivers.
    National Wildlife Refuge System--Operations & Maintenance
        NWRA chairs the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE),
    a diverse coalition of 23 sporting, conservation, and scientific
    organizations representing more than 16 million Americans that supports
    increased funding for the Refuge System. CARE estimates the NWRS needs
    at least $900 million annually to manage its 150 million acres and over
    400 million acres of national marine monuments, yet it is currently
    funded at roughly half that amount--at less than $1 per acre. The
    Refuge System cannot fulfill its obligation to the American public, our
    wildlife, and 47 million annual visitors without increases in
    maintenance and operation funds.
        Funding for the Refuge System has declined substantially from a
    funding level of $503 million in fiscal year 2010 to its current $474.2
    million--$72 million below what it needs to keep pace with inflation.
    This has forced the Service to cut back on programs and create
    efficiencies whenever possible. Because of these hard decisions, the
    Service has cut their maintenance backlog in half from $2.7 billion to
    $1.3 billion. But budget cuts also led to the loss of 430 positions
    since fiscal year 2011 and thus an increase in the operations backlog,
    now at $735 million. Because most refuge lands and waters are highly
    managed, this deterioration in staffing has had a dramatic impact
    resulting in significant declines in habitat preservation and
    management, hunting, fishing, volunteerism and scientific research.
        For instance, visitor services staff has declined by 15 percent,
    forcing a reduction in public programs and hours of operation. Hunting
    visits are down by 5 percent since fiscal year 2011 and fishing visits
    are down 7 percent. Overall, there are fewer opportunities for the
    public to recreate, yet the desire for such programs is still high and
    visitation to all refuges since fiscal year 2011 has actually increased
    by 2.6 percent.
        Reductions in visitor services can be extremely troubling to
    constituencies who want to visit. Take the Midway Atoll NWR in the
    Hawaiian Islands. In November of 2013, due to sequestration cuts, the
    Service suspended the visitors services program at Midway. Although in
    the 5 years prior to this suspension, the refuge saw only about 300
    annual visitors, those visitors were passionate about their reasons for
    visiting. Perhaps they wanted to view the more than 3.5 million birds
    that call the refuge home, or perhaps they wanted to visit the Battle
    of Midway National Memorial to pay tribute to fallen U.S. soldiers from
    World War II. Whatever their reason, they wanted to have one of the
    most unique refuge experiences in the entire System. Congress has asked
    for a GAO investigation on why the Service suspended its program; yet
    it's clear that when you cut the budget and loose several positions
    including a permanent Wildlife Biologist, Park Ranger, and Law
    Enforcement Officer, there will be ramifications.
        Equally troubling is the 15 percent drop in the number of
    volunteers since fiscal year 2011. At a time when record numbers of
    Americans are retiring and have the capability to give back, the
    Service's ability to oversee their efforts has been curtailed.
    Volunteers provide an additional 20 percent of work on our national
    wildlife refuges, yet they are being turned away when the System needs
    them the most.
        During these years of challenging budgets, the Refuge System's
    potential to drive local economies and create jobs is of paramount
    importance. Banking On Nature, a report issued by the FWS in 2013,
    shows that even during the worst recession since the Great Depression,
    the Refuge System saw sales and economic output increase 20 percent to
    $2.4 billion, visitation increase 30 percent to 46.5 million, average
    return on investment increase 22 percent to $4.87 for every $1
    appropriated, and supported jobs increase 23 percent to 35,000.
    Strategic Growth
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is an essential tool
    for protecting the integrity of the Refuge System and is the primary
    funding source for land and conservation easement acquisition by
    Federal land agencies.
        Increasingly, LWCF is being used to conserve working lands through
    the acquisition of easements that secure conservation protection while
    leaving the land in private ownership and on the tax rolls.
    Conservation easements are powerful tools that foster public-private
    partnerships with ranchers, farmers and foresters to conserve wildlife,
    habitat and a uniquely American way of life. Innovative landscape-scale
    initiatives using easements as a primary conservation tool have broad
    community and State support in New England's Connecticut River
    Watershed, the Flint Hills of Kansas, the Everglades Headwaters,
    Montana's Crown of the Continent, and the Dakota Grasslands. These
    iconic landscapes remain privately managed, generating tax income for
    local communities, securing our Nation's food, and balancing resource
    use and resource protection for wildlife.
        In many cases, however, land acquisition is required to conserve
    intact and functional natural habitat. The Refuge System is responsible
    for safeguarding population levels of a range of species, including
    many species that require very specific habitat conditions, such as
    nesting grounds for sea turtle and isolated springs for endemic desert
    fish. Others require multiple habitat types during their life cycle. By
    acquiring critical habitat areas and linking conserved lands, the
    Refuge System enhances the overall integrity of the system and
    strengthens our network of habitat to give wildlife space and time to
    respond to changes, whether from climate or changing land use patterns.
        The Supporters of St. Vincent, NWR calls on Congress to fund LWCF
    at $900 million per year, with $173.8 million provided in fiscal year
    2016 to the FWS for conservation easements and refuge in-holdings,
    including the following projects and those advocated by refuge Friends:

      --Everglades Headwaters NWR & Conservation Area (Florida)--$10
            million;
      --Cache River NWR (Arizona)--$3 million;
      --Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
            Connecticut)--$3 million;
      --Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area (Kansas)--$3 million;
      --Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (Wyoming, Idaho, Utah)--$2
            million;
      --Blackwater NWR (Maryland)--$3.4 million;
      --Clarks River NWR (Kentucky)--$1 million.
    Commitment to Refuge Communities--Refuge Fund
        The Refuge System uses net income derived from permits and timber
    harvests to make payments to local communities to offset property tax
    revenue lost when the federally acquired lands are removed from local
    tax rolls, and relies on congressional appropriations to the Refuge
    Fund to compensate for the shortfall between revenues and tax
    replacement obligations. Unfortunately, declining revenues and lack of
    appropriations have resulted in the Service paying less than 50 percent
    of its tax-offset obligations since 2001. The negative impact on local
    communities is felt even more starkly in difficult economic times and
    severely strains relations between the Federal units and their local
    community, threatening the goodwill and partnerships that are keystones
    of successful conservation. Supporters of St. Vincent NWR request $60
    million for the Refuge Fund and thanks Chairman Calvert for his
    leadership in fiscal year 2015 to pursue a much-needed increase. We
    also call for a review of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935 as
    amended, and consideration of conversion to a Payment-in-Lieu of Taxes
    (PILT) program to be consistent with other Federal land management
    agencies and to provide Refuge communities with more equitable
    payments.
    Partnerships
        With 75 percent of all fish and wildlife species dependent upon
    private lands for their survival, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
    program (Partners Program) is one of the most powerful tools for
    protecting wildlife where it lives. By building effective partnerships
    between public agencies and private landowners to conserve America's
    expansive working landscapes, the Partners Program has implemented
    nearly 29,000 restoration projects in the past 25 years, restoring over
    1 million acres of wetlands, 3 million acres of uplands, and 11,000
    miles of streams. The program has been instrumental in the success of
    such iconic landscape conservation projects as the Rocky Mountain Front
    and Blackfoot Challenge in Montana and the Flint Hills in Kansas, and
    is playing a key role in conserving greater sage-grouse habitat in the
    intermountain west.
        The Partners program consistently leverages Federal dollars for
    conservation, generating nearly $16 in economic return for every $1
    appropriated for projects. The Refuge Association and the landowner-led
    Partners for Conservation request $75 million for fiscal year 2016.
    Such a funding level would result in an additional $400 million worth
    of conservation across the Nation.
        The Partners Program provides a bridge between private and public
    conservation efforts that has been instrumental in the success of large
    landscape partnerships from Montana to Florida, and is playing a key
    role in conserving greater sage-grouse habitat in the intermountain
    west. To this end, we request an additional $78 million for the
    Interior agencies to implement sagebrush steppe habitat conservation
    and monitoring efforts that will leverage $300 million in Department of
    Agriculture investments across the West.
    Sharing Lessons and Protecting Global Species
        Wildlife species know no international boundaries; therefore
    conservation must happen globally to ensure populations survive. Many
    international wildlife agencies look to the Refuge System as the world
    leader in wildlife and fish conservation. The Service's Wildlife
    Without Borders Program and Multinational Species Conservation Funds
    together support global partnerships to protect marine turtles, tigers
    and rhinos, great apes and elephants and other iconic species. These
    programs are particularly important as wildlife face a poaching crisis
    that is leading species such as rhinos to the brink of extinction. The
    Refuge Association and student-led Tigers 4 Tigers Coalition request
    $11 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund in fiscal
    year 2016.
        We believe that with sound conservation policy, adequate funding,
    and the power of more than 40,000 dedicated volunteers, the Refuge
    System can fulfill its mission to provide wildlife dependent recreation
    for Americans and protect the habitat for more than 700 species of
    birds, 220 species of mammals, 250 reptile and amphibian species and
    more than 1,000 species of fish. We look forward to working with
    Congress in 2015 to accomplish this goal.

        [This statement was submitted by Nancy Stuart, President.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Supporters of St. Vincent National Wildlife
                                     Refuge
        Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee:

        On behalf of the Supporters of St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge
    and its membership of current and former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    (Service) professionals, Refuge Friends organizations and concerned
    citizens, thank you for your support for the National Wildlife Refuge
    System (NWRS). We appreciate the opportunity to offer comments on the
    fiscal year 2016 Interior Appropriations bill and respectfully request:

      --$508.2 million for the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) accounts of
            the NWRS, including $5 million for the Pacific Marine
            Monuments;
      --$900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), with
            $173.8 million allocated for the FWS, including $10 million for
            Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area (Florida); $3
            million for Silvio O. Conte NFWR (Connecticut, New Hampshire,
            Vermont, Massachusetts); $3 million for Cache River NWR
            (Arizona); $3 million for Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area
            (Kansas); $2 million for Bear River Watershed Conservation Area
            (Wyoming, Idaho, Utah); $3.4 million for Blackwater NWR
            (Maryland); and $1 million for the Clarks River NWR (Kentucky);
      --$60 million for the Refuge Fund;
      --$75 million for the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program;
      --$14 million for the FWS Coastal Program;
      --$60 million for FWS for Preparedness and Hazardous Fuels Reduction
            (under DOI);
      --$70 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program;
      --$50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund;
      --$5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund;
      --$11 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund.

        We understand our Nation's challenging fiscal constraints but
    cutting funding to programs that are economic drivers and job creators
    in local communities only exacerbates an already difficult situation.
    For example, the NWRS averages almost $5 in economic return for every
    $1 appropriated and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program returns
    nearly $16 for every $1 spent on projects. Unfortunately, just when
    these public lands and programs could return economic output to
    communities and help them through the recession, funding fell
    dramatically. Budgets have not kept pace with rising costs, and the gap
    between the funding needed to maintain these programs and the funding
    appropriated has widened dramatically. The Refuge System is
    approximately $72 million below what would be needed to keep pace with
    inflation relative to the fiscal year 2010 level ($545.8 million
    inflation-adjusted).
        To begin bridging that gap, the Supporters of St. Vincent NWR urges
    Congress to fund these critical programs that leverage Federal dollars
    and serve as economic drivers.
    National Wildlife Refuge System--Operations & Maintenance
        NWRA chairs the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE),
    a diverse coalition of 23 sporting, conservation, and scientific
    organizations representing more than 16 million Americans that supports
    increased funding for the Refuge System. CARE estimates the NWRS needs
    at least $900 million annually to manage its 150 million acres and over
    400 million acres of national marine monuments, yet it is currently
    funded at roughly half that amount--at less than $1 per acre. The
    Refuge System cannot fulfill its obligation to the American public, our
    wildlife, and 47 million annual visitors without increases in
    maintenance and operation funds.
        Funding for the Refuge System has declined substantially from a
    funding level of $503 million in fiscal year 2010 to its current $474.2
    million--$72 million below what it needs to keep pace with inflation.
    This has forced the Service to cut back on programs and create
    efficiencies whenever possible. Because of these hard decisions, the
    Service has cut their maintenance backlog in half from $2.7 billion to
    $1.3 billion. But budget cuts also led to the loss of 430 positions
    since fiscal year 2011 and thus an increase in the operations backlog,
    now at $735 million. Because most refuge lands and waters are highly
    managed, this deterioration in staffing has had a dramatic impact
    resulting in significant declines in habitat preservation and
    management, hunting, fishing, volunteerism and scientific research.
        For instance, visitor services staff has declined by 15 percent,
    forcing a reduction in public programs and hours of operation. Hunting
    visits are down by 5 percent since fiscal year 2011 and fishing visits
    are down 7 percent. Overall, there are fewer opportunities for the
    public to recreate, yet the desire for such programs is still high and
    visitation to all refuges since fiscal year 2011 has actually increased
    by 2.6 percent.
        Reductions in visitor services can be extremely troubling to
    constituencies who want to visit. Take the Midway Atoll NWR in the
    Hawaiian Islands. In November of 2013, due to sequestration cuts, the
    Service suspended the visitors services program at Midway. Although in
    the 5 years prior to this suspension, the refuge saw only about 300
    annual visitors, those visitors were passionate about their reasons for
    visiting. Perhaps they wanted to view the more than 3.5 million birds
    that call the refuge home, or perhaps they wanted to visit the Battle
    of Midway National Memorial to pay tribute to fallen U.S. soldiers from
    World War II. Whatever their reason, they wanted to have one of the
    most unique refuge experiences in the entire System. Congress has asked
    for a GAO investigation on why the Service suspended its program; yet
    it's clear that when you cut the budget and loose several positions
    including a permanent Wildlife Biologist, Park Ranger, and Law
    Enforcement Officer, there will be ramifications.
        Equally troubling is the 15 percent drop in the number of
    volunteers since fiscal year 2011. At a time when record numbers of
    Americans are retiring and have the capability to give back, the
    Service's ability to oversee their efforts has been curtailed.
    Volunteers provide an additional 20 percent of work on our national
    wildlife refuges, yet they are being turned away when the System needs
    them the most.
        During these years of challenging budgets, the Refuge System's
    potential to drive local economies and create jobs is of paramount
    importance. Banking On Nature, a report issued by the FWS in 2013,
    shows that even during the worst recession since the Great Depression,
    the Refuge System saw sales and economic output increase 20 percent to
    $2.4 billion, visitation increase 30 percent to 46.5 million, average
    return on investment increase 22 percent to $4.87 for every $1
    appropriated, and supported jobs increase 23 percent to 35,000.
    Strategic Growth
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is an essential tool
    for protecting the integrity of the Refuge System and is the primary
    funding source for land and conservation easement acquisition by
    Federal land agencies.
        Increasingly, LWCF is being used to conserve working lands through
    the acquisition of easements that secure conservation protection while
    leaving the land in private ownership and on the tax rolls.
    Conservation easements are powerful tools that foster public-private
    partnerships with ranchers, farmers and foresters to conserve wildlife,
    habitat and a uniquely American way of life. Innovative landscape-scale
    initiatives using easements as a primary conservation tool have broad
    community and State support in New England's Connecticut River
    Watershed, the Flint Hills of Kansas, the Everglades Headwaters,
    Montana's Crown of the Continent, and the Dakota Grasslands. These
    iconic landscapes remain privately managed, generating tax income for
    local communities, securing our Nation's food, and balancing resource
    use and resource protection for wildlife.
        In many cases, however, land acquisition is required to conserve
    intact and functional natural habitat. The Refuge System is responsible
    for safeguarding population levels of a range of species, including
    many species that require very specific habitat conditions, such as
    nesting grounds for sea turtle and isolated springs for endemic desert
    fish. Others require multiple habitat types during their life cycle. By
    acquiring critical habitat areas and linking conserved lands, the
    Refuge System enhances the overall integrity of the system and
    strengthens our network of habitat to give wildlife space and time to
    respond to changes, whether from climate or changing land use patterns.
        The Supporters of St. Vincent, NWR calls on Congress to fund LWCF
    at $900 million per year, with $173.8 million provided in fiscal year
    2016 to the FWS for conservation easements and refuge in-holdings,
    including the following projects and those advocated by refuge Friends:

      --Everglades Headwaters NWR & Conservation Area (Florida)--$10
            million;
      --Cache River NWR (Arizona)--$3 million;
      --Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
            Connecticut)--$3 million;
      --Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area (Kansas)--$3 million;
      --Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (Wyoming, Idaho, Utah)--$2
            million;
      --Blackwater NWR (Maryland)--$3.4 million;
      --Clarks River NWR (Kentucky)--$1 million.

