    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    .
                        INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED
                         AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2018

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                     HEARINGS

                                     BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                  FIRST SESSION

                       ___________________________________

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES

                        KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman

      MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho              BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
      TOM COLE, Oklahoma                     CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
      DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio                   DEREK KILMER, Washington
      CHRIS STEWART, Utah                    MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
      MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
      EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia

      NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Frelinghuysen, as chairman of the full committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as
     ranking minority member of the full committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

                   Dave LesStrang, Darren Benjamin, Jason Gray,
                 Betsy Bina, Jaclyn Kilroy, and Kristin Richmond
                                Subcommittee Staff

                           _______________________________

                                      PART 6

                                                                       Page
      Indian Health Service Budget Oversight
    Hearing...........................................................    1

      High Risk American Indian & Alaska
    Native Programs--U.S. Government
    Accountability Office Oversight Hearing...........................   51

      U.S. Forest Service Budget Oversight
    Hearing...........................................................  117

      Department of the Interior Budget
    Oversight Hearing.................................................  189

      Environmental Protection Agency Budget
    Oversight Hearing.................................................. 385

              Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

                        _______________________________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     26-533                     WASHINGTON : 2017

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                    ----------
                 RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey, Chairman

      HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky \1\                         NITA M. LOWEY, New York
      ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama                         MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
      KAY GRANGER, Texas                                  PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
      MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho                           JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
      JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas                         ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
      JOHN R. CARTER, Texas                               DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
      KEN CALVERT, California                             LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
      TOM COLE, Oklahoma                                  SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
      MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida                          BARBARA LEE, California
      CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania                       BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
      TOM GRAVES, Georgia                                 TIM RYAN, Ohio
      KEVIN YODER, Kansas                                 C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
      STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas                              DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
      JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska                          HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
      THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida                           CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
      CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee                   MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
      JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington                   DEREK KILMER, Washington
      DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio                                MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
      DAVID G. VALADAO, California                        GRACE MENG, New York
      ANDY HARRIS, Maryland                               MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
      MARTHA ROBY, Alabama                                KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
      MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada                              PETE AGUILAR, California
      CHRIS STEWART, Utah
      DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
      EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
      STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
      DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
      JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
      SCOTT TAYLOR, Virginia
      ----------
      \1\}Chairman Emeritus

                       Nancy Fox, Clerk and Staff Director

                                       (ii)

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                            APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2018

                                  ----------

                                               Wednesday, May 24, 2017.

                             INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

                                   WITNESSES

    REAR ADMIRAL CHRIS BUCHANAN, ACTING DIRECTOR, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE,
        U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
    ANN CHURCH, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING
    CAPTAIN MICHAEL TOEDT, M.D., ACTING CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER
    GARY HARTZ, P.E., DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND
        ENGINEERING

                      Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert

        Mr. Calvert [presiding]. The committee will come to order.
        Good afternoon, and welcome to th``is oversight hearing of
    the Fiscal Year 2018 budget for the Indian Health Service.
        Funding for Indian Country has been a nonpartisan priority
    of this subcommittee for many years now. Working together, we
    have begun to address the most urgent needs, and we are making
    a difference. Contract support costs are now fully funded
    freeing up funds for operations, affording tribes the capacity
    to run additional programs rather than relying on the Federal
    government to do it for them.
        Funds to meet extraordinary medical costs for victims of
    disasters or catastrophic illness, which used to run out in the
    middle of the year and led to the common refrain in Indian
    Country do not get sick after June, and now finally estimated
    to last the entire year.
        More children are receiving proper dental care. More teens
    are receiving the help and support they need to battle
    substance abuse and suicide. More providers are being recruited
    because we are helping to pay back their student loans. More
    new care facilities are opening their doors each year. The list
    of accomplishments goes on and on, and we are deeply proud of
    our work.
        But we also recognize that we still have a long way to go
    before the health disparities in the American Indian and Alaska
    Native population, compared to the Nation as a whole, become a
    thing of the past. That is why I am disappointed by the fiscal
    year 2018 budget proposal for the Indian Health Service, which
    would cut the Agency's budget by $301 million, or 6 percent
    below the amount we just appropriated for fiscal year 2017.
        The proposal contains none of the increases enacted for
    fiscal year 2017. It contains no additional funds to keep pace
    with tribal and Federal pay costs, medical inflation, and
    population growth in order to maintain current level of
    service. It contains no funds to replace the dilapidated
    staffing quarters, or repay additional student loans, or make
    any extra effort for that matter to save the Agency from low
    recruitment and retention rates.
        For the first time since 2011, when the subcommittee began
    to annually appropriate enough funding to reduce the
    maintenance backlog, the budget request proposes to drive the
    backlog upwards again.
        The average age of Indian Health Service facilities is four
    times the nationwide average. At current spending rates, any
    facility constructed in 2015 will not be replaced for 400
    years. And yet, the budget request proposes to cut the
    construction budget by $18 million.
        Earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office
    added the Indian Health Service to the list of the highest risk
    programs across the Federal government. Whether that addition
    will rally support for IHS or, conversely, sink Agency morale
    and recruitment even further and exacerbate the Agency's
    problems, remains to be seen. But what is clear is this. The
    United States has a moral and legal responsibility to provide
    the highest possible standard of healthcare to American Indians
    and Alaska Natives.
        This responsibility is grounded in the earliest treaties
    between the sovereign and equal nations, and it must not be
    compromised at the expense of lower priorities in the Federal
    budget. Let me be clear. Congress must not balance the budget
    on the backs of American Indians and Alaska Natives.
        With us today from the Indian Health Service to explain the
    budget request and answer questions are Rear Admiral Chris
    Buchanan, Acting Director of the Indian Health Service, Dr.
    Michael Toedt, acting chief medical officer, and Ann Church,
    acting director, Office of Finance and Accounting. Thank you
    for being here today and for your public service to Indian
    Country.
        Before we turn to your opening statement, I will ask our
    distinguished ranking member, Ms. McCollum, for any opening
    remarks.

                        Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    welcome to those of you who are going to be testifying later.
    As the chairman clearly stated, last week we heard testimony
    from Native American witnesses about the need for adequate
    resources for healthcare services. They gave us their firsthand
    accounts describing their experiences and their challenges
    faced by their communities.
        Native Americans and Alaska Natives suffer some of the
    worst health disparities of all Americans, and live on average
    4.4 years less than anyone else in the U.S., all race
    populations in the United States. Additionally, suicide rates
    are four times higher than the national average, and suicide is
    the second leading cause of death for Native American youth.
        We know that much needs to be done to address these
    problems to improve the lives our Nation's indigenous people.
    Our goal today is to outline and understand the Indian Health
    Service's challenges and to look for ways we can work with you
    to address that. That said, I agree with the chairman, and I am
    personally deeply disappointed in the fiscal year 2018
    President's budget that cuts the Indian Health Service by $300
    million below the 2017 enacted level. Moreover, this reduction
    will significantly compound if the Patient Protection and
    Affordable Care Act is eliminated.
        Multiple tribal leaders expressed concern about this last
    week, knowing that a large portion of the American Indians and
    Alaska Natives could lose coverage, decreasing revenue streams
    upon which the services for the Indian Health Service rely.
        Funding for the Indian Health Service has been an area of
    broad bipartisan cooperation, as you can tell by the chairman's
    comments. And although we have provided increases in the Indian
    Health Service appropriation over the last several years,
    current events in the Great Plains region signal that more
    needs to be done. The continuing problem in the Great Plains
    region are a clear indication that IHS should be focusing its
    efforts on strengthening the organization and recruiting and
    retaining permanent staff.
        The 2017 statement of managers, ``We are very clear about
    our dedication providing access to healthcare for IHS patients
    all across the system. We stated our expectation that the IHS
    should aggressively work down the current health construction
    priority system and examine ways to effectively close the
    service gap.''
        This budget clearly, clearly does the opposite. It is
    reprehensible that the Administration's budget request includes
    $98 million, or 18 percent, reduction for Indian health
    facilities, especially when the average age of federally
    operated IHS facilities is 31 years, with some facilities older
    than 40 years without any repair or renovation. Furthermore,
    this budget does not include an increase provided by this
    Congress in the 2017 budget for things such urban Indian
    healthcare programs, dental, mental health, alcohol, and
    substance abuse.
        This budget also eliminates the Tribal Management Grant
    Program to assist tribes in assuming all or part of the IHS
    program services, functions, or activities, and only includes
    $2 million for accredited emergencies, when $29 million was
    added in 2017. Tragically, these cuts to IHS are just one part
    of President Trump's cruel and reckless budget. His proposal
    rips apart the social safety net with cruel cuts that fall on
    vulnerable children, families, and seniors, including Native
    Americans.
        In a Nation as prosperous as the United States,
    purposefully inflicting harm on vulnerable people is just plain
    immoral. Instead, we should be working together to build a
    stronger America for tribal nations and our Nation as a whole
    by making smart, sustainable investments in infrastructure,
    public schools, healthy environment, and safe streets.
        This should also be our guide in approaching comprehensive
    solutions and holistic approaches to address health, education,
    and the quality of life needs of Native Americans.
    Unfortunately, this proposed Indian Health Service budget falls
    short on the mark. I look forward to working with all of my
    subcommittee colleagues to craft a bill that will appropriately
    fund the IHS.
        We have a moral and legal responsibility to Native
    Americans, and when we fall short, it is just not a violation
    of treaty agreements that we hold with Native Americans, but it
    is a violation of the trust we share.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing. I thank
    you for your comments in your opening statement, and I look
    forward to working with you on these important issues, and
    doing our best to build back healthy tribal communities.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. McCollum, and I
    appreciate your remarks.
        We are going to have a series of votes, so we are going to
    have Admiral Buchanan's testimony, and then we are going to
    recess for a vote. Admiral, you are recognized.