    Commitment to Refuge Communities--Refuge Fund
        The Refuge System uses net income derived from permits and timber
    harvests to make payments to local communities to offset property tax
    revenue lost when the federally acquired lands are removed from local
    tax rolls, and relies on congressional appropriations to the Refuge
    Fund to compensate for the shortfall between revenues and tax
    replacement obligations. Unfortunately, declining revenues and lack of
    appropriations have resulted in the Service paying less than 50 percent
    of its tax-offset obligations since 2001. The negative impact on local
    communities is felt even more starkly in difficult economic times and
    severely strains relations between the Federal units and their local
    community, threatening the goodwill and partnerships that are keystones
    of successful conservation. Supporters of St. Vincent NWR request $60
    million for the Refuge Fund and thanks Chairman Calvert for his
    leadership in fiscal year 2015 to pursue a much-needed increase. We
    also call for a review of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935 as
    amended, and consideration of conversion to a Payment-in-Lieu of Taxes
    (PILT) program to be consistent with other Federal land management
    agencies and to provide Refuge communities with more equitable
    payments.
    Partnerships
        With 75 percent of all fish and wildlife species dependent upon
    private lands for their survival, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
    program (Partners Program) is one of the most powerful tools for
    protecting wildlife where it lives. By building effective partnerships
    between public agencies and private landowners to conserve America's
    expansive working landscapes, the Partners Program has implemented
    nearly 29,000 restoration projects in the past 25 years, restoring over
    1 million acres of wetlands, 3 million acres of uplands, and 11,000
    miles of streams. The program has been instrumental in the success of
    such iconic landscape conservation projects as the Rocky Mountain Front
    and Blackfoot Challenge in Montana and the Flint Hills in Kansas, and
    is playing a key role in conserving greater sage-grouse habitat in the
    intermountain west.
        The Partners program consistently leverages Federal dollars for
    conservation, generating nearly $16 in economic return for every $1
    appropriated for projects. The Refuge Association and the landowner-led
    Partners for Conservation request $75 million for fiscal year 2016.
    Such a funding level would result in an additional $400 million worth
    of conservation across the Nation.
        The Partners Program provides a bridge between private and public
    conservation efforts that has been instrumental in the success of large
    landscape partnerships from Montana to Florida, and is playing a key
    role in conserving greater sage-grouse habitat in the intermountain
    west. To this end, we request an additional $78 million for the
    Interior agencies to implement sagebrush steppe habitat conservation
    and monitoring efforts that will leverage $300 million in Department of
    Agriculture investments across the West.
    Sharing Lessons and Protecting Global Species
        Wildlife species know no international boundaries; therefore
    conservation must happen globally to ensure populations survive. Many
    international wildlife agencies look to the Refuge System as the world
    leader in wildlife and fish conservation. The Service's Wildlife
    Without Borders Program and Multinational Species Conservation Funds
    together support global partnerships to protect marine turtles, tigers
    and rhinos, great apes and elephants and other iconic species. These
    programs are particularly important as wildlife face a poaching crisis
    that is leading species such as rhinos to the brink of extinction. The
    Refuge Association and student-led Tigers 4 Tigers Coalition request
    $11 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund in fiscal
    year 2016.
        We believe that with sound conservation policy, adequate funding,
    and the power of more than 40,000 dedicated volunteers, the Refuge
    System can fulfill its mission to provide wildlife dependent recreation
    for Americans and protect the habitat for more than 700 species of
    birds, 220 species of mammals, 250 reptile and amphibian species and
    more than 1,000 species of fish.

        [This statement was submitted by Lisa Johnston, Port St. Joe,
    Florida.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Supporters of St. Vincent National Wildlife
                                 Reserve (NWR)
        Dear subcommittee members,

        I am writing to you as a board member of the Supporters and as a
    concerned citizen. I strongly urge you to not take steps to reduce the
    funding to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. This agency has seen
    severe budget cuts in the years past and their future is not looking so
    bright at this moment. This agency works very hard to promote and
    maintain our Nation's natural treasures. If it were not for a dedicated
    group of volunteers, USFWS would not even come close to accomplishing
    their mission. Staff reductions, budget cuts, etc. have had a profound
    negative effect on the activities and opportunities that this agency
    provides to our citizens.
        The following is an example of what budget cuts have meant to us on
    a local level. St. Vincent NWR consists mainly of a pristine,
    uninhabited barrier island on the Gulf coast of the Florida panhandle.
    The island is approximately 13,000 acres in size. In essence, budget
    cuts have resulted in only two USFWS employees attempting to maintain
    and manage this large piece of real estate. There is one other USFWS
    employee affiliated with the refuge, but this person mainly attends to
    administrative duties on the mainland. St. Vincent NWR is just one
    example of the results of reduced funding.
        For the sake of maintaining our national treasures and giving our
    citizens the opportunities they deserve, please do not reduce funding
    to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service! Thank you for your consideration
    of my request.

        [This statement was submitted by Landy Luther, Board Member.]
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Tanana Chiefs Conference
        It is a pleasure to be back to share the Tanana Chiefs Conference's
    (TCC) priorities with this subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity
    to be here.
        TCC is a non-profit intertribal consortium of 39 federally
    recognized tribes located across Alaska's vast interior. TCC serves
    approximately 13,000 Native American people in Fairbanks and the
    surrounding rural villages. Our traditional territory and current
    service area occupy a mostly roadless region that is nearly the size of
    Texas. It stretches from Fairbanks clear up to the Brooks Range and
    over to the Canadian border.
        Remoteness poses many challenges, but I can assure you TCC meets
    those challenges every day. When I testified last year, I had just
    recently been elected president of TCC. The more I understand every
    aspect of TCC's work, the more I am impressed with what TCC
    accomplishes every day. Recently, our full board of directors met to
    develop a new 5-year strategic plan. In the coming years, our highest
    priorities will include substantially expanding medical care and public
    safety services, a new emphasis on wellness and prevention, oversight
    of fish and game management, ensuring responsible economic development,
    and increasing employment in the villages. We welcome Congress's
    partnership to help us achieve these goals.
                             contract support costs
        It has long been known that TCC provides far better services to our
    communities than the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) or Indian Health
    Service (IHS) ever could. Consequently, TCC contracts programs from
    both the BIA and IHS. Our ability to maximize the results of our self-
    governance and run robust programs depends on our receiving full
    contract support costs (CSC) to support these programs.
        In the past couple of years, significant strides have been made in
    this area, and thanks in large part to this subcommittee we are now in
    an era of full funding. We were delighted that the President's budget
    estimate for CSC is a very good one. An accurate projection will help
    ensure that neither the BIA nor IHS feel compelled to redirect program
    funding to pay for CSC. An accurate CSC estimate is the best way to
    avoid the unfortunate reprogramming actions which occurred last year.
        We are very encouraged by the President's proposal to make CSC
    mandatory, though we are disappointed that the request is only for 3
    years. CSC funding should be a permanent mandatory appropriation. These
    funds must be added to any contracted program dollars, and making it a
    permanent mandatory appropriation will end all future efforts by either
    Agency to avoid funding these required costs. Litigation will be over
    and certainty will be the order of the day. Such a scheme will allow
    TCC and the BIA and IHS to focus on the important work of providing
    healthcare services, public safety services, and the myriad of other
    services we provide in our communities. We therefore hope that the
    subcommittee members will support a permanent mandatory appropriation
    for CSC.
        Finally, we ask that the subcommittee direct IHS to finalize CSC
    payments within 60 days of the close of the contract year. IHS recently
    developed a scheme to continue reconciling CSC payments for up to 5
    years. This ridiculous plan is not only unnecessary; it will also
    divert scarce resources away from service delivery. This will benefit
    neither IHS nor the tribal organizations, and we therefore ask that the
    subcommittee intervene to stop IHS from pursuing its current plan. All
    our other grants are closed out monthly; why should IHS and BIA compact
    funds be any different?
                                   ihs budget
        TCC was very pleased to see that the President's budget contains a
    9 percent increase over 2015 enacted levels. These additional funds are
    vital to addressing the critical need for medical services for Native
    Alaskans and we hope the subcommittee is able to find the funds to meet
    these targets.
        Similarly, TCC is happy to report that $70 million of those
    increases are targeted to Purchased and Referred Care (PRC). These
    funds are used to buy healthcare when a tribal organization or IHS
    cannot provide the services. As we reported to you last year, the
    demand on PRC dollars has increased as healthcare costs, especially
    provider fees, have increased. The increase this year will provide $44
    million for inflation and $25 million for program increases. These
    dollars will provide much needed relief to PRC programs across the
    country and especially for TCC.
        But TCC was disappointed to see that the President's budget
    contains no increase for the Domestic Violence and Prevention
    Initiative (DVPI). These funds support efforts to reduce the incidence
    of domestic violence, which affects Native Alaskan women at a much
    higher rate than other populations. The statistics are not new. The
    Indian Law and Order Commission's report made clear just how bad the
    situation was: Women in tribal villages and Native communities in
    Alaska report rates of domestic violence up to 10 times higher than in
    the rest of the United States. Physical assault victimizations rates
    are 12 times higher.
        TCC is encouraged that the President requested additional funding
    to combat domestic violence in the Department of Justice's budget, but
    in order to adequately address domestic violence in Native communities,
    the DVPI program funds also need to be increased. We must do more to
    help victims of domestic violence, and we need Congress's help to do
    so. We request that you add funds to this very successfully and
    urgently needed program.
                                   bia budget
        TCC was also pleased to see that the President's BIA budget is also
    higher than the enacted 2015 levels--12 percent higher in fact. This
    increase is desperately needed to address the effect of years of flat
    budgets. Again, we hope this subcommittee will be able to fund these
    increases.
        Two of these increases came in programs that TCC highlighted last
    year as requiring additional funding: Probate in Trust and Rights
    Protection. Probate in Trust would receive a 7.3 percent increase, and
    this will help TCC keep the process of estate distribution flowing
    smoothly. This, in turn, is important for ensuring residents of our
    communities are able to use their land--whether for a home or other
    endeavors. This promotes self sufficiency in our communities. The
    Rights Protection program would receive a 13.3 percent increase. This
    program provides support to tribes in defending their trust land (such
    as allotments) and other trust resources through legal actions. Like
    the Probate in Trust program, this program is integral to protecting
    our ability to use our land. Both of these programs are acutely in need
    of additional funds and we therefore urge the subcommittee to fund the
    requested increases.
        TCC was disappointed to see that funding for the Environmental
    Quality line remains essentially flat. In fact, the .9 percent increase
    is not even enough to cover inflation and thus represents a decrease in
    the effectiveness of the current appropriation. As we reported to this
    subcommittee last year, these funds support archaeological
    investigation and approval that is required before any development is
    done on our lands. As such, these funds both help us develop our land
    resources responsibly while also making sure that our cultural
    resources are protected. The funding provided, however, is simply not
    enough to meet the demand for these services. We encourage the
    subcommittee to add funds to this program to help TCC responsibility
    develop our lands.
        TCC has recently embarked on a coordinated campaign to protect its
    subsistence resources. These resources provide not only critical
    nutritional value to our communities but also are important elements of
    our culture and traditions. We were pleased to see that the President's
    budget includes $40 million for Supporting Tribal Resilience in Indian
    Country. This program will allow tribes and tribal organizations to
    prepare for climate changes, which will impact our fish and wildlife
    services. Many of these impacts will hit Alaska especially hard, and we
    appreciate the additional funding to prepare for the challenges ahead.
    In particular, we appreciate the increase for the Tribal Management and
    Development Program, which allows tribes and tribal organizations to
    manage their own fish and wildlife resources.
        Finally, TCC remains committed to ensuring public safety in our
    communities. As the Indian Law and Order Commission's report made
    clear, there is a lot of work to be done to ensure public safety in
    Alaska's rural communities. Alaska is one of six States, called Public
    Law 280 States, in which jurisdiction over crimes in Native communities
    rests mainly with the States. The BIA doesn't have enough funding to go
    around and so it prioritizes funding public safety efforts in non
    Public Law 280 States on the assumption that Public Law 280 States are
    investing sufficiently in public safety and law enforcement in Native
    and rural communities. But this is simply not so. The Alaska Department
    of Public Safety, which has primary responsibility for providing law
    enforcement in rural Alaska, provides only 1.0 to 1.4 field officers
    for every one million acres. This means that at least 75 communities in
    Alaska lack any law enforcement presence at all. In most Alaska
    villages, the tribal courts are the only meaningful judicial voice for
    anything other than the most serious and violent of crimes.
        The President's budget moves in the right direction by providing
    $15 million in its Supporting Indian Families and Protecting Indian
    Country program. As part of this program, the President's budget
    requests $4 million for Law Enforcement Special Initiatives and $5
    million for tribal courts. While this is a good first step, TCC
    encourages this subcommittee to substantially increase these amounts
    for tribes in Public Law 280 States. In order to truly address the
    issue of public safety in Native communities, we must have additional
    resources.
           substance abuse and mental health services administration
        We also invite all members to support the Tribal Behavioral Health
    Grant Program. This program is administered by the Substance Abuse and
    Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) and would provide funds
    to tribal organizations to reduce the shocking rates of substance abuse
    and suicide in their communities. According to the Indian Law and Order
    Commission's report, Alaska Natives experience suicide at four times
    the national average, and suffer the highest rates of alcohol abuse.
    The Tribal Behavioral Health Grant Program will provide desperately
    needed funds to combat these problems.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on behalf of TCC.

        [This statement was submitted by Victor Joseph, President and
    Chairman.]
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Theatre Communications Group
        Ms. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, Theatre
    Communications Group--the national service organization for the
    American theatre--is grateful for this opportunity to submit testimony
    on behalf of our 493 not-for-profit member theatres across the country
    and the nearly 35 million audience members that the theatre community
    serves. We urge you to support funding at $155 million for the National
    Endowment for the Arts for fiscal year 2016.
        Indeed, the entire not-for-profit arts industry stimulates the
    economy, creates jobs and attracts tourism dollars. The not-for-profit
    arts generate $135.2 billion annually in economic activity, support
    4.13 million jobs and return $9.59 billion in Federal income taxes. Art
    museums, exhibits and festivals combine with performances of theatre,
    dance, opera and music to draw tourists and their consumer dollars to
    communities nationwide. Federal funding for the arts creates a
    significant return, generating many more dollars in matching funds for
    each Federal dollar awarded, and is clearly an investment in the
    economic health of America. In an uncertain economy where corporate
    donations and foundation grants to the arts are diminished, and
    increased ticket prices would undermine efforts to broaden and
    diversify audiences, these Federal funds simply cannot be replaced.
    Maintaining the strength of the not-for-profit sector, along with the
    commercial sector, will be vital to supporting the economic health of
    our Nation.
        Our country's not-for-profit theatres develop innovative
    educational activities and outreach programs, providing millions of
    young people, including ``at-risk'' youth, with important skills for
    the future by expanding their creativity and developing problem-
    solving, reasoning and communication abilities--preparing today's
    students to become tomorrow's citizens. Our theatres present new works
    and serve as catalysts for economic growth in their local communities.
    These theatres also nurture--and provide artistic homes for the
    development of--the current generation of acclaimed writers, actors,
    directors and designers working in regional theatre, on Broadway and in
    the film and television industries. At the same time, theatres have
    become increasingly responsive to their communities, serving as healing
    forces in difficult times, and producing work that reflects and
    celebrates the strength of our Nation's diversity.

        Here are some recent examples of NEA grants and their impact:

        Thanks to a $20,000 grant from the NEA, Perseverance Theatre (PT)
    in Douglas, Alaska, was able to present the world premiere production
    of ``Rush at Everlasting'' by Alaskan playwright Arlitia Jones. The
    play follows an unlikely pair of women as they plot a bank heist
    against the backdrop of the Great Depression. Presented first as part
    of the theater's mainstage season in Juneau, the production also
    transferred to Anchorage as part of the third full season of
    programming at the Alaska Center for the Performing Arts. Perseverance
    Theatre has grown into Alaska's largest professional theatre, serving
    over 17,000 artists, students and audiences annually. The theatre is
    also enhancing its education and training programs for youth and
    adults, providing learning opportunities on the Douglas stage and as
    the resident theatre at the University of Alaska Southeast.
    Perseverance is committed to engaging artistic work which speaks
    directly to the Alaskan experience. Perseverance was born as a
    grassroots organization, firmly planted in the community and State. PT
    occupies a unique place in the heart of Juneau's artistic, cultural and
    social life. The theatre is committed to developing artists,
    volunteers, audiences, and plays reflective of the Alaskan community,
    as part of living its mission. As programming continues in Anchorage,
    Perseverance is becoming a truly Alaskan regional theatre.
        With a $10,000 Arts Works grant from the NEA, Southern Rep will
    produce Boudin: The New Orleans Music Project. This project asks music
    lovers from all over the world ``How has New Orleans Music Saved Your
    Soul?'' The play's dedicated Web site, boudinmusicproject.com, features
    the answers to the prompt via photos, narratives, film and audio
    recordings. These first-hand stories will culminate in a funny,
    poignant and powerful theatre production that celebrates the music,
    art, magic and history of the city. Presented in partnership with
    esteemed WWOZ 90.7 FM Radio, Boudin is a mash-up of local visual art,
    storytelling, live New Orleans music and real stories. The NEA funding
    helps support the creation of this new work with 21 performances taking
    place during the city's historic Jazz Fest and it will be seen by up to
    3,000 audience members.
        Oregon Children's Theatre Company received a $10,000 grant from the
    NEA which enabled the theatre to present ``Timmy Failure: Mistakes Were
    Made,'' an adaptation by playwright Finegan Kruckemeyer of an
    illustrated comic novel by Stephan Pastis. The book tells the story of
    Timmy Failure, a bumbling hero, his lazy polar bear partner, and his
    detective agency--Total Failure, Inc. The stage adaptation includes
    multimedia technology. The set was designed for remounting in
    nontraditional spaces, to accommodate potential touring beyond the
    premiere. Oregon Children's Theatre's mission is to advance growth,
    development and creativity through exceptional theater experiences. The
    theatre does this by presenting professional live theater for youth at
    a price affordable to schools and families. By introducing young people
    to the wonders of live theater, OCT enriches lives today while helping
    children develop a lifetime appreciation for the arts. Oregon
    Children's Theatre's audience is comprised primarily of school groups
    from 17 Oregon and four Washington counties. School attendance averages
    more than 75,000 annually, with ticket prices ranging from $6-$8.
        Weston Playhouse Theatre in Weston, Vermont, was awarded a $20,000
    NEA grant to support a production of Annie Baker's adaptation of
    ``Uncle Vanya.'' The theatre also offered a series of engagement and
    learning opportunities, including a Teachers Workshop, performance and
    curriculum guides, director's talks and audience talkbacks. The
    production was a fresh take on a modern classic by Anton Chekhov and
    adapted by Annie Baker. For seven decades, in the heart of Vermont's
    Green Mountains, the Weston Playhouse Theatre Company has done the
    improbable--created and sustained an acclaimed professional theatre in
    a village of 550 people. Now, strengthened by its deep roots in Vermont
    and in the American theatre landscape, the Company is taking the most
    important step in its history: to create a nationally recognized center
    for the development of the theatre arts. The Campaign for the Weston
    Theatre will create an Incubator for the Theatre Arts in Weston--a
    place where playwrights, directors, composers and librettists will come
    to work on their new works in the quiet rural environment away from the
    distractions of the city. The Weston Playhouse is now an award-winning
    regional theatre nationally known for its multi-stage summer festival
    and its year-round Education and New Works Programs.
        These are only a few examples of the kinds of extraordinary
    programs supported by the National Endowment for the Arts. Indeed, the
    Endowment's Theatre Program is able to fund only 50 percent of the
    applications it receives, so 50 percent of the theatres are turned away
    because there aren't sufficient funds. Theatre Communications Group
    urges you to support a funding level of $155 million for fiscal year
    2016 for the NEA, to maintain citizen access to the cultural,
    educational and economic benefits of the arts, and to advance
    creativity and innovation in communities across the United States.
        The arts infrastructure of the United States is critical to the
    Nation's well-being and its economic vitality. It is supported by a
    remarkable combination of government, business, foundation and
    individual donors. It is a striking example of Federal/State/private
    partnership. Federal support for the arts provides a measure of
    stability for arts programs nationwide and is critical at a time when
    other sources of funding are diminished. Further, the American public
    favors spending Federal tax dollars in support of the arts. The NEA was
    funded at $146 million in the fiscal year 2015 budget; however, it has
    never recovered from a 40 percent budget cut in fiscal year 1996 and
    its programs are still under-funded. We urge the subcommittee to fund
    the NEA at a level of $155 million to preserve the important cultural
    programs reaching Americans across the country.
        Thank you for considering this request.

        [This statement was submitted by Laurie Baskin, Director of
    Research, Policy & Collective Action.]
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund
        Thank you Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall and the
    entire subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony in support
    of fiscal year 2016 funding for the Department of Interior Historic
    Preservation Fund (HPF). My name is Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., president
    and CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund (TMCF). The Thurgood
    Marshall College Fund supports and represents more than 300,000
    students attending the country's 47 publically supported Historically
    Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), medical schools and law
    schools. More than 80 percent of all students enrolled at HBCUs attend
    TMCF schools. TMCF was established in 1987 under the leadership of Dr.
    N. Joyce Payne.
        As you deliberate the Department of Interior fiscal year 2016
    budget, TMCF requests that the subcommittee preserve the original HBCU
    designated Historic Preservation Fund and restore this account to the
    fiscal year 2009 funding level. The HBCU Historic Preservation Fund
    account has not received funding under the regular appropriations
    process in several years. It was last funded in 2009 as part of the
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act at a level of $15 million.
        The administration's fiscal year 2016 budget proposal includes $90
    million for the National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund. Under
    this fund, $50 million is proposed for a Civil Rights initiative to
    preserve historic projects nationwide that are connected to the Civil
    Rights era and the African American experience. Unfortunately, a mere
    $2.5 million of the $50 million is designated for the HBCU Historic
    Preservation Fund.
        There are more than 100 HBCUs located primarily in the southeastern
    United States, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
    Many HBCUs are economically fragile and have less funding and fewer
    resources to address the critical rehabilitation needs of buildings on
    their campuses. The HBCU Historic Preservation Fund provides assistance
    to restore and rehabilitate structures on HBCU campuses considered to
    be the most historically significant and physically threatened. TMCF
    supports the effort to commemorate and preserve sites related to the
    Civil Rights era and African American heritage, and we request that the
    subcommittee simultaneously appropriate adequate funding for the HBCU
    Historic Preservation Fund to stabilize and revitalize our most
    precious assets on HBCU campuses.
        In the event that all funding is grouped together, TMCF strongly
    urges the subcommittee to allocate a minimum of $15 million as opposed
    to $2.5 million for HBCUs under this newly proposed focus on restoring
    sites connected to the Civil Rights era and the African American
    experience.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of The Trust for Public Land
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and distinguished members
    of the Interior Subcommittee:

        Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit testimony on
    behalf of The Trust for Public Land in support of programs under your
    jurisdiction for the fiscal year 2016 appropriations process. The Trust
    for Public Land (TPL) is a national nonprofit land conservation
    organization working to protect land for people in communities across
    the Nation. We are extremely grateful for the support members of this
    subcommittee and other conservation leaders in Congress have shown for
    Federal conservation programs during these challenging fiscal times. We
    recognize that the subcommittee will again face enormous challenges in
    meeting the broad range of priority needs in the Interior and
    Environment bill this year. Our work in many of your States and
    elsewhere around the country shows that there is tremendous support for
    conservation and access to recreation at the local, State and Federal
    level, and the programs under your jurisdiction play a critical role in
    bringing those community visions to reality. Thank you for your
    support.
        Federal funding is an absolutely critical part of the conservation
    toolbox and provides manifold benefits to the American people. Given
    the limited public conservation funding at all levels of government,
    TPL works to leverage Federal conservation dollars, bringing to bear
    private philanthropic support as well as State and local funding to
    forge solutions to sometimes complex conservation funding challenges.
    The major programs under your jurisdiction that we count on year in and
    year out are the entire suite of Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF) programs--including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS) and U.S.
    Forest Service (USFS) acquisitions, NPS State and local grants, the
    Forest Legacy Program, the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
    Fund and the American Battlefield Protection Program--as well as the
    USFWS North American Wetlands Conservation Act and the USFS Community
    Forest Program.
    Land and Water Conservation Fund
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) celebrated its 50th
    anniversary last year and is up for reauthorization this year. Over
    those 50 years, LWCF has been the cornerstone that sustains our Federal
    public lands heritage. Today, it remains a compelling and urgently
    needed program that we urge the subcommittee to strongly support. LWCF
    does not rely at all on taxpayer dollars. Instead, revenues generated
    from energy development and natural resource depletion are used for the
    protection of other natural resources such as parks, open space, and
    wildlife habitat for the benefit of current and future generations. We
    (and, polls show, most of America) believe it is both logical and
    necessary that this principle--using a small percentage of annual Outer
    Continental Shelf (OCS) receipts (which average over $6 billion) as a
    conservation offset--be fully honored.
        Investments in conservation and outdoor recreation make sound
    economic sense, too. The Outdoor Industry Association estimates that
    active outdoor recreation contributes $646 billion annually to the U.S.
    economy, supports nearly 6.1 million jobs across the country, and
    generates $39.9 billion in annual national tax revenue.
        For these and many other reasons we strongly support the fiscal
    year 2016 President's budget proposal to fully fund the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund at $900 million, with $400 million from discretionary
    sources and $500 million in mandatory funds, for the various component
    programs funded under LWCF. In the fiscal year 2016 bill, we
    respectfully request that you allocate at least $400 million in
    discretionary funding as the budget proposes to support essential
    community-based conservation and outdoor recreation needs. We recognize
    that the mandatory funding request requires additional legislative
    action, and we appreciate the support of the subcommittee as that
    process moves forward. Continued annual investment in the entire suite
    of LWCF programs as proposed in the budget is essential and we are
    ready to work with the subcommittee to ensure that dollars invested are
    well spent on our Nation's most urgent needs. We greatly appreciate the
    key role your subcommittee plays in ensuring that program dollars are
    used for high-priority strategic investments and appreciate that in
    challenging budgetary times you have maintained a commitment to this
    bipartisan program.
        We also support efforts to improve budgeting for forest fire
    management that will provide Federal agencies the means to fight fires
    without raiding other important Federal programs, like LWCF. We look
    forward to working with you to that end.

        LWCF's programs bring specific and complementary conservation
    benefits to the American public. These key programs are:

        BLM/FWS/NPS/USFS Land Acquisitions.--Every year tens of millions of
    Americans, as well as visitors to our country, enjoy our Federal public
    lands--national parks, forests, wildlife refuges and BLM conservation
    lands. Recent data shows that National Park Service units were visited
    by larger numbers than in the past 20 years. Strategic inholding and
    other acquisitions in these Federal areas through LWCF ensure
    recreation access and nature education; foster vital economic growth;
    protect clean water and other community resources; enhance the
    incomparable natural and scenic treasures that belong to all Americans;
    and frequently resolve complex land-use conflicts and produce
    management savings. Without adequate funding, the unfortunate
    alternative often is an irretrievable loss of public use and enjoyment
    of these areas and irreversible damage to the resources we all care
    about.
        This is precisely the choice for numerous outdoor recreation and
    natural resource protection projects budgeted in fiscal year 2016,
    including important recreation lands along the Rio Grande in New Mexico
    as part of the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument, and checkerboard
    properties in the Tahoe and Eldorado national forests in California.
    The Trust for Public Land is working in these and other areas
    identified in the President's budget and looks forward to working with
    the subcommittee as you consider these critical needs.
        U.S. Forest Service/Forest Legacy Program.--For 25 years, the
    Forest Legacy Program has been an extraordinarily effective program,
    providing assistance to States and localities seeking to preserve
    important working forests. It has protected nearly 2.5 million acres of
    forestland and has leveraged more than the required 25 percent match.
    For fiscal year 2016, the President's budget recommends projects that
    provide multiple public benefits through forest protection--clean
    water, wildlife protection, climate change adaptation and mitigation,
    public access to recreation, economic development and sustainable
    forestry. We urge your continued support for sustained investment in
    this strategic and successful program. Included in the fiscal year 2016
    budget proposal are numerous projects where TPL is working with States,
    landowners and other partners to protect recreation access for
    snowmobilers and hikers, ensure jobs in the woods, buffer important
    Federal and State conservation areas and provide strategic land
    conservation that fits a larger goal. Among these are the program's top
    priority project in Montana, which will protect the recreational
    access, a municipal water supply and critical wildlife habitat near
    Whitefish and Columbia Falls; a 1,533 acre property along East Moraine
    Wallowa Lake in Oregon; a 6,700 acre working forest project on the
    Olympic Peninsula along Puget Sound in Washington, and a 23,600 acre
    working forest project in Maine that represents 24 percent of the
    State's entire maple syrup production and about 4 percent of the entire
    national output.
        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Cooperative Endangered Species
    Conservation Fund.--We are grateful for the subcommittee's historic
    support for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grant programs, including
    the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF), which
    leverages State and private funds and has protected threatened and
    endangered species habitat across the Nation. The Habitat Conservation
    Plan (HCP) land acquisition program within CESCF has been critical to
    communities like Riverside County, California and Whitefish, Montana
    where landowners and public wildlife managers are working together
    through integrated HCP's to foster species recover and appropriate
    economic development. In TPL's work with these and other communities,
    we have seen how essential CESCF Federal cost-share dollars are to
    species conservation and local economies. The Recovery Land Acquisition
    (RLA) program under CESCF aids species where there is no HCP and where
    USFWS recovery plans lay out goals for Federal, State, local, and
    private, partners.
        National Park Service/State and Local Assistance grants.--Since
    1965, the State and local assistance grant program has provided over $4
    billion in Federal funds for more than 42,000 projects in States and
    local communities for park protection and development of recreation
    facilities. This program reaches deep into communities across our
    Nation, supporting citizen-led efforts to conserve places of local
    importance and opportunities for close-to-home recreation. As TPL
    continues our work with many of these communities to meet these needs,
    we hope the subcommittee will fully fund the administration's
    discretionary request for stateside grants and that a mandatory full-
    funding LWCF solution will provide much-needed additional funding for
    this important program. We also strongly support the allocation of a
    portion of LWCF State and local assistance funds to the nationwide
    competitive grants program--the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership
    Program--which was included in the fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year
    2015 omnibus appropriations bills at $3 million and is proposed in the
    President's fiscal year 2016 budget at $5 million. Through our Parks
    for People Program, The Trust for Public Land works with local
    communities to create, build, design, fund and care for parks, trails
    and playgrounds. At present, there is no other dedicated source of
    funding to support the desire by cities large and small, all across the
    country, to improve quality of life for their residents and support
    economic development. While $3 million is just a drop in the bucket
    compared to overall city park needs, we are deeply appreciative of the
    subcommittee's leadership in setting aside these funds and hope you
    will increase that level in fiscal year 2016. The first grant round
    generated substantial interest in communities across the Nation--we are
    a partner with Atlanta, Georgia; Bridgeport, Connecticut; and Denver,
    Colorado in using first-round grant funds--and we believe that this
    funding will leverage substantial non-Federal match and make a
    difference in communities across the Nation.
        National Park Service/American Battlefield Protection Program.--We
    applaud the subcommittee for its longstanding commitment to this
    important program, which complements acquisitions of threatened Civil
    War battlefield properties in national park units with non-Federal land
    protection of key sites from this critical moment in our Nation's
    history. Congress recently expanded the program to include protection
    of non-Federal Revolutionary War and War of 1812 battlefield sites, so
    the allocation of LWCF funds for the ABPP is needed more than ever. We
    are using ABPP funds at present to protect threatened properties on
    Missionary Ridge in Chattanooga, site of a critical Civil War battle.
        National Park Service/Urban Park and Recreation Fund.--The
    President's budget for fiscal year 2016 proposes $25 million in
    mandatory funding for the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program
    (UPARR). Funding UPARR in fiscal year 2016 would enable the National
    Park Service to issue competitive grants for improvements to parks and
    playgrounds in the neediest cities throughout the country. From 1978 to
    2002, UPARR grants assisted cities to make those improvements in 380
    communities in 43 States as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto
    Rico. Grants have gone to places as diverse as Providence, Rhode
    Island; San Francisco, California; Riverside County, California;
    Knoxville, Tennessee; Springfield, Missouri; Meridian, Mississippi; and
    Portland, Maine. The restoration of UPARR funding in the fiscal year
    2016 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill would be a sound
    investment in the health and well-being of our Nation's children.