                Opening Remarks of Acting Director RADM Buchanan

        Rear Admiral Buchanan. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr.
    Chairman, members of the subcommittee. I am Chris Buchanan, the
    acting director for Indian Health Service. Here with me today
    are three of my colleagues, Captain Michael Toedt, chief
    medical officer, Ann Church, the acting director of the Office
    of Finance and Accounting, and Mr. Gary Hartz, director of the
    Office of Environmental Health and Engineering.
        Today I am providing testimony on the President's fiscal
    year 2018 budget request for IHS, which will allow us to
    maintain and address our Agency's mission to raise the
    physical, mental, social, and spiritual health of American
    Indians and Alaska Natives to the highest level.
        IHS is responsible for providing Federal health services to
    approximately 2.2 million Americans and Alaska Natives from 567
    federally-recognized tribes in 36 States through a network of
    662 hospitals, clinics, and health stations. These health
    services are provided directly by IHS, by the tribes, and
    tribal organizations under the authorities of the Indian Self-
    Determination Education and Assistance Act. Our budget plays a
    critical role in providing a path to fulfill our commitment to
    ensure a healthier future for American Indian and Alaska Native
    people.
        The fiscal year 2018 President's budget proposes a total
    discretionary budget authority for IHS of $4.7 billion, which
    is $59 million below the fiscal year 2017 annualized continuing
    resolution. The budget reflects the Administration's high
    priority commitment to Indian Country, protecting the direct
    healthcare investments, and reducing IHS' overall program level
    by only .9 percent in the context of an 18 percent reduction
    within the overall HHS discretionary budget.
        In order to prioritize funding for the direct healthcare
    services to our population and newly-constructed joint venture
    healthcare facility scheduled to open in fiscal year 2017, the
    budget includes a reduction to funding levels for facilities,
    infrastructure projects, and management activities of $75
    million below the fiscal year 2017 annualized continuing
    resolution.
        IHS, like all of you, remains committed to addressing the
    behavioral health challenges, including high rates of alcohol,
    substance abuse, mental health disorders, and suicides, in
    American Indians and Native American communities. The budget
    for these services is maintained at the fiscal year 2016 level
    for a total of $288 million.
        The IHS, in partnership with tribes, uses evidence-based
    practices at the local levels to reduce the incidences of
    preventable diseases and improve the health of individuals,
    families, and communities across Indian Country. Programs such
    as public health nursing, health education, and community
    health representatives play an integral role in delivering
    culturally appropriate services.
        The fiscal year 2018 budget assumes $1.2 billion in
    estimated health insurance reimbursements from third-party
    collections. These third-party collections allow IHS and
    tribally managed programs to meet accreditation and compliance
    standards, and expand the provisions of healthcare services by
    funding staff positions, purchasing new equipment, and
    maintaining and improving buildings.
        The budget request includes $20 million to support staffing
    and operating costs for two joint venture construction program
    projects that include the Choctaw Nation Regional Medical
    Clinic in Oklahoma and the Flandreau Health Center in South
    Dakota. In addition, the budget includes funding to support
    three facility projects that include the Alamo Health Center in
    New Mexico, the Rapid City Health Center in South Dakota, and
    the Dilkon Alternative Rural Health Center in Arizona.
        The budget supports self-determination by continuing the
    separate indefinite appropriations account for contract support
    costs, or CSC, through fiscal year 2018, and includes an
    estimated $718 million to fully fund CSC. Maintaining the
    flexible funding authority of an indefinite appropriation
    allows IHS to guarantee full funding of CSC as required by law
    while protecting the Service's funding for the direct service
    tribes.
        Finally, we are working aggressively to address the quality
    care issues at three of our facilities in the Great Plains
    area: Winnebago, Rosebud, and Pine Ridge. The challenges are
    longstanding, especially around recruitment and retention of
    providers. The deficiencies cited in the reports by CMS are
    unacceptable. Providing high quality of care to our IHS
    patients is my priority, and we have intense efforts under way
    right now to correct the problem cited by CMS at these
    hospitals. In November 2016, we launched the Quality Framework,
    an implementation plan to strengthen the quality of care that
    IHS delivers to patients we serve.
        Despite all these challenges, we are firmly committed to
    improving quality safety and access to healthcare for American
    Indians and Alaska Natives in collaboration with the HHS, our
    partners across Indian Country, and the Congress. I appreciate
    all the efforts in helping us provide the best possible
    healthcare services to our people we serve to ensure a
    healthier future for American Indians and Alaska Natives.
        Thank you, and we are happy to answer any questions you may
    have.
        [The statement of Admiral Buchanan follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you for your testimony, Admiral. We are
    going to recess for probably about a half an hour. We have five
    votes, and we will come back immediately after the last vote.
        We are recessed.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Calvert. The committee will come to order.
        We have a hard stop at 3:30 today and two hearings to get
    through, so I will try to keep things moving. I ask that
    members consider deferring at least some of their questions for
    the record so we can keep to our schedule today.
        I will start off. Let me see. Which question do I want to
    ask first? [Laughter.]

                              gao high risk report

        Admiral, do you have any concerns about any of the GAO
    recommendations on this high-risk report?
        Admiral Buchanan. I would like to explain some of the
    activities that are related to the GAO risk report. We accept
    those findings from GAO wholeheartedly. There were some that we
    did not agree with, but the majority of those we did, and we
    can provide detailed information related to each specific
    finding going forward.
        The way the GAO identified their reports were basically in
    five different areas related to oversight, Federal activities,
    workforce planning. Some of the things that IHS has been doing
    can be lumped into two big areas as far as quality and PRC
    activities. Quality, we have been implementing the Quality
    Framework as the GAO has recommended. We have identified those
    high-risk areas that we want to focus on, so making----
        Mr. Calvert. Well, since you made that offer to provide the
    subcommittee with information, we would love to have a written
    status update on every IHS related recommendation in the GAO
    High Risk Report. It is important we stay on top of this.
        Admiral Buchanan. Yes, sir.
        [The information follows:]

                              GAO High Risk Report
        IHS takes GAO's recommendations very seriously. IHS plans to focus
    on making audit resolution a key priority in improving the management
    controls of the IHS, and to sustain those improvements. IHS will
    continue to work directly with your staff to provide status updates on
    this topic on an ongoing basis.

        Mr. Calvert. Your 2018 budget proposes no increases for pay
    costs, medical inflation, population growth in an effort just
    to maintain current levels of service. Previous budgets have
    estimated current services costs to be upwards of $200 million.
    What is the estimated increase necessary to maintain current
    services in fiscal year 2018?
        Admiral Buchanan. Great question. I do not have that
    information right in front of me, but I would be happy to
    provide that information to the record.
        [The information follows:]

                          Maintaining Current Services
        Approximately $200 million would cover the costs of medical and
    non-medical inflation, pay, and population growth.

                              MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

        Mr. Calvert. Yeah. Well, you got a tough job, do you not?
        Maintenance backlog. The 2018 budget proposes a $15 million
    decrease in the maintenance budget. For the past 2 years, we
    have provided sufficient maintenance funding to start driving
    the backlog downward again, even if by a little bit. What is
    your estimated size of the maintenance backlog?
        Admiral Buchanan. Thank you for the question. The
    maintenance backlog, as you were referring to, is the
    maintenance and improvement area. And we definitely use the
    maintenance and improvement activities to drive our costs.
    Those usually are offset by third party collections going
    forward. Specific information I would defer to, with your
    permission, Gary Hartz to provide that answer for us.
        Mr. Calvert. Gary.
        Mr. Hartz. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
        Mr. Calvert. Speak into----
        Mr. Hartz. Thank you, Mr. Calvert. The----
        Mr. Calvert. Please say your name for the record, sir.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Hartz. My name is Gary Hartz. I am the director of
    environmental health and engineering for the Indian Health
    Service, and have served in that position now for a number of
    years.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Mr. Hartz. Thank you for the question. The backlog of
    essential maintenance alteration and repair currently is right
    at about $515 million.
        Mr. Calvert. Since you are here, will the maintenance
    backlog go up or down at the requested funding level for 2018?
        Mr. Hartz. The industry standards pretty much outline that,
    you know, as you have aging facilities or even new facilities,
    you are looking at about a 3 to 4 percent increase in that
    backlog if not adequately addressed.
        Mr. Calvert. So, if it is not adequately addressed, so the
    backlog will go up.
        Mr. Hartz. That is what the standards pretty much outline,
    and we compare our facilities and our health centers to that of
    the industry of the healthcare industry. The answer is
    affirmative.
        Mr. Calvert. What is the estimated funding level necessary
    to keep driving the backlog downward? You mentioned 3 to 5
    percent. How much money does that equate to?
        Mr. Hartz. That would be the annual amount that I
    mentioned. When you look at what is needed by the National
    Research Council, they say that you should be taking a look at
    your asset inventory value, and that typically should run
    somewhere between 2 to 4 percent of your asset inventory value.
        Mr. Calvert. What number would that be?
        Mr. Hartz. It is a quite large number, sir.
        Mr. Calvert. What is that?
         Voice. Provide it----
        Mr. Calvert. Yeah, if you could provide that for the
    record?
        Mr. Hartz. We will absolutely, 10-4.
        [The information follows:]

                          Estimated Maintenance Costs
        The estimated annual maintenance cost to address the necessary
    repair, preventive maintenance, materials, direct labor and contract
    costs for the IHS/Tribal plant inventory value of $4.81 billion would
    be $100-$200 million.

               2016 FACILITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT TO CONGRESS

        Mr. Calvert. The 2016 Facility Needs Assessment Report to
    Congress states that at the existing replacement rate, a new
    2016 facility would not be replaced for 400 years. Please
    explain that.
        Mr. Hartz. Sure. Based on an appropriation level, and that
    was submitted in 2016. Based on an appropriation level of $85
    million a year, which is what we received in 2016, we were
    receiving at that point. We actually a got a bump in 2016, but
    when we did the report it was $85 million.
        And if you look at the square footage that the Indian
    Health Service operates within to deliver healthcare for
    American Indians and Alaska Natives, both Federal and tribal
    programs, and you take a look at the cost to build and you run
    the calculations, sir, it comes out to just a little under 400
    years.
        Mr. Calvert. Well, I have a series of questions relating
    the construction backlog. And I do not want to embarrass
    anybody, but we need to get these answers. I am going to submit
    those to you for written response.
        But obviously, with the facilities as old as they are, this
    is a significant problem, along with others. With that, I will
    recognize Ms. McCollum.

                                    STAFFING

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are tracking the
    same way. You are talking about facilities, and I am going to
    talk about the people who go in the facilities, and let us talk
    about staffing.
        The Trump Administration has directed all agencies to
    submit a long-term workforce reduction plan by June 30th, 2017.
    If you look at the March GAO report of 2016, the report states
    that IHS informed them that the insufficient workforce was the
    biggest impediment to ensuring patients' access to timely
    primary care.
        So, are you finding other agencies that are better able to
    offer salary and benefit packages? Are those agencies
    recruiting your staff? You know, kind of fill us in. What are
    the current number of vacancies in the Indian Health Service,
    and are you having problems with turnover rate?
        I have some other follow-up questions, but just on
    staffing.
        Admiral Buchanan. Thank you for the question. We have a
    staff of around 15,000 people. We have approximately 3,000
    vacancies. We have a vacancy rate of 20 percent. Some of our
    high vacancies include, of course, our healthcare providers for
    sure. Our physicians are at 30 percent.
        Ms. McCollum. We have a physician shortage of 30 percent.
        Admiral Buchanan. Yes, ma'am.

                           RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

        Ms. McCollum. Compared to the VA and other Federal agencies
    and Federal groups--the DOD offers healthcare, for example--
    where are you on the pay scale? Are they competition for you?
    Are you the same?
        Admiral Buchanan. That is a great question. Some of the
    activities we have been doing regarding recruitment and
    retention, as I mentioned in the Quality Framework, is trying
    to get more providers into the system, and we have got some
    creative initiatives going. Some of those that you are
    referencing would relate to the VA. Under Title 38 we have some
    of those same authorities that the VA has.
        Ms. McCollum. Given the fact that you have a 20 percent
    shortage of employees, you have a 30 percent shortage in
    physicians alone, what has been your response as you are
    preparing this June 30th report to the Trump Administration?
    Are you telling the Administration that you do not have
    problems as far as you have too much workforce, but you have
    too little workforce? I do not see how you could be submitting
    a reduction plan to the White House when you have a 20 percent
    shortage, a 30 percent shortage in physicians. What is the
    dialogue between you and the White House on this?
        Admiral Buchanan. That is a great question. You know, this
    budget is a tough budget for sure, truly tough budget going
    forward. We had to make tough decisions on this budget. So, you
    know, we are committed to meeting the mission of the Indian
    Health Service.
        Ms. McCollum. Okay. I do not mean to put you on the spot to
    answer that, but one would hope that the White House is open to
    hearing that not all agencies are the same to do across-the-
    board workforce reductions.

                              GAO HIGH RISK REPORT

        The GAO report of 2017 highlighted the adverse effects of
    the inconsistency area office and facility leadership on the
    oversight of facility operations and supervision of personnel.
    That goes to the fact that you have a workforce shortage.
        For example, the Great Plains area, which is an area where
    we are really focused on seeing some radical improvement, you
    were the acting director in 2016. There were four area
    directors between 2011 and 2016 before you came there. Four
    different area directors. Seven chief executive officers at the
    Rosebud Service Agency. Ten executive officers at the Omaha
    Winnebago Hospital. Three executive officers at Pine Ridge
    Service Unit.
        Can you please tell us what you are trying to do, because
    you went in there at a time of crisis, to stabilize the
    leadership, to create an environment where the correct
    decisions can be made in a timely fashion to turn this around?
    And, again, how is the workforce shortage affecting your
    ability to recruit and retain.
        I show this as an example to back up why I was making the
    points before that the Administration has to pay careful
    attention when they are asking for long-term workforce
    reductions, especially as to how it will affect the IHS.
        Admiral Buchanan. Great question, and thank you for that.
    One of the things that we found in the Great Plains, and
    specifically in my time, there was leadership, as you
    mentioned, there was a high turnover going forward. Some of the
    things that we addressed and put into place is the Quality
    Framework, as I mentioned, knowing that we needed
    organizational capacity and accountability going forward.
        And specifically with that priority in the Quality
    Framework is to recruit and retain qualified staff, provide
    accountability, identify quality measures to make sure that we
    are providing it consistently. Some of the items that were
    identified in GAO and some of the CMS findings include strong
    governance. And that is one of the things we put in place for
    accountability and spread that throughout not only the Great
    Plains area, but throughout IHS.
        Ms. McCollum. Well, Mr. Chair, I have lots of other
    questions on third party payments and what happens if the
    Special Diabetes Program does not get authorized, but I will
    submit them for the record.
        Thank you.

                               PATIENT WAIT TIMES

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. McCollum. Real
    quickly before I pass it over to Mr. Cole, does IHS track
    patient wait times like the Veterans Administration does?
        Admiral Buchanan. We do track patient wait times at the
    local level, but we actually have an initiative as related to
    the Quality Framework. That is one of our patient experience
    priorities is wait time measurements.
        Mr. Calvert. How do they compare?
        Admiral Buchanan. I would love to defer that question with
    your permission to Dr. Toedt.
        Mr. Calvert. How do they compare to the VA, Doctor?
        Dr. Toedt. Thank you for the question. So, the Indian
    Health Service, respectfully, we do not consider as one broad
    brush. You know, we have Federal, tribal, and urban clinics. We
    have hospitals. We have health centers. Urban programs
    sometimes do not directly see patients, but rather provide care
    coordination and different levels of access. So, we are not
    identical to the VA and cannot have a direct comparison.
        However, we have been looking at examples from the public
    and private sector, including DOD and the VA, and we are
    approaching this to deliver metrics that make sense for our
    system. One of the ways we are doing that is through a patient
    experience survey. And we are asking our patients if they are
    able to get an appointment when they wanted it. We are also
    asking patients if they have, when they arrive their visit, do
    they have to wait long for their providers.
        Mr. Calvert. In the interest of time, will you get us a
    copy of that survey when it is completed, please?
        Dr. Toedt. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Calvert. Mr. Cole.