        Beyond LWCF, we urge the subcommittee to provide adequate funding
    to other conservation programs including:

        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/North American Wetlands Conservation
    Act.--We respectfully request your support for program funding at the
    enacted and proposed level of $34.1 million in fiscal year 2016. The
    North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) provides much-needed
    matching grants to carry out wetlands conservation, restoration and
    enhancement projects. Our most recent grant through the NAWCA program
    will help ensure protection of a 215-acre property in the growing
    suburbs of Portland, Maine, including a 46 acre pond that provides
    habitat for waterfowl and migratory birds. NAWCA is a highly-leveraged
    program with a substantial record of success and is another important
    Federal conservation tool to support critical wetland habitat.
        U.S. Forest Service/Community Forest Program.--We urge your
    continued support for the Community Forest Program (CFP), which
    complements existing conservation programs by helping communities and
    tribes identify, purchase, and manage locally important forestlands
    that are threatened with development. These community forests can be
    tailored to local needs, from timber revenue for municipal or county
    budgets to recreation access and outdoor education. Every Federal
    dollar from CFP is evenly matched by funding from State, local, and
    private sources. The Forest Service has now approved 21 grants to
    innovative local and tribal projects that support local community
    needs--including in California, Kentucky, Montana, Oregon, and
    Vermont--and the program has generated significant interest from local
    entities concerned about the future of their close-to-home forests.
    Given the strong interest in community forests from coast to coast, we
    urge you to include $5 million in the fiscal year 2016 bill for this
    innovative local conservation tool.
        The programs highlighted here are critical to the future of
    conservation at the local, State and Federal levels; reflect the
    continued demand on the part of the American people for access to
    outdoor recreation; and help sustain our economy and reflect the true
    partnership that exists in Federal conservation efforts. As ever, we
    are deeply thankful for the subcommittee's recognition of the
    importance of these programs and urge you to maintain robust funding
    for them in the fiscal year 2016 Interior, Environment and Related
    Agencies bill. Thank you for your help and support, and for your
    consideration of our requests.

        [This statement was submitted by Kathy DeCoster, Vice President and
    Director of Federal Affairs.]
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of the USGS Coalition
                                    summary
        The USGS Coalition appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony
    about the fiscal year 2016 budget for the United States Geological
    Survey (USGS). The USGS Coalition supports the administration's budget
    request of $1.2 billion for the USGS. The requested funding would allow
    the agency to sustain current efforts and make strategic investments
    that will produce the knowledge and decision-support tools needed by
    decision-makers across the country.
        The USGS is uniquely positioned to provide information and inform
    responses to many of the Nation's greatest challenges. Few modern
    problems can be addressed by a single scientific discipline. The USGS
    is an agency that has a unique capacity to deploy truly
    interdisciplinary teams of experts to gather data, conduct research,
    and develop integrated decision support tools that improve ecosystem
    management, ensure accurate assessments of our water quality and
    quantity, reduce risks from natural and human-induced hazards, deliver
    timely assessments of mineral and energy resources, and provide
    emergency responders with accurate geospatial data and maps.
        The USGS Coalition is an alliance of over 70 organizations united
    by a commitment to the continued vitality of the United States
    Geological Survey to provide critical data and services. The Coalition
    supports increased Federal investment in USGS programs that underpin
    responsible natural resource stewardship, improve resilience to natural
    and human-induced hazards, and contribute to the long-term health,
    security, and prosperity of the Nation.
                       essential services for the nation
        Established by Congress as a branch of the Department of the
    Interior in 1879, the United States Geological Survey has a national
    mission that extends beyond the boundaries of the Nation's public lands
    to positively impact the lives of all Americans. The agency plays a
    crucial role in protecting the public from natural hazards, assessing
    water quality and quantity, providing geospatial data, and conducting
    the science necessary to manage our Nation's biological, mineral, and
    energy resources. Through its offices across the country, the USGS
    works with partners to provide high-quality research and data to
    policymakers, emergency responders, natural resource managers, civil
    and environmental engineers, educators, and the public. A few examples
    of the USGS' valuable work are provided below.
        The Survey collects scientific information on water availability
    and quality to inform the public and decision makers about the status
    of freshwater resources and how they are changing over time. During the
    past 130 years, the USGS has collected streamflow data at over 21,000
    sites, water-level data at over 1,000,000 wells, and chemical data at
    over 338,000 surface-water and groundwater sites. This information is
    needed to effectively manage freshwaters--both above and below the land
    surface--for domestic, public, agricultural, commercial, industrial,
    recreational, and ecological purposes.
        The USGS plays an important role in reducing risks from floods,
    wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and
    other natural hazards that jeopardize human lives and cost billions of
    dollars in damages every year. Seismic networks and hazard analysis are
    used to formulate earthquake probabilities and to establish building
    codes. USGS monitors volcanoes and provides warnings about impending
    eruptions that are used by aviation officials to prevent planes from
    flying into volcanic ash clouds. Data from the USGS network of stream
    gages enable the National Weather Service to issue flood and drought
    warnings. The bureau and its Federal partners monitor seasonal
    wildfires and provide maps of current fire locations and the potential
    spread of fires. USGS research on ecosystem structure informs fire risk
    forecasts.
        USGS assessments of mineral and energy resources--including rare
    earth elements, coal, oil, unconventional natural gas, and geothermal--
    are essential for making decisions about the Nation's future. The
    Survey identifies the location and quantity of domestic mineral and
    energy resources, and assesses the economic and environmental effects
    of resource extraction and use. The agency is mapping domestic supplies
    of rare earth elements necessary for widespread deployment of new
    energy technologies, which can reduce dependence on foreign oil. The
    USGS is the sole Federal source of information on mineral potential,
    production, and consumption.
        USGS science plays a critical role in informing sound management of
    natural resources on Federal and State lands. The USGS conducts
    research and monitoring of fish, wildlife, and vegetation--data that
    informs management decisions by other Interior bureaus regarding
    protected species and land use. Ecosystems science is also used to
    control invasive species and wildlife diseases that can cause billions
    of dollars in economic losses. The Survey provides information for
    resource managers as they develop adaptive management strategies for
    restoration and long-term use of the Nation's natural resources in the
    face of environmental change.
        Research conducted by the USGS is vital to predicting the impacts
    of land use and climate change on water resources, wildfires, and
    ecosystems. The Landsat satellites have collected the largest archive
    of remotely sensed land data in the world, allowing for access to
    current and historical images that are used to assess the impact of
    natural disasters and monitor global agriculture production. The USGS
    also assesses the Nation's potential for carbon sequestration. Other
    Interior bureaus use USGS research on how climate variability affects
    fish, wildlife, and ecological processes to inform natural resource
    management decisions.
                                    funding
        Over the years, Congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion to
    provide essential funding to the USGS. These efforts have paid
    dividends and helped the USGS provide answers to the challenging
    questions facing decision-makers across the country.
        Through careful management and deferring staff travel and training,
    the USGS has survived the recent budget cuts resulting from
    sequestration. Staff training and participation in scientific meetings,
    however, are necessary investments that help USGS maintain its
    technical capacity. It is through exchanges at scientific meetings and
    workshops that new ideas emerge and scientific analyses are shared,
    challenged by colleagues, and honed prior to submitting research for
    publication in peer-reviewed journals. We encourage Congress to work
    with the USGS to ensure that scientists are able to fully participate
    in scientific meetings.
        As a science agency, much of the USGS budget is dedicated to
    salaries and equipment that must be maintained and updated to ensure
    the continuity of data acquisition and that the data gathered are
    reliable and available for future scientific investigations. We believe
    that the leadership of the USGS is doing all it can, and has been for a
    number of years, to contain costs while continuing to deliver high
    quality science.
                                   conclusion
        We recognize the financial challenges facing the Nation, but losing
    irreplaceable data can increase costs to society today and in the
    future. Data not collected and analyzed today is data lost forever.
    This is particularly significant for environmental monitoring systems,
    where the loss of a year's data can limit the scope and reliability of
    long-term dataset analysis. The USGS Coalition requests that Congress
    work to provide $1.2 billion for fiscal year 2016.
        The USGS Coalition appreciates the subcommittee's past leadership
    in strengthening the United States Geological Survey. Thank you for
    your thoughtful consideration of this request.

        [This statement was submitted by Dr. Robert Gropp, Chairman.]
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Pacific Salmon Commission
        Mr. Chairman, and honorable members of the subcommittee, I am Ron
    Allen, the tribal commissioner and chair for the U.S. Section of the
    Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC). The U.S. Section prepares an annual
    budget for implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The integrated
    budget details program needs and costs for tribal, Federal, and State
    agencies involved in the treaty. Tribal participation in the treaty
    process is funded in the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget.

            In order meet the increased obligations under the 2009-2018
            Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement the 25 affected tribes
            identified costs at $4,800,000 for tribal research projects and
            participation in the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty process,
            an increase of $520,000 over fiscal year 2015 enacted level.
            The funding for tribal participation in the Pacific Salmon
            Treaty is a line item in the BIA's budget under Rights
            Protection Implementation.

        Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service programs, the U.S. Section
    identified needs as follows:

            USFWS participation in the treaty process is funded at $379,919
            for fiscal year 2015. The Pacific States Marine Fisheries
            Commission's Regional Mark Center (PSMFC) receives support from
            the USFWS to provide data services to the PSC process at a
            level of $225,435 for fiscal year 2015. The total for the two
            programs is $605,354. This represents a decrease from fiscal
            year 2010 levels, which were $417,673 for USFWS and $315,000
            for PSMFC, resulting in total of $732,673. The U.S. Section
            recommends restoring both programs to previous funding levels,
            which is an increase of $127,319. This funding level allows the
            Mark Center to maintain the same level of service to the U.S.
            Section.

        This base funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports
    critically important on-going work. The funding for Pacific States
    Marine Fisheries Commission's Regional Mark Center is utilized to meet
    treaty requirements concerning data exchange with Canada. These program
    recommendations are integrated with those of the State and Federal
    agencies to avoid duplication of effort and provide for the most
    efficient expenditure of scarce funds.
        Funding to support activities under the Pacific Salmon Commission
    comes from the Departments of Interior, State, and Commerce. The U.S.
    Section will provide a cross-cut budget summary to the subcommittee.
    Adequate funding from all three Departments is necessary for the U.S.
    to meet its treaty obligations. All of the funds are needed for
    critical data collection and research activities directly related to
    the implementation and are used in cooperative programs involving
    Federal, State, and tribal fishery agencies and the Department of
    Fisheries in Canada. The commitment of the United States is matched by
    the commitment of the Government of Canada.
        The U.S. Section of the PSC is recommending an adjustment to
    support the work carried out by the 24 treaty tribes' that participate
    in the implementation of the treaty. Programs carried out by the tribes
    are closely coordinated with those of the States and Federal agencies.
    Tribal programs are essential for the United States to meet its
    international obligations. Tribal programs have taken on additional
    management responsibilities due to funding issues with State agencies.
    All participating agencies need to be adequately supported to achieve a
    comprehensive U.S. effort to implement the treaty.
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service activities are necessary so the
    U.S. can maintain the critical database to implement the treaty. The
    work of the Regional Mark Processing Center includes maintaining and
    updating a coastwide computerized information management system for
    salmon harvest and catch effort data as required by the treaty. This
    work has become even more important to monitor the success of
    management actions at reducing impacts on ESA-listed salmon
    populations. Canada has a counterpart database. The U.S. database will
    continue to be housed at the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
    Commission.
        Mr. Chairman, the United States and Canada established the Pacific
    Salmon Commission, under the Pacific Salmon Treaty of 1985, to conserve
    salmon stocks, provide for optimum production of salmon, and to control
    salmon interceptions. After more than 20 years, the work of the Pacific
    Salmon Commission continues to be essential for the wise management of
    salmon in the Northwest, British Columbia, and Alaska. For example,
    upriver bright fall Chinook salmon from the Hanford Reach of the
    Columbia River are caught in large numbers in Alaskan and Canadian
    waters. Tribal and non-tribal fishermen harvest sockeye salmon from
    Canada's Fraser River in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and in Puget Sound.
    Canadian trollers off of the west coast of Vancouver Island catch
    Washington coastal Coho salmon and Puget Sound Chinook salmon. In the
    Northern Boundary area between Canada and Alaska, fish from both
    countries are intercepted by the other country in large numbers. The
    Commission provides a forum to ensure cooperative management of salmon
    populations. In 2008, the U.S. and Canada successfully concluded
    lengthy negotiations to improve this management, including the
    adjustments to the coastwide abundance-based management regime for
    Chinook salmon and a framework for abundance based management for
    southern Coho populations. The agreement is intended to last through
    2018. The U.S. and Canada completed a revised Fraser River sockeye and
    pink chapter in 2013. The U.S. and Canada are preparing to negotiate
    revisions to the current agreements. Based on past experience, the
    negotiation process will require additional meetings to reach a
    successful conclusion. It is important to have adequate resources for
    U.S. participants to negotiate the best outcome.
        Before the treaty, fish wars often erupted with one or both
    countries overharvesting fish that were returning to the other country,
    to the detriment of the resource. At the time the treaty was signed,
    Chinook salmon were in a severely depressed state as a result of
    overharvest in the ocean as well as environmental degradation in the
    spawning rivers. Under the treaty, both countries committed to rebuild
    the depressed runs of Chinook stocks, and they recommitted to that goal
    in 1999 when adopting a coastwide abundance based approach to harvest
    management. Under this approach, harvest management will complement
    habitat conservation and restoration activities being undertaken by the
    States, tribes, and other stakeholders in the Pacific Northwest to
    address the needs of salmon listed for protection under the Endangered
    Species Act. The 2008 Chinook agreement continues these commitments.
    The combination of these efforts is integral to achieving success in
    rebuilding and restoring healthy, sustainable salmon populations.
        Finally, you should take into account the fact that the value of
    the commercial harvest of salmon subject to the treaty, managed at
    productive levels under the treaty, supports the infrastructure of many
    coastal and inland communities. The value of the recreational
    fisheries, and the economic diversity they provide for local economies
    throughout the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, is also immense. The value
    of these fish to the 24 treaty tribes in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho
    goes far beyond their monetary value, to the cultural and religious
    lives of Indian people. A significant monetary investment is focused on
    salmon as a result of listings of Pacific Northwest salmon populations
    under the Endangered Species Act. Given the resources, we can continue
    to use the Pacific Salmon Commission to develop recommendations that
    help to ensure solutions that minimize impacts on listed stocks,
    especially if we are allowed to work towards the true intent of the
    treaty: mutually beneficial enhancement of the shared resource.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my written testimony submitted for
    consideration by your subcommittee. I want to thank the subcommittee
    for the support that it has given the U.S. Section in the past. Please
    feel free to contact me or other members of the U.S. Section to answer
    any questions you or subcommittee members may have regarding the U.S.
    Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission budget.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the United Tribes Technical College
        United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) has for 46 years, and with
    the most basic of funding, provided postsecondary career and technical
    education and family services to some of the most impoverished high
    risk Indian students from throughout the Nation. Despite such
    challenges we have consistently had excellent retention and placement
    rates and are a fully accredited institution. We are proud to be
    preparing our students to participate in the new energy economy in
    North Dakota and to be part of building a strong middle class in Indian
    Country by training the next generation of law enforcement officers,
    educators, medical providers, and administrators. We are governed by
    the five tribes located wholly or in part in North Dakota. We are not
    part of the North Dakota State college system and do not have a tax
    base or State-appropriated funds on which to rely. The requests of the
    UTTC Board for the fiscal year 2016 Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)/
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are:

      --$6.8 million in BIE funding for our Indian Self-Determination Act
            contract which is in the Tribal Technical Colleges BIE line
            item and is $2.2 million over the administration's request for
            UTTC.
      --One-time BIE funding to forward fund United Tribes Technical
            College and the few other tribal colleges who are not forward
            funded, estimated at $22 million for five institutions.
      --Place contract supports costs on a mandatory funded basis and
            provide full funding for administrative costs grants for
            tribally operated elementary/secondary schools.
      --Congressional support for a tribally administered law enforcement
            training center at UTTC and/or more involvement in law
            enforcement training initiatives.