                             FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

        Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
    thank witnesses for being here. I certainly do not have any
    doubt, Admiral, Captain, Ms. Church, about your commitments in
    this area at all, so any remarks I make are certainly not
    addressed to any of you. And, frankly, I do not have any doubt
    about our friend, Secretary Price, either. My friend, the
    chairman, and I actually visited with him.
        I will submit this for the record. I think you already have
    it, though.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Cole. We showed him, you know, what our Federal
    expenditures per capita for Native Americans, Medicaid
    recipients, Medicare recipients, and veterans. And as you can
    imagine, I mean, spending on Native American health is at the
    absolute bottom, and not by a little bit, but by a lot. So,
    this is clearly a place, no matter how hard this committee has
    worked, and it has on a bipartisan basis over recent years. We
    have not been able to get anywhere near where we would like to
    be.
        So, a $300 million cut really is not defensible or
    acceptable. And, you know, whether the Administration knows it
    or not, this budget reflects that it does not care very much
    about Indian healthcare.
        So, I think part of the root of our problem here is
    twofold, and the chairman and I have had this discussion. One,
    because this is an old healthcare system, long pre-dating
    Medicare and Medicaid. I mean, most of our medical things are
    taken out of mandatory funding, and this committee, hard as it
    tries, has limited amounts of dollars. And so, you know, one of
    the things we need to look at long term is, frankly, getting
    out of the discretionary business and funding Native American
    healthcare the way everybody else's healthcare is funded.
        And the second thing, if we cannot do that, and, again, the
    chairman and I have visited about this, this is not a very big
    pot of money for this committee. It is about $31 billion, if I
    recall, $30, $31 billion, and with a range of responsibilities.
        At least over at Labor-H, we have got $160 plus billion, at
    least right now. And, you know, it would be a lot easier in
    something that large to honestly make the kind of significant
    strides that I think we need to make here.
        So, I appreciate, and I really do because, again, you guys
    have devoted your life to this. And I admire the service, I
    really do, because I do not think we have given you anywhere
    near the resources to do the job at hand. If we are going to
    redo Indian facilities once every 400 years, that expresses a
    great deal of optimism about the future of the United States
    when we can see that far ahead. [Laughter.]
        But, so I guess that is the silver lining in that
    statement.
        We do have, too, as you know, tremendous variation. This
    committee through the CODEL a number of years ago. I know Mr.
    Simpson was on it, and my good friend, Ms. McCollum was on it,
    and we saw what was really a first world healthcare system that
    the Chickasaws have because they put a lot of their own money
    in it. And then we went to some of these facilities that later
    were listed in the Great Plains. We were at Rosebud, and we
    were at Pine Ridge.
        And so, I mean, the care difference, you know, was just
    dramatic, and the difference was nothing wrong with the people
    in those two places. They just did not have anywhere near the
    resources they needed. And obviously, in the remote locations,
    it is very difficult to get personnel to come and stay there.
        How you administer a system that diverse with that
    different a capability, frankly, at the tribal level is an
    interesting question. But the bottom line is the Chickasaws are
    doing a lot more because they can, but they should not have to.
    This is a treaty obligation.
        I am not a lawyer, but when I look at numbers like this, if
    you could not take the United States government to court, which
    the Indians have done before on contract services, and win, I
    would not be surprised because we certainly have not kept up
    our end of the obligations here.
        So, I do not really have any questions for you because I do
    not think they are fair to put you in that position. And I do
    admire, you know, all of you and your fellows, who I think,
    again, we have let you down. You have not let us down.
        But the Administration needs to take sight of this, and
    they are now in the responsible quarter. And beginning this
    challenge by cutting the available resources, absolutely
    unacceptable. I mean, it will be over my dead body. I am not
    look for efficiencies here.
        But we are going to do everything we can to try and reverse
    these numbers, or I will, and then I think beyond that, we are
    going to just have to find a better way. And I would invite the
    Administration in all seriousness to sit down and let us
    explore that better way, because I do not think this committee,
    no matter how hard it works with the amount of money it has,
    can ever get us to where we need to be.
        So, we need to think of some sort of structural change that
    will put the appropriate amount of resources here. And, you
    know, forcing you guys to come here and either beg for nickels
    and dimes or defend what I think what are indefensible cuts I
    think is not the right way to go. There has got to be a better
    policy solution than we have stumbled onto here.
        And fortunately, this committee has the leadership and the
    will on a bipartisan basis to try and think through those
    issues, and, you know, my commitment is to continue to work on
    this. But, again, the message I would deliver back to the folks
    at OMB, because I suppose who dreamed this up, is I would like
    some of you guys to come to Pine Ridge and to come to Rosebud,
    and go look at some of the conditions that American Indians are
    living in in places like that, and then tell me how you could
    defend this, and I do not think they can.
        This is one of those cases where have got a bunch of number
    crunchers, and that is great. We all need number crunchers. No
    offense, Ms. Church. I did not mean that directed at you
    obviously. [Laughter.]
        But, you know, they just do not have any connection with
    the real world, they really do not, or they would not present a
    budget like this. You do. You are our number cruncher, you
    know. [Laughter.]
        But just, again, I apologize honestly that you were put in
    this situation that you had to come here and defend this
    because I know you would all want a more robust budget, and a
    budget that was adequate to the challenges that you
    legitimately have.
        And this is a population that now lives 4 and a half years
    less than the average American, some places over 20 years less,
    Indian men, white men. I think, in Montana that is the number.
    Higher rates of disease than any other part of our population,
    you know, more challenged in every other way. And to think we
    are going to sit here and cut this is just, I mean, honestly, I
    very much hope Congress does not ever do anything like that.
        I mean, we have got a bad enough record over the course of
    240 years. This committee has done what it can under bipartisan
    leadership in the last few years to try and reverse that, which
    I am very proud of this committee and the members on both sides
    of the aisle, the chairmen we have had on both sides of the
    aisle, two of which are sitting right next to me now. And we
    can do better than this.
        So, I admire your bravery for being here and your
    professionalism. I hold you all in very high esteem. But I can
    tell you, whoever came up with this budget I do not hold in
    high esteem, and will do everything I can to make sure it does
    not stand.
        With that, I will yield back.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Cole. I appreciate it.
        Next, Ms. Pingree.

                                OPIOID EPIDEMIC

        Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I know the chair has
    asked us to limit our questions, and I can submit most of mine
    for the record.
        Frankly, I do not think I can improve on my colleagues here
    today on both sides of the aisle and their huge concerns about
    this budget, and the difficulties under which you have to
    operate. The idea that we would be making cuts to an already
    underserved population is really unthinkable.
        The only thing I will highlight in the mix of things that
    just do not look good in here is no more resources to deal with
    the opioid epidemic. We already know how challenging that is in
    States throughout the country, and it is even more challenging
    in Indian Country. I know that the tribes in my State have told
    us of very long wait times. In the State of Maine, you have to
    go to North Carolina to get inpatient treatment. I mean, that
    is just impossible, and it is very hard to come back if you do
    get to inpatient and then reintegrate into your community and
    try to make sure that you can stay off of opioids.
        I noticed in the budget justification here, which is just
    an unthinkable number, it says that there has been a 454
    percent increase in drug-related deaths since they started
    counting in 1979. That is just an unfathomable number, and
    obviously we should be doing much more here.
        I will submit my questions for the record and add that in
    as, you know, another important consideration, and echo
    everyone's appreciation for the work you do, and hope that we
    can change the numbers in this budget.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Simpson.

                             FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

        Mr. Simpson. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Since we just got the
    budget yesterday, I have not had a lot of time to go through
    the budget and the justification. I do not know whose book that
    is, but I want one because I want to sit down and be able to
    look at what the justifications for some of these things are.
        And let me tell you, frankly, I could not have said it
    better than my good friend Mr. Cole, so I will not try. But the
    Administration's budget is just in general terms disappointing,
    especially after all the work we have done on this committee
    over the last several years to try to make sure we address
    Indian health services, that we get them the care that they
    need.
        And we have done it, frankly, at great expense for a lot of
    other programs within this budget. You know, the backlog
    maintenance that is growing in a lot of areas, we have said
    that is not as important as Indian healthcare, and a lot of the
    other programs. To see this Administration kind of retreat on
    that is obviously disappointing to us.
        I am not one who believes that just throwing more money at
    something solves the problem. If you have got better ways of
    delivering services to our Native American brothers and
    sisters, I am all for that. But even if you could deliver the
    resources that we currently appropriate in the most efficient
    manner that could possibly be used, we are still way behind.
    Regardless of how we do it, we do need more resources.
        And ultimately the President makes recommendations. That is
    his job. And it is our Constitutional responsibility to do the
    appropriations. And I am sure this committee will look at the
    overall budget and look through the justifications of what has
    been proposed, and will come up with a budget that continues to
    move us forward.
        I feel confident in Chairman Calvert--it is all on his
    back----
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Simpson [continuing]. That we will move forward in
    advancing, that which we have tried to do for some time. The
    other thing we have discovered over the years as we have looked
    at this, Indian Health Service was our highest priority because
    if you do not have your health, you do not have anything.
        But there are so many other problems in Indian Country,
    whether it is Indian education, whether it is law enforcement
    in Indian Country, we have to address these issues. So, we were
    kind of hoping that we were moving ahead on Indian Health
    Service so that we could also concentrate on Indian education,
    which we did in the last budget.
        We look forward to working with you. And, again, it is not
    a criticism of any of you, not even of the bean counters. I
    mean, I love you, and you do a great job. [Laughter.]
        But we look forward to working with you to try to improve
    healthcare in Indian Country across this country. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Mr. Kilmer.

                        BACKLOG IN SANITATION FACILITIES

        Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thanks for being with
    us. We sat through a couple of days of testimony with tribal
    leaders from around the Nation. One of the issues that came up
    a number of times was the significant backlog in sanitation
    facilities. I guess that is part of the reason I was surprised
    to see a proposed cut of 25 percent for construction of
    sanitation facilities. I think the Department has identified a
    backlog of 2,800 projects that would cost a total of $2.8
    billion, primarily dealing with sewer systems and safe drinking
    water.
        I have got one specific question, and I will submit it for
    the record. There is a sewer system in our district, located on
    the Ho Tribe's reservation, that was approved in 2013, and the
    Department only just now issued an RFP. I would like to get
    some understanding of what caused the delay and whether these
    proposed cuts would further delay something that is already
    very long overdue.

                             FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

        Mr. Kilmer. In general, do you feel like this budget
    actually makes progress on meeting those needs of a lot of
    tribes who have a lot of very significant needs when it comes
    to safe drinking water and sewage treatment?
        Admiral Buchanan. The budget, again, really a tough, tough
    budget. We have consulted with the tribes. We understand their
    concerns for sure going forward. None of the cuts that were
    identified were easy to make, but you have my commitment to
    continue to move forward on the mission with the Indian Health
    Service.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thanks. In the interest of time, I will yield
    back, but I will submit additional questions about the Ho
    Tribe's project for the record. Thanks.
        Admiral Buchanan. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Joyce.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand my
    question was already addressed by Ms. McCollum. But I will echo
    the sentiments of the chairman, Chairman Simpson, and Mr. Cole
    about the need for us to do better for you.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman. I just want to make one
    final comment. This is the beginning of a process. We all
    respect all three of you. You are doing the best you can under
    these circumstances. We will do our best to make some changes
    in this budget proposal obviously and to improve the situation
    in Indian Country. That is our mandate, and that is our intent.
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair?
        Mr. Calvert. Yes, Ms. McCollum.
        Ms. McCollum. Before you close this off, I want to say, the
    chairman and I asked some pretty tough questions, and as you
    said, it is a pretty tough budget. But we have to put them out
    publicly to send a signal to the White House of our
    displeasure. But I think Mr. Cole was right in saying our
    displeasure is not directed at the fine work that you do as
    Federal employees working for the Indian Health Services.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. This concludes our hearing on the
    fiscal year 2018 budget for Indian Health Service. Again, I
    want to thank you all for your testimony today and your efforts
    to lead the Indian Health Service during a time of great change
    and obviously even greater challenges.
        This hearing is now adjourned. We will move right into our
    next hearing with the Government Accountability Office and a
    closer look at tribal programs under our jurisdiction that GAO
    has recently added to the biannual high-risk report.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                               Wednesday, May 24, 2017.

    OVERSIGHT HEARING--HIGH RISK AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE PROGRAMS
                        (EDUCATION, HEALTHCARE, ENERGY)

                                   WITNESSES

    MELISSA EMREY-ARRAS, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME
        SECURITY TEAM, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
    KATHLEEN KING, DIRECTOR, HEALTH CARE TEAM, U.S. GOVERNMENT
        ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
    FRANK RUSCO, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT TEAM, U.S.
        GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

                      Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert

        Mr. Calvert [presiding]. Good afternoon, and welcome to
    this oversight hearing on programs within the subcommittee's
    jurisdiction that the Government Accountability Office recently
    added to its list of highest risk programs across the Federal
    government.
        Since 1990, the GAO High Risk List has highlighted those
    government programs most in need of attention from Congress and
    the executive branch. The High Risk List differs from most GAO
    reports because once a program is put on that list, it has to
    earn its way off. Some programs have been on the list since its
    inception, leading some to draw the comparison to the 1977
    Eagles hit Hotel California, where you can check out anytime
    you like, but you can never leave. [Laughter.]
        However, since 1990, 23 other programs have earned their
    way off the list, and so doing that have turned into models of
    how government should work, and saving billions of dollars
    along the way. Today we will talk about three more programs I
    expect to soon follow in those footsteps.
        Since 2011, the GAO has published 14 reports pertaining to
    education, energy, and healthcare programs that serve federally
    recognized Indian tribes and their members. Those reports
    contain 41 recommendations for improvements. Thirty-nine
    recommendations are still open. Failure to implement these
    recommendations has literally put people's health and safety at
    risk, which is precisely why these programs have been added.
        For example, the GAO discovered that the Department of
    Interior has failed to conduct annual health and safety
    inspections and make repairs at many of the 185 elementary and
    secondary schools under its purview. Also, for example, the GAO
    found that the Indian Health Service provides inadequate
    oversight of its hospitals, and is unable to ensure that
    patients receive quality care. At a few locations, the
    situation has gotten so bad that the Centers of Medicare and
    Medicaid Services has cited the hospitals for putting patient
    health and safety in imminent jeopardy.
        This subcommittee has stepped up its efforts in recent
    years to improve the situation in Indian Country, particularly
    in the very areas we hear about today. To some, the addition of
    these programs on the High Risk List may seem like a setback.
    But I see this is an opportunity not only to raise awareness
    and support throughout Congress, but also to challenge this
    subcommittee and the new Administration to provide the
    resources and the oversight to get these programs back on
    track, and the GAO has provided the roadmap to get there.
        Now, some of our colleagues in Congress have argued against
    funding programs with significant management problems. I
    certainly can sympathize, and in some cases even agree. But in
    other cases, management problems are a function of limiting
    funding. We all know that it takes money to hire and retain
    good people. The programs we will hear about today are
    challenged by both poor management and limited funding. Teasing
    these apart so that we can chart a responsible path forward is
    the challenge before us today.
        We are joined today by three members of the GAO leadership
    team who will testify about their important work.
        First up will be Melissa Emrey-Arras, director of Education
    Workforce and Income Security, who will discuss education.
    Next, we will hear from Frank Russo--Rusco I should say--
    director of National Resources and Environment, who will
    discuss the BIA energy program. And last, but not least,
    welcome Kathleen King, director of Health Care, to talk about
    the Indian Health Service.
        We will hear opening statements from each of you before
    turning to questions and discussion with members of this
    committee. Before we begin, though, I would like to first ask
    our distinguished ranking minority member, Ms. McCollum for any
    opening remarks she may wish to make.

                        Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to
    join you in welcoming the panel to the subcommittee this
    afternoon, and fully would like to acknowledge your remarks and
    agree with them.
        It is essential that the Federal government meet its trust
    responsibilities to Native American Indians, and oversight of
    Indian programs is a very important piece to ensuring that
    these commitments are appropriately met. I am very pleased that
    the GAO has been closely investigating the numerous challenges,
    as the chair put it, facing the delivery of healthcare and
    education, especially by the Bureau of Indian Education and the
    Indian Health Services, who we just heard from.
        The management issues and lack of accountability are
    reoccurring themes, and GAO has really helped to document the
    need for reform. This critical need was amplified in February
    when GAO added the Federal management of Indian programs to its
    High Risk List, something that was appropriate and long
    overdue, in my opinion.
        Just last week, this committee held two days of tribal
    public witness hearings. We listened and learned about the
    unthinkable hardships in Indian Country, and we also heard the
    message loud and clear. More work is needed to be done to
    improve healthcare and education services.
        But it is very unfortunate that this Administration has put
    forward a budget that cuts Indian programs. Indian Health
    Service is cut by $300 million, and the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs by $372 million. These cuts, in my opinion, are cruel
    and they are unnecessary, and, if enacted, would jeopardize the
    health and wellness of our Indian brothers and sisters.
        So, today's hearing, Mr. Chair, is very timely, and I think
    the GAO will continue to be an important resource and partner
    as we carry out our oversight role. The findings from your
    investigations that we are going to hear from help both
    agencies that this committee works with, and it will help the
    committee to start fixing broken programs, or should I say
    broken promises. I look forward to discussing the findings
    today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the courtesy of an opening
    statement.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. We are going to recognize Ms.
    Emrey-Arras. Welcome back to the subcommittee, and thanks again
    for being here today. You are recognized for 5 minutes to give
    your testimony.

                       Opening Remarks of Ms. Emrey-Arras

        Ms. Emrey-Arras. Thank you, Chairman Calvert, Ranking
    Member McCollum, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
    inviting me here today to discuss a new area we added to our
    High Risk List this year, improving Federal management programs
    that serve tribes and their members. We added this area to our
    High Risk List this past February in response to serious
    problems in Federal management and oversight of Indian
    education, energy, and healthcare programs, which were
    highlighted in several of our prior reports.
        There are nearly 40 recommendations from these prior
    reports that have not been implemented. Overall, our High Risk
    Program has served to identify and help resolve serious
    weaknesses in areas that involve substantial resources and
    provide critical services to the public.
        In order for this area to be removed from our High Risk
    List, which is our ultimate goal here, Interior and HHS need to
    show improvement on five key elements, and we have a star here
    that demonstrates the five separate areas. Those are leadership
    commitment, having capacity to resolve risk, having an action
    plan, doing monitoring, and demonstrating progress.
        Since this is a new area, it does not have a star created
    yet for it. However, in our next High Risk Report in 2019, we
    will have a star specific to this new area, which will show the
    actual status at that point in time and whether or not any
    progress has been made.
        I will now highlight some of the concerns we have with
    Indian education.
        In our High Risk Report, we identified serious weaknesses
    in BIE's oversight of school spending. For example, in 2014 we
    found that BIE did not have written procedures and risk
    criteria to ensure that schools use Federal funds to educate
    students. Further, we found that BIE staff lacked expertise and
    training to effectively oversee school spending. As a result,
    we found several instances of misused funds, including over $1
    million for one school that was improperly transferred to
    offshore accounts.
        We also identified unsafe school conditions in our High
    Risk Report. Specifically, in 2016, we found that deteriorating
    facilities and equipment contributed to unsafe conditions at
    BIE schools. At one school, we found seven boilers that failed
    inspection because of safety hazards, such as elevated levels
    of carbon monoxide and a natural gas leak. And you can see the
    failed inspection tag there. Though they endangered student
    safety, most of the boilers were not repaired until 8 months
    after the inspection.
        In addition to our prior work, we also have two new reports
    for this subcommittee that are being released today that raise
    new concerns about safety inspections and school construction.
    In terms of safety inspections, we found that no office
    routinely monitors the quality of inspection reports, and we
    found that 28 of 50 inspection reports we looked at were
    incomplete, inaccurate, or unclear.
        For example, we found reports in which inspectors did not
    inspect all of the buildings. In one of the reports we
    reviewed, an inspector noted that he did not inspect a dorm
    because he did not have the key. The head of the safety office
    told us that this is not a valid reason for not inspecting a
    building. We also found cases of inspectors incorrectly giving
    school officials a year to fix broken fire alarms instead of
    the required 24 hours. Additionally, inspectors submitted
    nearly a third of all inspection reports to schools late after
    Indian Affairs' required 30-day timeframe. Some reports were
    more than 4 months late.
        In response to our new findings, we are recommending today
    that Interior monitor the quality and timeliness of school
    inspection reports.
        In a separate report also being released today for this
    subcommittee, we found significant problems with the school
    construction process. Specifically, we found that Interior has
    not consistently used accountability measures to ensure that
    construction projects are completed on time, within budget, and
    meet school needs.
        We found that of 49 recent projects, 16 were 3 or more
    years late, one was almost 10 years late, 10 were 20 percent or
    more over budget. Interior does not always use accountability
    measures, such as warranties, to have builders replace
    defective parts because project managers do not always
    understand how to use these measures. So, the warranty
    provisions may be in the contracts, but they are not being
    employed.
        As a result, we are recommending today that Interior
    develop guidance to help staff learn how to use accountability
    measures in school construction projects. We plan to monitor
    Interior's efforts to address both our prior recommendations
    and the 12 new recommendations in today's reports.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of the U.S. Government Accountability Office
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Next, Mr. Rusco.