        Base Funding.--UTTC administers our BIE funding under an Indian
    Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act agreement, and has done
    so for 38 years. We appreciate that the administration is requesting a
    $65,000 increase for built-in costs for UTTC for a total of $4,630,000
    but our need far exceeds that amount. We request that the UTTC portion
    of the Tribal Technical Colleges line item be $6.8 million and that the
    total line item of Tribal Technical Colleges be at least $11 million.
        Acquisition of additional base funding is critical. We struggle to
    maintain course offerings and services to adequately provide
    educational services at the same level as our State counterparts. Our
    BIE funding provides a base level of support while allowing us to
    compete for desperately needed discretionary contracts and grants. Very
    little of the other funds we receive may be used for core career and
    technical educational programs; they are competitive, often one-time
    supplemental funds that help us provide support services but cannot
    replace core operational funding.
        We highlight several relatively recent updates of our curricula to
    meet job market needs: Indeed, the ramifications of the North Dakota
    Bakken oil boom are apparent as we have seen faculty and students leave
    education in pursuit of jobs in the Bakken region. We saw the need for
    more certified welders in relation to the oil boom and have expanded
    our certified welding program in response to the workforce need. We are
    now able to train students for good paying in-demand welding employment
    with a focus on career rather just a job. Other courses reflect new
    innovative approaches on energy auditing and Geographic Information
    System Technology. UTTC is seeing increased interest in our online
    programs of study and short term skill building training at the UTTC
    Black Hills Learning Center, a distance learning site located at Rapid
    City, South Dakota. We are also working toward the establishment of an
    American Indian Specialized Health Care Training Clinic on our
    established Bismarck, North Dakota campus.
        Forward Funding.--We have wanted BIE forward funding for some time
    and our experience with funding via Continuing Resolutions (CR) has
    made this request more urgent. Even before the days of what now seems
    like routine CRs, Congress placed many education programs on a forward
    funded basis. We ask you to do that for us and the four other higher
    education institutions that receive BIE funds to be afforded the same
    consideration. Forward funding would allow us to know 9 months in
    advance (assuming the appropriations bill is enacted in a timely
    manner), and thus enable reasonable planning time, for these instances.
    As you know, only once since 1998 has the BIA budget been enacted by
    the beginning of the fiscal year.
        There was an oversight in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations
    process that resulted in UTTC (and Navajo Technical University (NTU))
    not receiving BIE forward funding while the other tribally controlled
    colleges had their funds transitioned to a forward funded basis. There
    is authority for forward funding for tribal colleges under the Tribally
    Controlled Colleges and Universities Act, 25 U.S.C. 1810(b)(1) and (2).
    This authority applies to all colleges funded under that Act, including
    UTTC and NTU. The oversight was that the administration requested the
    forward funding under the line item in the budget include all of the
    tribally controlled colleges except UTTC and NTU. The administration
    neglected to update the budget request to include the line item
    ``tribal technical colleges'' that had recently been established for
    UTTC and NTC. Also left out were the BIE-administered institutions of
    Haskell, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, and the Institute
    of American Indian Art which are funded under other authorities. The
    American Indian Higher Education Consortium has estimated $22 million
    is needed to forward fund these schools. This does not increase the
    Federal budget over the long-run. This simply allows us to know 9
    months in advance our funding, which is critically important when
    appropriations are delayed and the Government is funded under
    Continuing Resolutions.
        Contract Support Costs and Administrative Cost Grants.--As
    mentioned above, we administer our BIE funding through an Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act contract, and thus contract
    support costs (CSC) are vital to us. We thank this subcommittee and the
    administration for the recognition of the legal obligation the Federal
    Government has to pay tribal contractors their full CSC. Placing CSC
    funding on a mandatory basis is the logical resolution to a long-term
    solution for CSC that will eventually protect the programs funded on a
    discretionary basis in the BIA and Indian Health Service budgets.
        We have a BIE-funded elementary school on our campus, the Theodore
    Jamerson Elementary School (TJES), and thus many of our adult students
    and their children are able to attend school on the same campus. The
    administration proposed a budget that would fully fund estimated
    administrative costs grants ($75 million, a $12.9 million increase),
    which is the schools' equivalent to contract support costs. We ask for
    your support for this budget request as this would greatly assist the
    TJES students in completing elementary school.

        Funding for United Tribes Technical College is a good investment.
    We have:

      --Renewed unrestricted accreditation from the North Central
            Association of Colleges and Schools, for July 2011 through
            2021, with authority to offer all of our full programs on-line.
            We have 23 Associate degree programs, 19 certificate and three
            bachelor degree programs (criminal justice; elementary
            education; business administration). Six courses are offered
            online.
      --Services including a Child Development Center, family literacy
            program, wellness center, area transportation, K-8 elementary
            school, tutoring, counseling, family and single student
            housing, and campus security.
      --A projected return on Federal investment of 20-1 (2005 study).
      --A semester retention rate of 68 percent and a graduate placement
            rate of 79 percent. Over 45 percent of our graduates move on to
            4-year or advanced degree institutions.
      --Students from 49 tribes; 73 percent of our undergraduate students
            receive Pell Grants.
      --An unduplicated count of 605 undergraduate degree-seeking students:
            258 continuing education students; and 42 dual credit
            enrollment students for a total of 905 for 2014-2015.
      --A dual-enrollment program targeting junior and senior high school
            students, providing them an introduction to college life and
            offering high school and college credits.
      --A critical role in the regional economy. Our presence brings at
            least $34 million annually to the economy of the Bismarck
            region. A North Dakota State University study reports that the
            five tribal colleges in North Dakota made a direct and
            secondary economic contribution to the State of $181,933,000 in
            2012.

        A Northern Plains Indian Law Enforcement Academy.--We again ask
    Congress to seriously look at the problem of addressing crime in Indian
    Country with an eye toward the establishment of a campus-based academy
    for training of law enforcement officers in the Northern Plains area.
    There are cultural and legal reasons why such training should be
    tribally directed in order to be appropriate for the realities of
    tribal communities. With the expanded tribal authorities under the
    Tribal Law and Order Act and the Violence Against Women Act, the need
    has grown. State and national training resources would have an
    important role in this new endeavor.
        Our Criminal Justice program offers 2- and 4-year degrees, and
    prepares graduates for employment as Federal, State or tribal law
    enforcement, correction, parole and probation, and transportation
    safety officers; victim advocates; U.S. Customs, Homeland Security, and
    Military Investigative services; and private security agents. We point
    out that the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act
    contains requirements regarding background checks and character
    investigations. We want to expand our endeavors to help meet law
    enforcement needs in Indian Country. Given our Criminal Justice
    program, our location and our campus resources, we propose the
    establishment of a Northern Plains Indian Law Enforcement Academy.
        Basic law enforcement training is currently provided through the
    BIA's Indian Police Academy in Artesia, New Mexico. The BIA is
    depending on the basic training provided by State academies to
    supplement what is provided at Artesia. UTTC is well positioned with
    regard to providing both basic and supplemental law enforcement
    training. An academy at UTTC would allow tribal people in the Great
    Plains and other nearby regions a more affordable choice of training
    locations, minimizing the distance and long separation of trainees from
    their families.
        The fiscal year 2016 Indian Affairs budget (p. IA-PSJ-12) notes
    that training initiatives for the Indian Police Academy include
    developing a pre-Academy training program for candidates; developing a
    mid-level manager training program; and establishing an on-line
    distance learning program for recertification, among other things.
    These are things that we could do as part of an academy at UTTC or in
    partnership with the Indian Police Academy.
        In short, the BIA should be utilizing and enhancing the resources
    of UTTC to make a real difference in the law enforcement capability in
    Indian Country. We can offer college credit to trainees, and our
    facilities include the use of a state-of-the-art crime scene simulator.
    Maintaining safe communities is a critical component of economic
    development for our tribal nations, and local control of law
    enforcement training resources is a key part of that effort.
        The Duplication or Overlapping Issue.--As you know, in March 2011
    the Government Accountability Office issued two reports regarding
    Federal programs which may have similar or overlapping services or
    objectives (GAO-11-474R and GAO-11-318SP). Funding from the BIE and the
    DOEd's Carl Perkins Act for Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career
    and Technical Education were among the programs listed in the reports.
    The full GAO report did not recommend defunding these programs; rather,
    it posed the possibility of consolidation of these programs to save
    administrative costs. We are not in disagreement about possible
    consolidation of our funding sources, as long as program funds are not
    cut.
        BIE funds represent over half of our core operating budget. The
    Perkins funds supplement, but do not duplicate, the BIE funds. It takes
    both sources of funding to frugally maintain our institution. We
    actively seek alternative funding to assist with academic programming,
    deferred maintenance, and scholarship assistance, among other things.
    The need for career and technical education in Indian Country is so
    great and the funding so small, that there is little chance for
    duplicative funding. There are only two institutions targeting American
    Indian/Alaska Native career and technical education and training at the
    postsecondary level--UTTC and NTU. Combined, these institutions
    received less than $14.7 million in fiscal year 2015 Federal
    operational funds ($7.7 million from Perkins; $6.9 million from the
    BIE). That is not an excessive amount for two campus-based institutions
    who offer a broad array of programs geared toward the educational and
    cultural needs of their students and who teach job-producing skills.
        We know members of this subcommittee have made a point to visit
    places in Indian Country and we would love to be able to arrange for
    you to visit United Tribes Technical College. Thank you for your
    consideration of our requests.

        [This statement was submitted by Leander ``Russ'' McDonald, Ph.D.,
    President.]
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the University of Notre Dame
        Dear Senator Murkowski,

        I am writing to indicate my strong support of the U.S. Geological
    Survey's Great Lakes Science Center (USGS GLSC). I have pursued a
    number of research collaborations with scientists at the USGS Lake
    Michigan Ecological Research Station (LMERS) in Porter, Indiana. As a
    result, I have the privilege of helping advance scientifically sound
    natural resource management, and my graduate and undergraduate students
    at the University of Notre Dame have gained invaluable training to help
    build their careers. I have seen the GLSC and LMERS function with
    limited resources that have steadily degraded in the last several
    years. I also understand how much our Great Lakes region would benefit
    from increases in the GLSC budget.
        The GLSC is doing important work to preserve a critical natural
    resource, the Great Lakes and its associated ecosystems that the people
    of the Great Lakes region depend upon. The Great Lakes are a vast
    natural resource, critical to the economy and ecology of the entire
    United States. This international resource is an economic engine
    generating nearly tens of billions of dollars yearly in economic
    activity and is responsible for tens of thousands of jobs in fishing,
    tourism and related industries alone and supports the wellbeing of
    millions of U.S. citizens. The highest quality science possible is
    required to inform wise management decisions concerning conservation,
    water management, and fisheries resources throughout the Great Lakes
    basin. The practical research produced by GLSC scientists contributes
    greatly to maintaining sustainability of these resources.
        The USGS GLSC conducts impartial, high-quality science essential to
    Federal, State, local, tribal, and provincial management of Great Lakes
    basin natural resources throughout all five of the Great Lakes
    watersheds and in all eight Great Lakes States. GLSC has made
    significant contributions to improving the scientific basis for
    managing Great Lakes ecosystems. GLSC and LMERS scientists also publish
    high-quality research in scholarly journals so that the international
    research community benefits from their findings.
        I have had the privilege of seeing the work at the LMERS in action.
    Our collaborative research on an endangered species at the Indiana
    Dunes National Lakeshore, for example, is aiding a recovery team that
    implements restoration and management plans on Federal, State, and
    private land. My USGS colleagues and I also are working with the
    National Park Service to plan for species reintroductions. This work is
    serving as model of 21st century endangered species management across
    the United States.
        The need for USGS GLSC research is rapidly increasing because of
    new climatic extremes, increased urbanization, a globalized economy
    that links the Great Lakes with ecosystems around the world, and
    humanity's on-going dependence on essential ecosystem services for
    recreation, economic value, and quality of life. We need a robust USGS
    to confront these challenges.
        I understand from my USGS colleagues that research by the GLSC and
    LMERS has been eroded by failures to maintain their budget, and
    worsened by a 6 percent cut from sequestration in 2013. Their budget in
    2014 was at the same level it was 5 years ago in 2009. The ongoing
    budget impacts have led to an accumulation of more than 15 unfilled
    scientific/technical positions distributed throughout the Great Lakes
    Region.
        High quality, impartial scientific information from USGS GLSC is
    absolutely essential for wise management of the Great Lakes Region,
    including the preservation of endangered species, recreation resources,
    and economically valuable fisheries.
        For the first time during the Obama administration, the 2016 budget
    highlights two areas where the USGS GLSC programs would experience
    relatively small budget increases. The President proposes: (1) a
    $250,000 increase for the Great Lakes Deepwater Assessments; and (2) a
    bureau-wide $2.0 million increase for Invasive Species which would
    likely result in a portion of those funds being directed to USGS GLSC.
    Additionally, Presidential Memorandum of June 20, 2014--Creating a
    Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other
    Pollinators represents recognition of the need for the Federal
    Government to support research in this field that LMERS has been a
    leader on within the USGS.
        As an academic researcher with a stake in the success of the USGS,
    I support--and will directly benefit from--$17.5 million in fiscal year
    2016 appropriations for the GLSC. Currently, the USGS GLSC receives
    approximately $8.5 million in appropriated funding to support science
    programs critical to the management of these incredibly valuable
    resources. Compared to economic returns generated from the Great Lakes,
    this funding level only represents about 1.2 percent of the annual
    fisheries related revenue and less than 0.03 percent of the revenue
    attributable to closely related industries. Our request for $17.5
    million in fiscal year 2016 appropriations represents an $8.75 million
    increase above the President's fiscal year 2016 request. The
    President's fiscal year 2016 request for $250,000, combined with our
    requested increase of $8.75 million, and the $8.5 million annual
    appropriation allocated to the GLSC reaches the $17.5 million, and
    reflects long-standing, well recognized needs for this chronically
    under-funded science program. These needs were previously detailed in a
    March 2010 bi-partisan letter authored by nine U.S. Senators and 21
    U.S. House Members wrote to their congressional appropriation
    leadership to request a total science budget of $15.0 million; and
    again 2 years later in April 2012, by the Association of Fish and
    Wildlife Agencies describing the importance of the USGS programs to
    regional management decisions, and recommending an appropriated science
    budget of $15.0 million.
        I urge you to embrace these requests in the President's budget; and
    respectfully ask you to increase these additions by $8.75 million for a
    total increase of $9.0 million for the USGS Great Lakes Science Center.