                       Opening Remarks of Mr. Frank Rusco

        Mr. Rusco. Thank you, Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member
    McCollum, and members of the subcommittee. I am also grateful
    to be here today to discuss BIA's management of its
    responsibilities regarding energy development on tribal and
    Indian lands.
        As you know, the United States has recognized the sovereign
    status of tribes, and currently recognizes 567 tribes as
    distinct independent political communities that possess certain
    powers of sovereignty and self-government. In 2016, Congress
    founded an Indian Trust Asset Reform Act that through treaties,
    statutes, and historical relations with Indian tribes, the
    United States has undertaken a unique trust responsibility to
    protect and support Indian tribes and Indians.
        These fiduciary responsibilities reflect commitments made
    in treaties and agreements under which Indians surrendered
    claims to vast tracts of land to the benefit of the people of
    the United States. This history has established enduring and
    enforceable Federal obligations to which our national honor has
    been committed.
        So, I raise that just because I think context is important
    here. And I am going to say a lot of things about the
    performance of the BIA in meeting its fiduciary
    responsibilities, and it is not meeting its fiduciary
    responsibilities very well. But I believe this context is
    essential in our work to keep an eye on that, that the high-
    risk area is about what the agencies are doing. And our efforts
    are to improve what the agencies do with the money they have.
    And having listened to the statements of the committee members
    in the last hearing, I understand that that is not the whole
    story. But I want that context to be reflected in the work we
    do.
        I have two handouts that I want to talk about just briefly,
    and one of them is in the hearing statement--this one is--and
    the other one is not.
        So, you know, there are a lot of energy resources on Indian
    and tribal lands, and so the first handout, that is a map of
    the United States of the lower 48. And it shows shale oil and
    gas resources and then where they intersect with tribal lands.
    And there are more than 20 tribes that have oil and gas
    resources, just shale oil and gas resources, on their lands,
    and several of them have coal.
        And in addition, something that is not on the map is that
    more than 200 tribes have the capacity needed to create utility
    scale renewable power generation. And, you know, this is
    important because, you know, Federal funding is scarce, and it
    always has been and always will be. And tribes that have made
    improvements often have done that by developing some kind of
    economic base, and these opportunities represent that.
        And so, when I talk about how the agencies are not doing
    their jobs effectively enough to help tribes that choose to
    develop these resources, that is what is at stake, the tribes'
    ability to develop their own resources, their own economic base
    in order to actually take over some of the responsibilities.
    And when they do, they can do a better job perhaps.
        So, tribes and their members can determine how to use their
    energy resources, but many of those resources are held in trust
    or a restricted status. And because of that, BIA must review
    and approve leases, permits, and other documents required for
    development.
        We found many deficiencies in BIA's management of Indian
    resources in several areas. And before I get into a couple of
    examples, I will say that we put the Interior's management of
    oil and gas development on Federal lands on the High Risk List
    in 2011 because there were many of the same deficiencies we
    found.
        And we have seen since then a lot of progress. Interior has
    made a great deal of progress in resolving a lot of those
    recommendations that got them on the High Risk List, and I
    would like to talk about some of those in this hearing because
    those are things that if the Agency does these things, they can
    solve some of the problems, and they are not all related to the
    budget. Well, they are related to budget.
        Let me be specific. One of the biggest problems is a lack
    of the staff with the right skills in the right place at the
    right time to review permits and environmental assessments, or
    do environmental assessments, and to do the kinds of
    permitting, evaluation, and realty to figure out who owns what
    resources. And we find that all over on Federal lands.
        So, BLM has struggled with having the right staff with the
    right training. And the problem is they are competing for some
    of these positions with industry, so they are out there trying
    to hire petroleum engineers, and industry is going to pay
    $100,000 more a year. So, what do you do, and how do you fix
    that?
        Well, you know, government employment is not private
    employment. There are some benefits, so you have to do the best
    you can with those. And Interior, since we put them on the High
    Risk List, has gone to OPM, and they have gotten special
    authority to pay more for key areas, like petroleum engineers
    or natural resource experts, who otherwise would not go and
    live at some small regional town with a small regional office
    because, you know, where would their kids go to school? Where
    would their spouse find employment?
        But they have gone and they have gotten extra pay
    authority. They have used the tools. They did that through OPM.
    They also went to Congress and they asked for money to pay for
    more staff, and they got that for offshore staff, and they got
    some extra appropriations. They use that effectively. They
    hired more people, and they closed some of those gaps.
        And when they did that, we said, all right, you are showing
    leadership commitment. You are doing the things you can do. You
    are asking Congress for help when you need it, and so they are
    making progress on their star. And so, I have every reason to
    believe that BIA, with the right leadership commitment, could
    do some of the same things.
        So, I will not take up a huge amount of time with examples
    that we found, but I want to talk about one thing in
    particular, and that is in response to tribal requests for
    increased coordination across agencies. And if you look at the
    second handout, you can see there are 14 agencies and 22
    activities that are related to energy. And that does not even
    include all the State agencies and bodies you have to deal with
    when you want to develop energy. And then, there is the tribal
    government.
        So, it is immensely more complex than even doing this on
    Federal lands, which is more complex than doing it on private
    or State lands. And from a regulatory basis, it is a mess. And
    Interior has taken some steps, initial steps, to form a new
    office, the Indian Energy Service Center. This is a great idea.
    It is a great idea because where there is a complex regulatory
    framework, you really need experts in a centralized area who
    can resolve problems and give good advice to people who are
    trying to get things done. And I will give you an example.
        The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is the final
    permitting authority for interstate pipelines. And sometimes,
    depending on where you are going and what things you are
    crossing, whether you are crossing parks or water, navigable
    waters or whatever, you might be dealing with 13 other
    agencies. And FERC is a one-stop clearinghouse for information
    on how to get through that regulatory process.
        So, if you are going to build a pipeline, you go to FERC
    first. You do a pre-application. They tell you you need to go
    here, you need to do environmental assessments here, you need
    to go over here, you need to check with the Fish and Wildlife
    Service. And not only that, but FERC coordinates with those
    agencies to make sure that that those things are getting done.
    And in Indian Country, an application can come to one of those
    resource agencies, and people, they just sit on it, and it
    takes forever to get things going.
        So, this Indian Energy Service Center, if it is done
    correctly, could provide some of the solution. But the problem
    is when they set it up, they did not set it up to try to
    include all the agencies that are involved. So, we recommended
    that they do coordinate with those, and they have taken steps
    to start to build some relationships and agreements.
        The last thing I will say about that, and then I will
    conclude my statement, is that to fully staff that body will,
    as they envision it with 48 FTEs, would take about twice what
    their appropriation has been in the last couple years, and they
    have asked for twice what they got. And so, it does not mean
    that they cannot do good with what they have, but I think to
    get the most out of it, they are going to keep asking to fill
    these spots. And, you know, what happens after that is none of
    my business. [Laughter.]
        And I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
        Ms. King.

                      Opening Remarks of Ms. Kathleen King

        Ms. King. Chairman Calvert, Representative McCollum, thank
    you so much for inviting me to be here today to talk about our
    work on the Indian Health Care Service. And much of what I was
    going to say has already been said by you and members of the
    committee. [Laughter.]
        So, I am going to abbreviate my remarks and just focus on a
    few key things.
        Since 2011, we have issued 7 reports on IHS. We made a
    number of recommendations. Some of them have been implemented,
    but most have not. And we have 14 outstanding recommendations.
        Our reports have found serious shortcomings in the quality
    of care rendered at IHS facilities and a lack of oversight.
    What IHS does is devolve a lot of responsibilities down to the
    area offices without national standards, and there is not a
    feedback loop coming back to headquarters for them to know what
    is going on.
        So, they do not know what is going on with quality of care,
    and they also do not have any standards or way of knowing what
    is going on with regard to patient wait times for primary care.
    We think that is a serious shortcoming, and that they should
    have national standards, and they should have a way of knowing
    what is going on out in the field.
        We have also done some work on the PRC program and found
    some shortcomings there as well. There is a formula, a base
    formula for the PRC program that dates back to the 1930s. No
    one can tell us the origin of this formula, but it results in a
    lot of disparities across the areas ranging from when we did
    our work to a low of $299 per capita to $801 per capita. This
    is inequitable because IHS could not say to us that there were
    differences among the areas in terms of health needs.
        We made a matter to Congress some years ago saying that
    Congress should direct the IHS to develop a more equitable
    formula for the PRC program, and legislation was introduced on
    that, but not enacted.
        IHS did adopt another one of our recommendations which we
    thought was very significant. Under the PRC program, it used to
    be that they paid physicians and other non-hospital providers
    what they charged. In some cases, they negotiated contracts or
    had discounted rates, but in most places they were paying what
    physicians charge, and that is not typical in the health
    insurance industry. We made a recommendation that they reduce
    the payments to the same as Medicare paid, and they did adopt
    that, and as part of that, we estimated that they would save
    $32 million. So, that was a positive step.
        We have also made a number of recommendations to improve
    the management of the PRC program and to encourage IHS to
    expand their outreach efforts to get people enrolled in other
    third party insurance, such as Medicaid, because when people
    enroll in that insurance, two good things can happen for IHS.
    One, if they seek care at an IHS facility, IHS can bill for
    that revenue and keep it, and that enhances their PRC revenue.
    Or if someone takes their Medicaid or other insurance and goes
    elsewhere and gets care, that reduces the demand on IHS. So,
    that is another important step.
        With that, I think I will stop because I know you will have
    questions for us.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you for all your testimony. It is
    obviously extremely concerning what is going on out in Indian
    Country. We will have a number of questions for the record, but
    I will lead off with a couple of questions that seem to be
    appropriate.

                     GAO HIGH RISK REPORT: TRIBAL PROGRAMS

        I think I will start with you, Melissa. What changed from
    2015 to 2017 that prompted GAO to add tribal programs the list?
        Ms. Emrey-Arras. I think the number of reports that we had
    during that timeframe and the significance of those findings
    really caused concerns for us, and made us realize that this
    was really a high-risk issue. And it did not help that there
    were so many open recommendations that had not been resolved.
        Mr. Calvert. How frequently does GAO meet with the agencies
    to monitor progress?
        Ms. Emrey-Arras. We talk with the agencies regularly about
    their recommendations and the like. I would say at a minimum,
    at least every 6 months, but it is frequently quite often more
    than that. We often talk with them in the course of our ongoing
    studies as well.
        Mr. Calvert. Okay.
        Mr. Rusco. And in addition to that, being on the High Risk
    List means that that there will be a meeting with OMB, the
    Secretary of the Interior, the deputy secretaries, and all the
    assistant secretaries of the relevant bureaus. And in that
    meeting, we will talk about where they are in high risk, and
    they will talk about what they are doing to get off it, and OMB
    will be there to try to add some accountability. So, that also
    happens.

                             ASSISTANCE TO AGENCIES

        Mr. Calvert. When asked, does GAO provide any help? Do you
    provide any help if some of these agencies ask for help?
        Mr. Rusco. Well, so we provide our recommendations, and we
    will clarify what we mean if asked. But we cannot really tell
    them in detail how to resolve problems, and then still come
    back later and audit them and say whether they are doing a good
    job. [Laughter.]
        So, we are careful about that. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Calvert. You know, you have got a couple of these
    charts up. There is one that looked like----
        Ms. McCollum. It is a nightmare.
        Mr. Calvert. It looks like Obamacare, does it not?
    [Laughter.]
        No, I am just kidding.
        Ms. McCollum. Well, the ACA works. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Calvert. But anyway, this extremely complicated chart.
    How do you explain that? There has to be some efficiencies that
    can be found. So, you do not give any advice, but where do they
    go? I mean, this has got to be cleaned up. So, who do they work
    with to do that?
        Mr. Rusco. You know, this is a case where I think there are
    two things. We need to look further into that, you know, and
    see where there might be efficiencies, and specifically where
    coordination could resolve a problem, or where there is maybe
    multiple agencies doing something.
        But I will give you one example. There are two Indian
    energy loan guarantee programs, and one is in Interior, and one
    is in DOE. DOE's has never been funded, but Interior's is
    funded. DOE has loan programs. They have all the expertise to
    run loan programs. And we have not looked at the Interior's
    loan programs, but I have looked at DOE's loan program since
    their inception in 2005, and it took them forever to get up to
    speed. And when they finally did, they have a solid group of
    professionals who can evaluate loans and make them, but that
    took years to do.
        And so, one of the things that we would look at is do you
    really need two Indian energy loan guarantee programs, or could
    you use the resources from one and save some money that then
    that money could go to increasing the amount of loans, because,
    you know, honestly, the annual amount in the Indian Energy Loan
    Guarantee Program, that would fund one large energy project.
    And so, you know, you could use all the money you can get.
        And so, we have not looked at that, so that is not a
    recommendation, but that is the kind of place we would look. We
    would look for that sort of efficiency.

                               OFFSHORE ACCOUNTS

        Mr. Calvert. This goes to management, and that goes to
    leadership and finding somebody maybe outside to look at this
    entire process and improve upon it. One last question. $1
    million dollars to an offshore account? Explain that.
        Ms. Emrey-Arras. Sure. It actually happened in 11 separate
    transactions, and it went to three Asian countries, but
    primarily Indonesia. And they were not able to recover the
    money.
        Mr. Calvert. And who did this?
        Ms. Emrey-Arras. The thought was that it might have been
    some kind of hacking or cyber, you know, crime. However, the
    bank accused the school of not having properly secure computers
    to do these transactions, and so the account was compromised.
        Mr. Calvert. So, nobody----
        Ms. Emrey-Arras. Nobody was held, yeah. So, nobody was
    arrested. In the end, the money was not returned. And we have a
    concern because there is limited funding, as we have been
    talking about, and you want to make sure that the funding that
    is provided goes to schools and it is not diverted. And because
    of that, we made recommendations to better oversee school
    spending to guard against those kinds of problems.
        Actually, in 2014 we made recommendations to have basic
    written procedures to oversee school funding to make sure it is
    being spent appropriately, and that has yet to happen.
        Mr. Calvert. Wow.
        Mr. Joyce. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Calvert. Yes?
        Mr. Joyce. Could you yield for a second?
        Mr. Calvert. Sure.

                               RECOVERY OF FUNDS

        Mr. Joyce. Does not the FBI or other law enforcement
    agencies assist you in the recovery of such funds? I mean, if
    it was taken from a bank account, obviously it had to be
    transferred to some other account.
        Ms. Emrey-Arras. The FBI was brought in by the Interior's
    IG office to look into this, but they were not able to identify
    the individuals or obtain the money in the end.
         Voice. So, it could have been an outside job.
        Mr. Calvert. Amazing. Ms. McCollum.