        [This statement was submitted by Jessica J. Hellmann, Associate
    Professor, Department of Biological Sciences.]
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Western Governors' Association
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Western
    Governors' Association (WGA) appreciates the opportunity to provide
    written testimony on the appropriations and activities of the Bureau of
    Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National
    Park Service (NPS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA). My name is James D. Ogsbury and I am the
    Association's Executive Director. WGA is an independent, non-partisan
    organization representing the Governors of 19 Western States and 3
    U.S.-flag islands.
        Together, the agencies within your jurisdiction wield significant
    authority over vast areas of the American West. How these agencies
    conduct their work has an enormous impact on individual States. The
    West is the epicenter of exceptional drought conditions, pervasive
    invasive species incursion and destructive wildfire. That is why the
    work of this subcommittee is of such vital importance to Western
    Governors: it is your efforts, as you consider appropriations levels
    and policy directives, that set the stage for how these agencies will
    interact with other layers of government and the public.
        I recognize that there is a certain tension between State and
    Federal Governments, one that is embedded in the fabric of our
    Constitution. It is equally clear that these different layers of
    government must have a close and productive working relationship if our
    citizens are to prosper and thrive. Western Governors believe that such
    cooperation is only possible when States are regarded as full and equal
    partners of the Federal Government in the development and execution of
    programs for which both have responsibility.
        This can be easily demonstrated by examining the work being done by
    WGA's Drought Forum under the leadership of our Chairman, Governor
    Brian Sandoval of Nevada. Many areas of the West are experiencing
    severe and sustained drought conditions. State and Federal
    cooperation--from data sharing to land management responsibilities--is
    critical to our understanding and response to these devastating drought
    conditions.
        With respect to funding levels of appropriated programs, WGA
    recommends the enactment and full funding of a permanent and stable
    funding mechanism for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program
    administered by the Department of Interior. These appropriations do not
    represent a gift to local jurisdictions; rather they represent
    important compensation for the disproportionate acreage of non-taxable
    Federal lands in the West.
        Similarly, payments under the Secure Rural Schools and Community
    Self-Determination Act (SRS) are critical to compensating communities
    whose timber industries have been negatively impacted by actions and
    acquisitions of the Federal Government. I am encouraged by the 2-year
    reauthorization of SRS that was included in H.R. 2, the Medicare Access
    and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, and hope that you will consider
    full funding for SRS payments in fiscal year 2016.
        Western Governors understand and support the need for a permanent
    solution to the issues addressed by PILT and SRS. The current situation
    leads to uncertainty and frustration for local governments and funding
    complications each and every funding cycle. Western Governors are ready
    to assist in the development and execution of solutions to these
    complicated matters.
        Another important responsibility of the subcommittee is species
    conservation. Western States routinely invest enormous amounts of time,
    money and manpower in the management of wildlife protection and habitat
    conservation. It is also appropriate for Federal agencies to provide
    sufficient resources for species protection, particularly on Federal
    lands. When Federal lands are inadequately managed, State and local
    efforts to protect habitat and species will not be sufficient to assure
    the success of these efforts. Federal agencies must demonstrate their
    commitment to species preservation and recovery by committing adequate
    funding for conservation efforts on Federal lands.
        The subcommittee knows all too well the pressing problem of ``fire
    borrowing,'' by which the funding for routine Forest Service management
    activities is transferred to emergency firefighting activities. This
    short-sighted practice creates a dangerous cycle that must be
    eliminated. By diverting funding from management activities that reduce
    wildfire threats, this practice increases the fire risk on Federal
    lands and all but ensures that future wildfires will be more damaging
    (and costly), especially in the current drought conditions the West is
    experiencing. WGA strongly supports efforts to solve the budgetary
    issue of fire borrowing, and would prefer that the Federal Government
    use a funding structure similar to that used by the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency (FEMA) in its response to natural disasters.
        Section 8204 of the 2014 Farm Bill allowed Governors the
    opportunity to request that National Forest System lands within their
    States be considered for insect and disease designation. The Farm Bill
    authorized the appropriation of $200 million to accomplish the work
    required under the statute. Treatment on these designations does not
    automatically occur. Many States, however, are already working with
    their regional foresters to start projects as soon as possible. This
    work will help reduce the threat of wildfires in areas of high risk. I
    am encouraged by the eagerness of the USFS to begin this effort and
    request that funding be appropriated at a reasonable and sustainable
    level.
        Data for water management and drought response planning is critical
    to Western States. I also request adequate funding levels for the
    Cooperative Water Program and National Streamflow Information Program
    (NSIP), both administered by the Department of Interior's U.S.
    Geological Survey (USGS). The data collected by these programs is
    integral to water supply management decisions for States, utilities,
    reservoir operators and farmers. This information is particularly
    useful as drought persists in California, Nevada, the southern Great
    Plains, and other parts of the West. The data sources are also used for
    flood forecasts, making them essential to risk assessment as well as
    water management. These two USGS programs are important elements of a
    robust water data management program in the Western States, and provide
    needed support for drought mitigation efforts throughout the West.
        Infrastructure management is another crucial element of drought
    response. EPA's Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
    (SRFs) provide the necessary support for communities to maintain and
    enhance their water infrastructure. The Western Governors' 2014 policy
    resolution, Water Resource Management in the West, supports adequate
    funding for SRFs.
        The following recommendations are intended to help ensure that the
    taxpayer realizes a better return on the investment of limited
    discretionary resources. This goal will be more readily achieved to the
    extent that Federal agencies better leverage State authority, resources
    and expertise.
        Western Governors appreciate your assistance in encouraging a
    positive relationship between the States and the Federal Government on
    the use of wildlife data. For the past 2 years, this subcommittee has
    included language in its report directing Federal land managers to use
    State fish and wildlife data and analyses as principal sources to
    inform land use, land planning and related natural resource decisions.
    Both levels of government need data-driven science, mapping and
    analyses to effectively manage wildlife species and their habitat.
    States possess constitutional responsibilities for wildlife management,
    as well as intimate knowledge of wildlife habitat and resources. In
    many cases, States generate the best available wildlife science. I
    encourage you to maintain this position and reiterate it in your fiscal
    year 2016 report to strengthen this important operating principle.
        Western Governors believe that States should be full and equal
    partners in the implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
    should have the opportunity to participate in pre-listing and post-
    listing ESA decisions. The Act is premised on a strong State-Federal
    partnership. Section 6(a) of the ESA states that, ``In carrying out the
    program authorized by the Act, the Secretary shall cooperate to the
    maximum extent practicable with the States.'' WGA submits that such
    cooperation should include partnership with States in the establishment
    of quantifiable species recovery goals, as well as in the design and
    implementation of recovery plans.
        ESA listing decisions can have dramatic impacts on vital State
    interests, influencing a State's ability to conduct almost any
    activity--from road siting to new home construction to environmental
    projects. Consequently, States should have the right to intervene in
    proceedings regarding the ESA. The subcommittee is urged to support the
    legal standing of States to participate in administrative and judicial
    actions involving ESA that, by their nature, implicate State authority
    and resources. Several Federal statutes--including the Clean Water Act
    (CWA), Clean Air Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act--vest
    the States with the role of co-regulator with the EPA.
        The number of wild horses and burros on BLM lands is estimated by
    the agency to be almost double the current Appropriate Management Level
    (AML). Wild horse and burro populations in excess of AMLs can degrade
    rangeland, causing harmful effects on wildlife and domestic livestock.
    This degradation also has implications for the protection of threatened
    and endangered species and other species protection efforts. WGA would
    support a process to establish, monitor and adjust AMLs for wild horses
    and burros that is transparent to stakeholders, supported by scientific
    information (including State data), and amenable to adaptation with new
    information and environmental and social change. Such a process would
    address both the long-term viability of wild horse and burro
    populations, and near-term concerns about the rangeland impacts of
    overpopulation.
        Last year, the administration unveiled a proposed rule of the EPA
    and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers intended to clarify the
    jurisdictional reach of the CWA. Many States have indicated concern
    that the proposed rule significantly expands the definition of ``waters
    of the United States'' and could impinge on State authority over the
    regulation of waters within their borders. WGA continues to be
    concerned that States were insufficiently consulted during the
    development of this proposal and played no role in the creation of the
    rule.
        Congress intended for the States and EPA to implement the CWA in
    partnership and delegated authority to the States to administer the law
    as co-regulators with EPA. Accordingly, WGA encourages congressional
    direction to EPA to engage the States in the creation of rulemaking,
    guidance or studies that threaten to redefine the roles and
    jurisdiction of the States. State water managers should have a robust
    and meaningful voice in the development of any rule regarding the
    jurisdiction of the CWA or similar statutes.
        States have exclusive authority over the allocation and
    administration of rights to groundwater located within their borders
    and are primarily responsible for protecting, managing, and otherwise
    controlling the resource. The regulatory reach of the Federal
    Government was not intended to, and should not, be applied to the
    management and protection of groundwater resources. I encourage you not
    to permit the use of appropriated funds for any activity that would
    implement a directive on groundwater management. Federal agencies
    should work with the States to identify ways to address their
    groundwater-related needs and concerns through existing State
    authorities. Such collaborative efforts will help ensure that Federal
    efforts involving groundwater recognize and respect State primacy and
    comply with Federal and State statutory authorities.
        Western Governors and Federal land management agencies deal with a
    complex web of interrelated natural resource issues. It is an enormous
    challenge to judiciously balance competing needs in this environment,
    and Western Governors appreciate the difficulty of the decisions this
    subcommittee must make. The foregoing recommendations are offered in a
    spirit of cooperation and respect, and WGA is prepared to assist you as
    appropriate as you discharge your critical and challenging
    responsibilities.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony.
    Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the
    content of these remarks.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Wilderness Land Trust
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and members of the
    subcommittee, my name is Reid Haughey and I am the president of the
    Wilderness Land Trust. Thank you for the opportunity to submit
    testimony. My testimony focuses on a very small portion of the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)--funding for the Inholding Acquisition
    Accounts for the four land management agencies. Continued modest
    funding of the Inholding Accounts is vital to the success of securing
    and preserving wilderness already designated by Congress, while
    treating private landowners within these areas fairly.
        The Trust is a small not-for-profit organization focused on
    protecting designated wilderness. To do this, we work in partnership
    with landowners who own private property within designated and proposed
    wilderness areas and the agencies that manage these areas. We acquire
    properties from willing sellers with the intent to transfer ownership
    to the United States.
        Last year marked the 50th Anniversary of the Wilderness Act of 1964
    that established our National Wilderness Preservation System. As part
    of our celebration of the 50th anniversary, the Trust commissioned a
    national inventory of private lands within wilderness. The results are
    startling. The report determined that within the lower 48 States,
    175,863 acres of private lands still remain in 2,883 parcels. There are
    also 440,000 acres of State owned lands. Alaska is home to 47 percent
    of the total nonFederal lands--predominantly Native corporation lands
    stemming from ANCSA--comprising 693,641 acres in 686 parcels.
        When the Trust started work 23 years ago, we estimated there were
    400,000 acres of private land within designated wilderness in the lower
    48 States. It has taken steady work to reduce that by more than half.
    Large appropriations for the Inholding Accounts did not accomplish this
    success--just reliable, modest funding so that lands can be purchased
    when landowners want to sell. This is the level of funding we are
    hoping to continue.
        I am before you today to thank you for funding the Inholdings
    Accounts in fiscal year 2015 and to ask for that support once again. An
    appropriation of between $3 and 5 million to each of the land
    management agencies, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management,
    the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service, is
    sufficient to enable the agencies to acquire high priority inholdings
    from willing sellers.
        Our work, along with that of many other organizations and
    facilitated by funding of the Inholding Accounts, aims to give the
    Federal Government less work. Eliminating private inholdings within
    designated wilderness:

      --Saves Federal dollars,
      --Solves management and resource problems,
      --Helps private landowners, and
      --Increases recreational access and economic development.
    Saving Federal Dollars
        The management of human development activities in wilderness is
    expensive for the agencies. The potential resource damage to the
    protected lands and waters is enormous. While steady progress has been
    made reducing private inholdings in wilderness areas in the lower 48
    States, our wilderness areas remain riddled with private inholdings
    that greatly threaten the wilderness that surrounds them and creates a
    ``Swiss cheese'' effect. While The Wilderness Act defines Wilderness as
    places where ``where man himself is a visitor who does not remain,''
    private landowners retain their rights to build roads, homes and other
    buildings, extend utilities, extract minerals and timber, and block
    public access. There are numerous cases where such inholdings have been
    developed in ways that seriously degrade wilderness values on the
    adjacent public lands. All of theses activities pose challenges for
    Federal managers of the lands surrounding private inholdings and create
    significant and costly management inefficiencies. By contrast, the cost
    of acquiring these properties when they are offered for sale is
    relatively small. That is why it is so important to continue the modest
    appropriations needed for the inholding acquisition program.
        For example, the Trust acquired a property in the Hells Canyon
    Wilderness in Arizona several years ago that ended 38 years of on and
    off litigation over access. This saved the agency a lot of ongoing
    costs. It made the landowner happy and completed the wilderness that
    surrounded it.
        Further, as you are well aware, the costs associated with
    firefighting on public lands are enormous. The Wilderness Land Trust
    may be the only landowner within designated wilderness that can say it
    has experienced both sides of reducing firefighting costs. A property
    we owned in the heart of California's Yolla Bolly Wilderness burned
    while we owned it. Significant resources were spent to protect the
    structures on it, risking life and limb, as well as money.
        On the other hand, the Trust's Hells Canyon Wilderness property in
    Idaho burned one week after it was transferred to Federal ownership. No
    one cared; no one came out to protect it. It burned as part of the
    natural process of wilderness and firefighting efforts rightly
    concentrated at the edges of the wildland-urban interface.
        Specific data on firefighting expenses are difficult to get. The
    Western Forestry Leadership Coalition, a State and Federal Government
    partnership whose members include 23 State and Pacific Island
    Foresters, 7 Western Regional Foresters, 3 Western Research Station
    Directors, The Forest Products Lab Director of the USDA Forest Service,
    published a report: The True Cost of Wildfire in the Western U.S. in
    April 2009. Among the case studies reviewed, the lowest total cost per
    acre firefighting expense was the Canyon Fire Complex in Montana
    (2000). The total cost was $411 per acre. There were only six
    structures involved. The highest cost per acre was the 2000 Cerro
    Grande fire in New Mexico. It cost $22,634 per acre. There were 260
    residences involved. This is strong evidence that the presence of
    private lands and structures within public landscapes exponentially
    increases the cost of firefighting.
        Not all the costs of managing these isolated parcels fall on the
    Federal Government. As the manager of Pitkin County, Colorado I learned
    firsthand that the expenses of providing services to these isolated and
    far-flung properties far exceed the tax revenues received and do not
    come close to offsetting the cost of providing fire protection,
    emergency services, road, school buses and general government services.
    It costs more to serve these isolated single properties than the tax
    revenue they generate.
    Solves Management and Resource Problems
        The Inholding Accounts have been used to acquire mines from private
    owners, private retreats, and various properties that include the
    spectrum of non--wilderness uses. We are currently readying for
    transfer to Federal ownership a former mine in the Frank Church River
    of No Return Wilderness. We've closed the former un-reclaimed mine on
    the banks of the Wild and Scenic Salmon River. The transfer will remove
    a private home and no trespassing signs on one of the few flat spots on
    that stretch of river. It will be returned to the public, who can enjoy
    being able to stop there and learn about past mining days, camp or fish
    from land on which the abandoned and open mine is now reclaimed and
    closed--no longer a threat to the public, or to the Wild and Scenic
    River from its open shafts deep into the alluvium of the river.
        Recent purchases funded from the Inholding Accounts have secured
    access to the east side of the Ventana Wilderness in California,
    secured trails through the Wabayuma Peak Wilderness in Arizona and the
    Glacier Peak Wilderness in Washington and created access to a recently
    designated wilderness in Idaho. More are on the way.
    Helps Private Landowners
        Landowners who are ready to sell deserve to have their properties
    purchased. Their isolated properties are primarily the result of 19th
    century congressional policy when homesteads, mining operations and
    timber production were encouraged without the balance of conservation.
    As a result, wilderness areas now dedicated by Congress are pockmarked
    with islands of private ownership that compromise the wilderness
    resource, become expensive management issues for the agencies and often
    befuddle landowners who wish to sell these properties for the benefit
    of their companies or families.
        This is why consistent funding for the Inholding Accounts is vital.
    We have learned that these lands become available about once a
    generation. It has been our experience that these critical inholdings
    come on the market at a steady rate as owners make decisions based on
    their family or business needs. About 3 to 5 percent come on the market
    every year--once a generation. If the opportunity to meet the seller's
    need is missed, it averages another 20 years before the opportunity
    comes again.
        If the opportunity to acquire these when offered is lost, the
    management issues and inefficiencies that result from private lands
    remaining within designated wilderness continue. Without consistent
    funding, numerous opportunities to acquire these private parcels will
    be lost. Not for a year, but often for at least another generation.
    Increases Recreational Access and Economic Development
        On the east side of the Castle Crags Wilderness in California is a
    wall of private land that blocks access from Interstate 5. The nearby
    community of Dunsmuir is wholly supportive of transferring these lands
    to Federal ownership and opening up the Crags to visitation. Dunsmuir
    anticipates visitors that will come to the community and its climbing,
    biking and skiing shops it is hoped will grow to replace the loss of
    logging jobs. Dunsmuir has been suffering under an unemployment rate of
    18 percent and looks forward to having the recreational asset of the
    Crags' world class climbing only one mile off Interstate 5 and just
    outside their community--rather than a 7-mile hike around the private
    lands that now block access.
        Finally, it is also important to recognize that wilderness
    inholdings come in many shapes, sizes and prices depending on the real
    estate market in a particular area. A number of projects that fall in
    the agency project lists are inholdings. Thus, we ask that you give the
    highest level of support possible for Federal LWCF acquisitions.
        In summary, continued consistent funding of the Inholding Accounts
    is vital. Without such funding, significant opportunities to acquire
    private parcels within our designated wilderness areas will be lost for
    at least another generation. We urge your support of continued funding
    for these accounts and as much support for Federal LWCF acquisitions as
    possible. Support for these accounts:

      --Saves money by eliminating management inefficiencies that
            frequently exceed the cost of acquisition;
      --Helps private landowners within federally designated wilderness and
            other conservation areas;
      --Allows the agencies to act when opportunities occur to acquire
            inholdings, often only once a generation; and
      --Completes designated wilderness areas, removing threats from
            incompatible and harmful development within their boundaries.

        Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We greatly appreciate
    your time and consideration and the support of the subcommittee in
    securing these appropriations.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of The Wilderness Society
        The Wilderness Society (TWS) represents more than 500,000 members
    and supporters who share our mission to protect wilderness and inspire
    Americans to care for our wild places. We thank the subcommittee for
    the opportunity to submit comments on the fiscal year 2016 Interior,
    Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
        When deciding on funding that affects hundreds of millions of
    Americans, we urge you to take into account the full economic, social,
    environmental and cultural value of the many programs managed by this
    subcommittee. Our public lands and waters contribute significantly to
    the U.S. outdoor recreation economy. Modest, prudent investments in
    these critical programs will provide jobs and protect the health and
    economic wellbeing of local communities. We urge bold, immediate action
    in support of conservation funding for fiscal year 2016. Specifically,
    TWS recommends:
    Wilderness Management
        America's National Wilderness Preservation System, now 50 years
    old, is suffering from a serious lack of funding. Trail maintenance,
    law enforcement, monitoring, and user education are all significantly
    underfunded, leading to an erosion of wilderness values and a
    diminution of the experience for visitors. We recommend that each of
    the agency wilderness management accounts be increased to support much
    needed trails maintenance, update signage, fight invasive species,
    restore watersheds, and monitor effects of climate change, among other
    critical needs.

      --Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wilderness.--TWS supports restoring
            BLM Wilderness funding to the fiscal year 2011 level of $19.663
            million. The budget proposal of $18.559 million for BLM
            wilderness management is strong, but still 6 percent lower than
            the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. To just keep pace with
            inflation the fiscal year 2016 request would need to be $20.430
            million.
      --Forest Service Recreation, Wilderness and Heritage.--We urge
            Congress to support wilderness and recreation by restoring
            funding to the fiscal year 2010 level of $285.1 million for the
            Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Program. Recreation is the
            most ubiquitous use of our forest lands, and accounts for more
            than half of all job and income affects attributable to Forest
            Service programs (over 190,000 jobs and $11 billion in spending
            effects by visitors).
      --National Park Service Wilderness.--We support the proposed fiscal
            year 2016 funding increase for the base wilderness program to
            $462,000. As the Park Service prepares for their Centennial
            next year this modest increase would help address the backlog
            of Wilderness Stewardship Plans, support training for
            wilderness park superintendents, improve coordination with
            interagency Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, and reduce the
            likelihood of litigation.
    Land and Water Conservation Fund
        Having just celebrated its 50th anniversary year, LWCF remains the
    premier Federal program to conserve our Nation's land, water, historic,
    and recreation heritage. It is a critical tool to protect national
    parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests, BLM lands, and
    other Federal areas. The companion LWCF State grants program provides
    crucial support for State and local parks, recreational facilities, and
    trail corridors. LWCF also funds two other important State grant
    programs--the Forest Legacy Program and Cooperative Endangered Species
    programs--that ensure permanent conservation of important forest lands
    and threatened and endangered species' habitat, as well as important
    wildlife and recreational habitat and ensures that public lands stay
    public for hunters, anglers, and other outdoor recreationists for
    generations to come.

      --TWS strongly supports fully funding LWCF at the proposed $900
            million, with a discretionary funding level of $400 million.
            Full funding for LWCF will allow land management agencies to
            manage our public lands more efficiently and cost-effectively.
            This is in part achieved through strategic inholdings
            acquisition which reduces internal boundary line surveying,
            right-of-way conflicts and special use permits.
    Emergency Wildfire Funding
        For years the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Department of the
    Interior (DOI) have had to divert funds from vital conservation and
    wildfire prevention programs to cover wildfire suppression costs. This
    is having long-term negative effects on conservation and land
    management, especially where these funds are diverted from programs
    aimed at reducing fire risks and costs, which creates a vicious cycle.
    With longer and more severe fire seasons the Forest Service has seen
    wildfire management rise from 13 percent of the agency's budget in
    fiscal year 1991 to almost 50 percent today.

      --TWS strongly supports the bipartisan funding request at 70 percent
            of the 10 year average, and the $841 million to be made
            available under the disaster funding cap adjustment. This will
            eliminate the need to pillage other accounts to pay for the
            worst 1 percent of wildfires, and will treat them as the
            natural disasters they truly are.
    BLM Onshore Oil and Gas Policy
        The BLM is implementing important management reforms of its oil and
    gas program that is leading toward a better balance between oil and gas
    development on public lands and the protection of the numerous natural
    resource values that were put at risk by previous policies. It will
    also lead to Federal lands that are fully and fairly valued for the
    American people. TWS support the following administration proposed
    reforms of the BLM's oil and gas program:

      --A fee on onshore Federal operators to provide for a $48 million per
            year inspection and enforcement program to implement
            recommendations made by the GAO.
      --An increase of $5.8 million in BLM to accelerate development and
            completion of Master Leasing Plans to ensure proper planning
            and conservation during siting and development of oil and gas
            wells.
      --Funds to enact royalty reforms and improve revenue collection
            process to ensure that resources on Federal lands are fully and
            fairly valued and delivering fair taxpayer returns.
      --Funds to implement regulations to reduce methane waste from wells
            on Federal lands.
    Sage-Grouse Initiative
        The Wilderness Society supports the administration's $45 million
    increased request for the BLM's Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation
    Strategy. If successful, implementation of this strategy will lead to
    recovery of this important western game species without the necessity
    of a listing under the Endangered Species Act.
    BLM's National Landscape Conservation System
        The National Landscape Conservation System (Conservation Lands)
    comprises some 27 million acres of congressionally and presidentially
    designated lands and waters, including National Monuments, National
    Conservation Areas, Wilderness Areas and other designations.
    Stewardship of the Conservation Lands provides jobs for thousands of
    Americans while supporting vibrant and sustainable economies in
    surrounding communities. The Conservation Lands provide immeasurable
    public values from modest investments: outstanding recreational
    opportunities, wildlife habitat, clean water, wilderness, and open
    space near cities.

      --TWS strongly supports the administration's fiscal year 2016
            recommendation of $81.079 million to ensure the natural,
            cultural, and historical resource protection provided by the
            Conservation Lands for the American public.
      --TWS also supports the proposed BLM Challenge Cost Share Program
            funding of $12.416 million. This is a cross-cutting program
            within DOI, which provides a 1:1 match for volunteer
            activities.
    Renewable Energy
        TWS is a strong proponent of transitioning our country to a clean
    energy economy by developing our renewable energy resources
    responsibly. We believe renewable energy is an appropriate and
    necessary use of public lands when sited in areas screened for habitat,
    resource, and cultural conflicts. Identifying and avoiding conflicts
    early is essential to avoid costly fights and create allies with local
    communities and the renewable energy industry. TWS hopes the Department
    will continue to support a program that ensures our public lands play
    an important role in supporting renewable energy infrastructure through
    environmental review, suitability screening, and energy zone
    identification to find suitable places for renewable energy projects.
    TWS is also a supporter of Secretarial Order 3330 on Mitigation that
    would ensure that any impacts are avoided or offset. TWS urges Congress
    to:

      --Support increased funding for renewable energy programs across
            Interior from fiscal year 2015 enacted, up to $110.4 million
            total.
      --Support an increase of $5 million in Cadastral, Lands, and Realty
            Management program to enhance BLM's ability to designate energy
            corridors to site high-voltage transmission lines, substations,
            and related infrastructure in an environmentally sensitive
            manner.
    Implementation of Landscape Level Management
        The Wilderness Society supports the Department of Interior's
    philosophy of looking at development on a landscape level with proper
    mitigation policies. The recently released draft of the Desert
    Renewable Energy Conservation Plan in the California Desert is a prime
    example. It is crucial that the Department is fully funded to put in
    place processes that designates areas for energy development, both
    traditional and renewable, at the same time setting aside important
    areas for wildlife, cultural, and recreational values.
    National Wildlife Refuge System Funding
        The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world's finest network
    of protected lands and waters. Designed to conserve our fish and
    wildlife resources, refuges are located in every State and Territory
    and provide enormous economic benefit for their local communities.
    Every year, the System attracts 45 million tourists, hunters,
    fishermen, and other recreationists, generating $1.7 billion in sales,
    sustaining nearly 27,000 jobs annually, and contributing over $185
    million in tax revenue. The Refuge System has been under increasing
    fiscal strain, however, with a maintenance backlog of over $3 billion.

      --We urge Congress to support funding for the National Wildlife
            Refuge System at the President's recommendation of $508.2
            million.
    National Forest Restoration
        The Legacy Roads and Trails (LRT) and Collaborative Forest
    Landscape Restoration (CFLR) programs provide essential funding to
    restore watersheds, improve recreational access, protect aquatic
    species and advance collaborative restoration projects. LRT funding was
    slashed 50 percent in fiscal year 2011 and 22 percent in fiscal year
    2014. Given the recent evaluation of the Integrated Resource
    Restoration (IRR) program we recommend that LRT be removed from IRR, to
    enable it to operate as a complementary program to IRR, similar to
    CFLR. We also do not recommend that the IRR pilot program be expanded
    until the test regions have proven that IRR can improve restoration
    without a loss of transparency and accountability. Specifically, TWS
    recommends that Congress:

      --Restore Legacy Roads and Trails funding to $45 million and fully
            fund the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program at
            $60 million
    Forest Service Inventory and Monitoring and Planning
        The Inventory and Monitoring Program is integral to forest
    planning. The Planning Program funds amendments and revisions to Land
    Management Plans, the overarching documents that guide the management
    of individual forests and grasslands. By providing adequate and
    consistent funding to both these programs, we advance plans and
    projects and avoid bad decisionmaking, unnecessary costs, and reduce
    risks to water quality and quantity, wildlife, and recreation. TWS
    recommends that Congress:

      --Support Inventory and Monitoring and Planning by restoring funding
            to the running 10-year average of $162,060,500 and $45,712,600,
            respectively.
    National Forest Roads
        Forest Service roads funding has been cut by 41 percent since 2010,
    adding even more strain to a severely under-maintained road system. The
    road system enables management, recreation and restoration on our
    national forests and grasslands. It is also one of the most significant
    stressors on watersheds and ecosystems, contributing to water pollution
    and declining fish populations. Adequate funding is needed to create a
    sustainable, safe road system that minimizes negative impacts of roads,
    provides high quality recreational access, and to stormproof roads
    against anticipated severe flood flows resulting from climate change.

      --We urge Congress to fund Capital Improvement and Maintenance Roads
            at the running 10-year average of $201,702,200 in fiscal year
            2016.
    National Forest Trails
        There are 158,000 miles of trails in the National Forest System.
    These trails provide 50 million visitor days of outdoor recreational
    use each year. Annual visitor days have grown 376 percent since 1977,
    and the total mileage of trails has grown 56.9 percent to accommodate
    this. Unfortunately, the trails maintenance and reconstruction line
    item has remained essentially flat since 1980, after adjusting for
    inflation. In fiscal year 2015 the trails budget was cut 9 percent
    compared to fiscal year 2010, despite the fact that GAO has reported a
    $500 million trail maintenance backlog. Currently, the Forest Service
    is only able to maintain a quarter of its trail miles to a minimum
    standard condition.

      --We urge Congress to fund Capital Improvement and Maintenance Trails
            at its fiscal year 2010 level of $85,381,000 in fiscal year
            2016.

        [This statement was submitted by Alan Rowsome, Senior Director of
    Government Relations for Lands.]
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Conservation Society
        Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, members of the
    subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony on
    fiscal year 2016 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Act. WCS was founded with the help of Theodore Roosevelt
    in 1895 with the mission of saving wildlife and wild places worldwide.
    Today, WCS manages the largest network of urban wildlife parks in the
    United States led by our flagship, the Bronx Zoo. Globally, WCS works
    to protect 25 percent of the world's biodiversity and manages more than
    200 million acres of protected lands around the world, employing more
    than 4,000 staff including 200 Ph.D. scientists and 100 veterinarians.
        The American conservation tradition is based on promoting
    sustainable use of our natural resources in order to preserve the
    world's species and environment for future generations. In recognition
    of the current fiscal constraints, it is important to note that
    effective natural resources management and conservation has indirect
    economic benefits, including contributing to local economies through
    tourism and other means.
        Internationally, by supporting conservation, the US is increasing
    capacity and governance in developing nations and improving our own
    national security as a result. And these efforts are absolutely
    critical, as we have reached a crisis with regard to the trafficking of
    wildlife. The illegal trade in elephant ivory, rhino horns, tiger skins
    and other illegal wildlife products is worth at least an estimated $8
    to $10 billion annually. Because of the lucrative nature of this
    industry, evidence is showing increasingly that transnational criminal
    organizations and terrorist groups that are involved in other major
    trafficking operations--drugs, humans and weapons--are engaged in
    wildlife trafficking as well.
                                 u.s. ivory ban
        The Federal Government recently presented a plan to implement its
    National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking (National
    Strategy), which is designed to provide a framework for a whole-of-
    government approach to addressing the crisis. Several programs within
    this bill form the base upon which that strategy is built, but a key
    piece of the overall National Strategy that has been of some concern to
    some members of the subcommittee--the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
    (FWS) announcement to change its current Federal rule to further
    restrict the commercial sale of ivory--should be addressed first.
        On the ground in Africa and elsewhere, WCS scientists are seeing,
    first-hand, the devastating impact poaching is having on elephants,
    rhinos, tigers, and other iconic species. A study published by WCS
    found that in 2012 alone, 35,000 African elephants were killed for
    their ivory--that is an average of 96 elephants per day or one killed
    every 15 minutes. This finding is supported by a subsequent study that
    found that 100,000 elephants were poached between 2011 and 2013. Both
    studies show that conditions are dire for the subspecies of African
    forest elephants, which has declined by about two-thirds in a little
    more than a decade. Continued poaching at this rate may mean the
    extinction of forest elephants in the wild within the next 10 years and
    the potential loss of all African elephant species in the wild in our
    lifetimes. Action must be taken now to prevent this catastrophe from
    occurring.
        There is little question that China is the largest market for
    illegal ivory. However, the United States is also one of the larger
    destinations, both for domestic consumption and as a transshipment hub
    for Asia. As part of Operation Crash, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service and Department of Justice have successfully arrested criminals
    and prosecuted cases in several States over the last 18 months--
    including Texas, New York, Florida and New Jersey--involving millions
    of dollars illegal ivory and rhino horn. These busts are strong
    evidence that there is a domestic problem with illegal ivory, all of
    which is smuggled in from overseas and which frequently crosses State
    lines, placing it firmly under Federal jurisdiction.
        The problem with ivory is that you cannot differentiate legal ivory
    antiques from illegal ivory without lab tests, which are costly and can
    damage the piece. Once raw or worked ivory from recently poached
    elephants is smuggled into the United States, it can easily be placed
    in the marketplace right alongside genuine antiques. A survey conducted
    in 2008 of 24,000 pieces of ivory being sold in antique stores in 16
    cities in the United States and Canada concluded exactly this point,
    finding that more than 7,000 of these items were potentially illegal.
    The system, as it was, was fundamentally flawed.
        Recognizing it does not have the resources to test and verify this
    many pieces of ivory, FWS is in the process of revising its rules
    regarding African elephant ivory to bring them more in line with the
    underlying statutes. FWS had initially indicated its intent to publish
    a proposed rule last summer, but after consulting with stakeholders
    from all sides, the agency appears to have taken the time to craft a
    rule that seeks to accommodate as many of these stakeholders as it can
    while still making meaningful changes that stop the domestic sale of
    illegal ivory.
        Last year's Interior bill in the House contained a provision that
    would have blocked FWS from proceeding on any rule related to ivory,
    forcing the continuation of a system that we know does not work and has
    been a contributing factor in the poaching of 100,000 elephants over
    the past 3 years. WCS understands that a preliminary rule is very close
    to being released. We would encourage the subcommittee to allow this
    process to continue so that the public can see the proposal and have a
    substantive debate on the actual content of the rule rather than the
    current arguments from both sides, which are based entirely on
    speculation about what the rule might contain.
                         u.s. fish and wildlife service
        Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF): There is much more
    to the Federal effort to combat wildlife trafficking than the ivory
    ban, much of which is under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. Global
    priority species--such as tigers, rhinos, African and Asian elephants,
    great apes, and marine turtles--face constant danger from poaching,
    habitat loss and other serious concerns. MSCF programs have helped to
    sustain wildlife populations by controlling poaching, reducing human-
    wildlife conflict and protecting essential habitat--all while promoting
    U.S. economic and security interests in far reaching parts of the
    world. These programs are highly efficient, granting them an outsized
    impact because they consistently leverage two to four times as much in
    matching funds. This program has been level-funded for the last 3
    fiscal years, and WCS requests that $11 million--equal to the
    President's request--be appropriated for the MSCF for fiscal year 2016.
        WCS has had great success on projects using funds from the MSCF.
    One grant we receive through the African Elephant Conservation Fund
    supports the longest running study of African forest elephants at
    Dzanga Bai in the Central African Republic. Despite political turmoil
    and instability in the country, the area remains an important habitat
    and gathering site for large numbers of elephants. Funds support
    ongoing surveillance and monitoring of the site, collection of baseline
    data, and collaboration with local anti-poaching efforts.
        FWS International Affairs: The FWS International Affairs (IA)
    program supports efforts to conserve our planet's rich wildlife
    diversity by protecting habitat and species, combating illegal wildlife
    trade, and building capacity for landscape-level wildlife conservation.
    The program provides oversight of domestic laws and international
    treaties that promote the long-term conservation of plant and animal
    species by ensuring that international trade and other activities do
    not threaten their survival in the wild. Within IA, the Wildlife
    Without Borders program seeks to address grassroots wildlife
    conservation problems from a broad, landscape perspective--building
    regional expertise and capacity while strengthening local institutions.
    WCS encourages supporting the President's request for $14.7 million.
        Office of Law Enforcement: The United States remains one of the
    world's largest markets for wildlife and wildlife products, both legal
    and illegal. A small group of dedicated officers at the FWS Office of
    Law Enforcement (OLE) are tasked with protecting fish, wildlife, and
    plant resources by investigating wildlife crimes--including commercial
    exploitation, habitat destruction, and industrial hazards--and
    monitoring the Nation's wildlife trade to intercept smuggling and
    facilitate legal commerce. Many of the new responsibilities placed on
    the FWS by the National Strategy will be enforced by the OLE, and WCS
    supports the President's request for $75.4 million. The additional
    funding requested for this year would allow OLE to expand its approach
    to target and stop illicit trade; ensure sustainable legal trade
    through the CITIES; place enforcement officers in transit hubs
    overseas; reduce demand for illegal products in consumer countries;
    and, provide technical assistance and grants to other nations to build
    local enforcement capabilities.
        Cooperative Landscape Conservation: Many of the domestic
    conservation programs in this bill provide funding to States to
    implement their conservation goals. But wildlife does not recognize
    political boundaries, and scarce conservation dollars can best be spent
    when effective planning and coordination takes place across entire
    ecosystems. The Cooperative Landscape Conservation Program funds a
    network of 22 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC) in the United
    States and Canada, which use a collaborative approach between Federal,
    State, tribal and local partners to identify landscape scale
    conservation solutions and work collaboratively to meet unfilled
    conservation needs, develop decision support tools, share data and
    knowledge, and facilitate and foster conservation partnerships. Funding
    will support landscape planning and design that will improve the
    condition of wildlife habitat and improve resilience of U.S.
    communities. WCS encourages the subcommittee to meet the President's
    request for $17.9 million for this program.
        State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program: The State and Tribal
    Wildlife Grants program gives States and tribes funding to develop and
    implement comprehensive conservation plans to protect declining
    wildlife and habitats before protection under the Endangered Species
    Act is necessary. This important program is supported by more than
    6,200 organizations that have formed a national bipartisan coalition
    called Teaming with Wildlife, of which WCS is a steering committee
    member. WCS recommends Congress provide strong and continued support
    for fiscal year 2016 at levels at or above fiscal year 2015
    appropriations for the program.
                              u.s. forest service
        International Programs: The U.S. economy has lost approximately $1
    billion per year and over 200,000 jobs due to illegal logging, which is
    responsible for 15-30 percent of all timber by volume. The Forest
    Service International Program (FSIP) works to level the playing field
    by reducing illegal logging and improving the sustainability and
    legality of timber management overseas, translating to less underpriced
    timber undercutting U.S. producers. Through partnerships with USAID and
    the Department of State, FSIP helps to improve the resource management
    in countries of strategic importance to U.S. security.
        With technical and financial support from FSIP, WCS has been
    working to conserve a biologically rich temperate forest zone called
    the Primorye in the Russian Far East. The region hosts over a hundred
    endangered species as well as numerous threatened species, including
    the Far Eastern leopard and Amur tiger. FSIP works with us to exchange
    information and methodologies with Russian scientists, managers, and
    students on a variety of wildlife-related topics to support
    conservation and capacity building efforts and ensure the sustainable
    management of forests and wildlife habitat.
        FSIP has been level-funded for several years. Given the economic
    benefits to U.S. timber producers and the program's excellent history
    of leveraging four additional dollars in matching funds for each
    Federal dollar invested, WCS encourages the subcommittee to appropriate
    $9 million for the program, an increase of $1 million from fiscal year
    2015. With additional appropriated funding, FSIP would expand a number
    of activities, including developing new technologies, protecting
    habitat for migratory species and endangered wildlife, promoting
    community forestry, supporting policy formulation, and strengthening
    law enforcement.
                           u.s. national park service
        Office of International Affairs: Since the establishment of the
    Office of International Affairs (OIA) in 1961, the U.S. Government has
    been facilitating technical assistance and exchange projects with
    counterpart agencies globally building on the legacy of American
    leadership in national parks management. OIA is also the managing
    agency for World Heritage Sites located in the United States. Thanks to
    this program, NPS is working on collaborative areas of trans-frontier
    concern, including at the Beringia Shared Heritage Initiative (U.S.-
    Russia), which WCS has been involved with as part of our ongoing
    conservation efforts in Arctic Alaska. The international work conducted
    by NPS is not only about helping other countries protect their parks
    and heritage. It is about bringing home best practices and learning
    from international engagement that could benefit the American parks.
    WCS recommends including the President's request of $897,000 for the
    OIA in fiscal year 2016.
        In conclusion, WCS appreciates the opportunity to share its
    perspectives and make a case for increased investment in conservation
    in the fiscal year 2016 Interior, the Environment and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Act. Conservation of public lands is an American
    tradition and, as far back as 1909, Theodore Roosevelt recognized that
    the management of our natural resources requires coordination between
    all nations. Continued investment in conservation will reaffirm our
    global position as a conservation leader, while improving our national
    security and building capacity and good governance in developing
    countries.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of The Wildlife Society
        The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to provide
    testimony on the fiscal year 2016 budget for the Department of
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The Wildlife Society was
    founded in 1937 and is a non-profit scientific and educational
    association representing nearly 9,000 professional wildlife biologists
    and managers. Our mission is to inspire, empower, and enable wildlife
    professionals to sustain wildlife populations and habitats through
    science-based management and conservation.
                         u.s. fish and wildlife service
        The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program is the only Federal
    program that supports States in preventing wildlife from becoming
    endangered. It is also the primary program supporting implementation of
    State Wildlife Action Plans, which detail on the ground conservation
    actions in each State to keep common species common. Funding assistance
    for State wildlife agencies is one of the highest priority needs to
    prevent further declines in at-risk species in every State. Previous
    budget reductions and sequestration have had a serious and
    disproportionate impact on State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. We are
    appreciative of the increase in funding recommended in the President's
    budget, to $70 million in fiscal year 2016. We recommend Congress
    appropriate at least $70 million for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
    in fiscal year 2016. We also ask that Congress not shift additional
    funds directed to States through formula grants to a competitive
    allocation. This funding is critical for maintaining wildlife diversity
    programs at the State level and a further reduction in the formula
    grants may have dramatic negative consequences.
        As a member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, or
    CARE, The Wildlife Society supports the President's request for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System's operations and maintenance accounts
    at $508.2 million for fiscal year 2016. CARE estimates that the Refuge
    System needs at least $900 million in annual Operations and Maintenance
    funding to properly administer its 562 refuges and 38 wetland
    management districts spanning over 150 million acres. Given current
    fiscal realities, we understand that funding at $900 million is not
    currently possible. However, at its highest funding level in fiscal
    year 2010, the Refuge System received only $503 million--little more
    than half the needed amount. Since that time, congressional
    appropriations have not only failed to account for rising costs, but
    have been steadily backsliding resulting in the loss of 324 employees
    since 2011, or 9 percent of all staff. Yet the Refuge System actually
    pays for itself several times over by generating $4.87 in economic
    activity for every $1 appropriated by Congress to run the Refuge
    System.
        The North American Wetlands Conservation Act is a cooperative, non-
    regulatory, incentive-based program that has shown unprecedented
    success in restoring wetlands, waterfowl, and other migratory bird
    populations. This program has remained drastically underfunded despite
    its demonstrated effectiveness. We support the President's request of
    $34.1 million and encourage Congress to match this request for fiscal
    year 2016.
        The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grants Program
    supports partnership programs to conserve birds in the U.S., Latin
    America and the Caribbean, where approximately 5 billion birds
    representing 341 species spend their winters, including some of the
    most endangered birds in North America. This program should be funded
    at or above $6.5 million to achieve maximum success. However,
    recognizing the current fiscal climate, The Wildlife Society recommends
    Congress increase funding for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
    Conservation Act to $4.16 million in fiscal year 2016.
        For fiscal year 2016, the FWS proposes to restructure the budget
    for all endangered species work within the Ecological Services Program.
    Endangered species recovery efforts can ultimately lead to delisting,
    resulting in significant benefits to species through State management
    efforts. FWS, with the help of Federal and State agency partners, has
    been working to implement new strategies to increase the efficiency and
    effectiveness of this program and to reduce the regulatory burden on
    private landowners and industry partners. To support these actions and
    the increased emphasis on consultation and recovery, we recommend
    Congress match the President's request and provide $38 million for
    Listing, $108.9 million for Planning and Consultation, and $126.3
    million for Conservation and Restoration in fiscal year 2016.
        The voluntary Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFW) provides
    financial and technical assistance to private landowners across the
    country to restore degraded habitat and to safeguard against potential
    regulatory burdens associated with endangered species listings. With
    over two-thirds of our Nation's lands held as private property, and up
    to 90 percent of some habitats lost, private lands play a key role in
    preserving our ecosystem. For example, working under a new MOU with the
    Natural Resource Conservation Service, PFW has been critical in
    engaging private landowners to restore and maintain habitat for the
    Greater Sage-Grouse in States like Idaho and Nevada; potentially
    removing the need for a future listing. We urge Congress to provide $60
    million in support of the PFW Program in fiscal year 2016 in order to
    allow landowners to help contribute to land and wildlife preservation.
        Through its International Affairs office, FWS works with many
    partners and countries in the implementation of international treaties,
    conventions, and projects for the conservation of wildlife species and
    their habitats. International trade, import, and transportation of
    wildlife species can have a huge impact on America's security, economy,
    and environment. Careful regulation of imports and implementation of
    international policies is an important task. We ask Congress to match
    the President's request of $14.7 million in support of FWS
    International Affairs in fiscal year 2016.
                           bureau of land management
        BLM lands support over 3,000 species of wildlife, more than 300
    federally proposed or listed species, and more than 1,300 sensitive
    plant species. Historically, the Wildlife and Fisheries Management
    (WFM) and the Threatened and Endangered Species Management (TESM)
    programs have been forced to pay for the compliance activities of BLM's
    energy, grazing, and other non-wildlife related programs, eroding both
    their ability to conduct proactive conservation activities and their
    efforts to recover listed species. Given the significant underfunding
    of the BLM's wildlife programs, combined with the tremendous expansion
    of energy development across the BLM landscape, we recommend Congress
    appropriate $89.4 million for BLM Wildlife Management in fiscal year
    2016. This will allow BLM to maintain and restore wildlife and habitat
    by monitoring habitat conditions, conducting inventories of wildlife
    resources, and developing cooperative management plans. We support the
    proposed increase of $37 million for sage-grouse conservation efforts;
    this kind of broad-scale, landscape based conservation is exactly what
    is needed to manage and conserve sage-grouse across their range.
        Increased funding is also needed for the Threatened and Endangered
    Species Management Program, to allow BLM to meet its responsibilities
    in endangered species recovery plans. BLM's March 2001 Report to
    Congress called for a doubling of the Threatened and Endangered Species
    budget to $48 million and an additional 70 staff positions over 5
    years. This goal has yet to be met. In light of this, we strongly
    encourage Congress to increase overall funding for BLM's endangered
    species program to $48 million in fiscal year 2016.
        The Wildlife Society, part of the National Horse and Burro
    Rangeland Management Coalition, appreciates the commitment of BLM to
    addressing the problems associated with Wild Horse and Burro
    Management. We support the requested increase of $3 million for
    implementation of the National Academy of Sciences recommendations and
    findings and continued research and development on contraception and
    population control. However, with more than 22,500 horses above BLM's
    stated Appropriate Management Levels on the range and nearly 50,000
    horses in off-site long- and short-term holding facilities The Wildlife
    Society is concerned about BLM's emphasis on fertility control alone.
    The current language limiting the use of humane euthanasia for unwanted
    or unadoptable horses should be removed to allow BLM to use all
    necessary management tools to bring populations of on- and off-range
    wild horses and burros within manageable range and additional funding
    should be requested to correct the habitat damage that has occurred due
    to overpopulation of these animals. The requested $80.6 million should
    be provided to BLM if they continue removing excess horses from the
    range at a reasonable rate and focus additional resources on habitat
    restoration.
                             u.s. geological survey
        The basic, objective, and interdisciplinary scientific research
    that is supported by the USGS is necessary for understanding the
    complex environmental issues facing our Nation today. This science will
    play an essential role in the decisionmaking processes of natural
    resource managers, and it will help protect our water supply and
    conserve endangered species. More investment is needed to strengthen
    USGS partnerships, improve monitoring, produce high-quality geospatial
    data, and deliver the best science to address critical environmental
    and societal challenges. The Wildlife Society supports funding of at
    least $1.2 billion for USGS in fiscal year 2016.
        The Ecosystems Program of USGS contains programmatic resources for
    fisheries, wildlife, environments, invasive species and the Cooperative
    Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. The Ecosystems program strives to
    maximize research and support for comprehensive biological and
    ecosystem based needs. The Wildlife Society supports the President's
    request of $176 million for USGS's Ecosystems Department in fiscal year
    2016. Within Ecosystems, we support the request of $46.7 million for
    the Wildlife Program.
        The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CFWRUs) are
    managed under the Ecosystems Department and conduct research on
    renewable natural resource questions, participate in the education of
    graduate students, provide technical assistance and consultation on
    natural resource issues, and provide continuing education for natural
    resource professionals. In fiscal year 2001, Congress fully funded the
    CFWRUs, allowing unit productivity to rise to record levels. Since
    then, budgetary shortfalls have continued to cause an erosion of
    available funds, resulting in a current staffing vacancy of nearly one
    quarter of the professional workforce. In order to fill current
    vacancies, restore seriously eroded operational funds for each CFWRU,
    and enhance national program coordination, the fiscal year 2016 budget
    for the CFWRUs should be increased to $20 million, the level requested
    by the President. This would restore necessary capacity in the CFWRU
    program and allow it to meet the Nation's research and training needs.
        The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center plays a
    pivotal role in addressing the impacts of climate change on fish and
    wildlife by providing essential scientific support. In order for this
    role to be fully realized, we recommend that Congress fund the National
    Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center at the requested $37.4
    million in fiscal year 2016.
                              u.s. forest service
        Our national forests and grasslands are essential to the
    conservation of our Nation's wildlife and habitat, and are home to
    about 425 threatened and endangered species, and another 3,250 at-risk
    species. In fiscal year 2011, the Forest Service combined several
    programs and budgets, including Vegetation and Watershed Management,
    Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management, and Forest Products into a
    single Integrated Resource Restoration activity budget. Although we
    have some reservations about this merger, because it makes
    accountability to stakeholders and Congress more difficult, we urge
    Congress to support the request of $822.1 million for the Integrated
    Resource Restoration program in fiscal year 2016.
        Integral to management of our natural resources is a deep
    understanding of the biological and geological forces that shape the
    land and its wildlife and plant communities. The research being done by
    the USFS is at the forefront of science, and essential to improving the
    health of our Nation's forests and grasslands. Furthermore, it will
    play a key role in developing strategies for mitigating the effects of
    climate change. We urge Congress to match the President's request of
    $292 million in fiscal year 2016 for Forest and Rangelands to support
    this high-quality research.
                         wildfire disaster funding act
        We appreciate the subcommittee's support of the Wildfire Disaster
    Funding Act (H.R. 167) and request it be included in this bill. It
    would provide the structure to fund a portion of the USDA Forest
    Service (USFS) and Department of the Interior (DOI) wildfire
    suppression costs through a budget cap adjustment under the Balanced
    Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, and
    provide the USFS and DOI with a funding structure similar to that used
    by other agencies who respond to natural disaster emergencies.
        Thank you for considering the recommendations of wildlife
    professionals.