                             STAFFING AND TRAINING

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you very much for your testimony, and
    thank you for working with the agencies because I think the
    Indian programs within the Department of Interior, these are
    people who get up every morning and want to do the best job
    that they can. One of the challenges that is becoming very
    apparent, besides facility maintenance and backlog, is
    staffing. I am just going to roll a couple things out, and then
    have you all respond.
        So, one of the things that became very clear in one of the
    reports that we received on the inspection for schools is the
    BIA might have one person who works on this in the Agency. They
    have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of miles to cover, and
    they have multiple hats to wear. And they really have not gone
    to school to become a really good inspector of buildings, but
    then that becomes their job. Or we have things that are
    contracted out, but we do not have the personnel in place to do
    a double check of what is happening with the contractor.
        To your point about warranties, I worked in the private
    sector for years. I worked for a major retailer, and I dealt
    with carpet warranties and furniture warranties. And I will
    tell you, it is a full-time job, and you have to be on it 24/7.
    Here again, if you do not have the school maintenance person in
    Indian Country really knowing how to deal with some of these
    warranty issues, they can be very difficult to resolve. Some of
    this is staffing and some is training, so that I would point
    out in education a little bit.
        Staffing and training and what you were saying about
    energy, Mr. Rusco, which is trying to get people to stay and be
    retained in the Agency, as well as understanding all the
    quagmire from who to report to who. It would seem to me that
    there are State models out there. You mentioned FERC. There are
    models out there that Indian Country can look at, or work with,
    or sit down and have a roundtable with the agencies on how to
    streamline and move forward. Having timely inspections, and
    permits, and everything are very, very important.
        But there are some things that are going to be going on in
    the EPA budget regarding permits and timely inspections. I am
    going to follow up to see if there is something I should be
    watching in that budget. They are in Indian Country as well,
    and I am kind of concerned about their permitting.
        Ms. King, I am going to end with this. This Administration
    has given a directive to Indian Health Services, and Indian
    Affairs and Education, and all the rest of the Agencies to
    reduce staffing. They have huge gaps, holes, not enough
    positions filled in Indian Health Service, and problems
    retaining and recruiting people. Is part of your
    recommendations to beef up and get the right people doing the
    right kind of staffing and figure out how to retain them?
    Because I, quite frankly, think I need to write a letter to the
    White House saying, in this particular area, to ask people to
    be doing a workforce reduction is pound foolish.
        Ms. King. During the course of our work, IHS has told us
    that not having the right staff is one of the key impediments
    to quality of care and access to timely primary care. Some of
    our work really documented the change in leadership in the area
    offices and in key positions. We also have some ongoing work
    now where we are looking at staffing issues. And we hope to
    have some constructive advice that comes out of that, creative
    solutions or things that they can do. But certainly having the
    staff, especially the medical staff, in these facilities is
    important.
        Ms. Emrey-Arras. I would add on the education front, we
    have similar concerns in terms of workforce planning. We have
    two outstanding recommendations regarding workforce planning to
    make sure that they have the right staff in the right locations
    to do the work. We had people telling us that they were not
    accountants, they did not know how to review single audits, and
    yet that was their job. So, that was a concern of ours.
        In terms of the training issue that you brought up and
    inspections, in the report that is released today we found that
    33 out of 39 staff with safety responsibilities did not
    complete required training. So, they are not even doing the
    training that is provided by the Agency and required by the
    Agency.
        Ms. McCollum. But for how many of those individuals was
    that not their only job? That is part of my point here. If
    there are Federal employees not doing their job, they need to
    be held accountable to it. But sometimes we are asking the same
    Federal employee, whether it is in Indian Health or Indian
    Education, to do multiple jobs. We are asking these people to
    perform superhumanly. Is that part of your report, too?
        Ms. Emrey-Arras. That does cover individuals who may have
    responsibilities in addition to safety issues.
        Mr. Rusco. With respect to the energy side, there are other
    examples of agencies doing more with less by being creative.
    So, BLM has repeatedly, because of the boom and bust nature of
    oil and gas, they have repeatedly been sort of mis-staffed in
    regional offices. So, when the shale boom came, all of sudden
    they do not have anybody in North Dakota. They have tons of
    people in Wyoming. Shale gas just drove coal-bed methane gas
    out of business, and so all of a sudden Wyoming has people in
    BLM offices with nothing to do. North Dakota does not have
    people, and they have all these permits and all these
    inspections to do.
        And so, they implemented a pilot program to try to move
    people into hotspots and take care of business, and we have not
    looked at that closely enough. When we looked at it, and it was
    a very successful pilot. They should continue that, and I think
    BIA can learn from that. But we have not looked specifically at
    BIA to see how well, that centralized model works where you
    have people that can go for a specific time and take care of a
    workload problem. But I think that is a very promising
    potential.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Simpson.

                  BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION: SAFETY CONCERNS

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Could you put the star back up? I
    know it is there somewhere.
        Ms. McCollum. You do not want the yellow tag?
        Mr. Simpson. No, I think I have seen the yellow tag. Did
    they use that school for the 8 months that they had the yellow
    tags up?
        Ms. Emrey-Arras. Yes, and there were students involved.
        Ms. McCollum. They probably should have been red tagged.

                                   LEADERSHIP

        Mr. Simpson. That is amazing. As I read your report last
    night, and I did read all of it. That was an amazing
    accomplishment I think. [Laughter.]
        The one thing that came to my mind as I read in all three
    of these areas, and it seemed like there was one common theme
    of this star and this leadership commitment. And if you look at
    the incredible turnover within these agencies, whether it is at
    the local level, mid-local level, even in Washington, D.C., has
    anybody looked at why is there such a huge turnover in these
    programs of leadership, and how do you keep a leadership
    commitment that is continually turning over?
        Ms. Emrey-Arras. In terms of BIE issues, we have reported
    on the significant turnover and cited that as a management
    challenge. As many of you know, the prior director of BIE was
    removed from his position last year due to ethics concerns.
        Mr. Rusco. So, Interior faced this when they were put on
    the High Risk List for oil and gas management and Federal
    lands. We think that they have largely solved that leadership
    issue with one Bureau's exception, but they did it by
    institutionalizing the ownership, so, of the issues. So, they
    said, all right, this is your position. You own these issues.
    You own the recommendations. And once that is institutionalized
    and that is part of your job description, if you have turnover,
    that is still part of your job description.
        And it will not solve everything. It will not solve bad
    acting. But if you get somebody who has got a job and here is a
    description, and it is written into it that this is what you
    do, then I think that is how they have dealt with it. And they
    have a lot of turnover, too, but they have been making great
    progress.
        Mr. Simpson. Go ahead.
        Ms. King. With respect to IHS, I think they have been
    without permanent leadership for about 2 years. They had an
    acting director, I believe, for about the last year of the
    Obama Administration, and there are no, as we saw today, no
    permanent people in place yet in this Administration. So, that
    is a long time with temporary leadership.
        And the other thing that we saw in the area offices, when
    there was a problem when one area, they moved people around to
    go to that area to fix the problem there, to fix the crisis.
    But it results in a big churn among the area offices.

                               STAFFING: TURNOVER

        Mr. Simpson. Have we have gone out and asked people that
    left why they left, what is driving them to leave that field
    and go into something else? What is the cause of the turnover?
    I mean, we have talked on this committee with people who worked
    in or ran IHS, just to give background information, and the
    stories we have heard from people that used to work there years
    ago. Has anybody gone out and done that?
        Ms. King. I have not.
        Mr. Rusco. No.
        Ms. Emrey-Arras. No.
        Mr. Simpson. Well, it would be interesting to find out what
    it is. But, you know, my wife often makes recommendations of
    things that I should do that I do not think are in my best
    interest. [Laughter.]
        Sometimes agencies might look at you and say that you are
    the data geeks and all that kind of stuff, and so you make all
    these recommendations. Do they ever look at you and say, that
    is neat on paper, but it is not the real world that we live in
    and try to deal with every day, consequently we are not going
    to implement that, and that is why 39 out of the 41, or
    whatever it is, recommendations have not been implemented. How
    do you work that out between agencies to try to implement your
    recommendations?
        Mr. Rusco. Well so, we try very hard not to make
    recommendations that we have not got really good ideas are
    implementable. And we do that by getting past the leadership
    and onto the ground and find out. Like, you know, a lot of our
    recommendations come from the Agency. We talk to them. They
    tell us what is wrong. It is amazing how much they admit when
    you go out in the field and talk to people.
        They know where their problems are, and they are trying to
    solve them, too, but it gets back to the leadership issue, and
    so, it goes all the way to the Secretary of Interior. If the
    Secretary of Interior does not put in the budget I need more
    resources for Indian programs, well then, where do you go? I
    mean, obviously it is up to OMB, too, right? You know how it
    works a lot better than I do.
        Mr. Simpson. Unfortunately, yeah.
        Mr. Rusco. And so, but that leadership has to come from the
    top. It has to go down to the bureaus, and then the bureaus
    have to institutionalize the ownership of the problem, and then
    you have got a commitment. And that is when you can see
    progress, at least in my experience.

                              CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

        Mr. Simpson. Well, if that leadership is not coming from
    the top or has not come from the top, and I am not trying to
    point fingers at anybody. But if it does not come from the top,
    what can this committee do? Can we write into legislation, into
    our bill some of these recommendations and require the agencies
    to do some of those things that need to be done?
        Ms. Emrey-Arras. Yes.
        Mr. Simpson. Would you recommend that we do some of those
    things that maybe are the harder ones to get done or that get
    more resistance?
        Ms. Emrey-Arras. Yes. I think simple things, like having
    written procedures to oversee school spending, should be done
    immediately, not languish for years.
        Ms. King. I think things like hearings, too, are helpful
    because what I find is that in our areas, occasionally IHS has
    disagreed with us and said, nope, we are not going to implement
    that recommendation. But more frequently they agree, but they
    do not do it.

                         INDIAN LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

        Mr. Simpson. One more thing. Since I chair the Energy and
    Water Appropriations committee, we will look at the possibility
    of including the Indian Loan Guarantee Program under the
    direction of the DOE Loan Guarantee Program. I know that
    Secretary Moniz recommended some of that in the last budget,
    and we just did not feel we had the money to do it or did not
    feel confident of what they were trying to do. So, but I think
    that is a valid recommendation.

                                 MEDICARE RATES

        Here is one thing I will say, though. And, Kathleen, you
    mentioned that one of the recommendations that had just been
    implemented by one of the programs was that they pay the
    Medicare rate to doctors instead of the rate that doctors were
    charging. Has anybody followed that up to see what the
    accessibility to doctors has been? Has that decreased
    accessibility?
        And the reason I ask that, I was a dentist in the real
    world, and while I am not talking about Medicare, I will tell
    you that if somebody said we are only going to pay the Medicaid
    rate, which is what dentists usually deal with, if I only
    operated on Medicaid patients, I would be out of business to
    cover the costs.
        Ms. King. We actually----
        Mr. Simpson. So, I mean, you have to look at accessibility,
    too.
        Ms. King. We actually did some sounding out on that before
    we made that recommendation, and we asked a number of providers
    what do you think about this. And, some people said, IHS should
    have done this a long time ago. The rates that are being paid
    are too high.
        But we did make a recommendation to IHS to follow up and
    make sure that access is maintained because that is an
    important aspect.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Ms. Pingree.

                    BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION: CONSTRUCTION

        Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for
    the work you have been doing and for your testimony. It has
    been very educational and much appreciated to hear the work
    that you are doing. And I am sure where we can yield some
    improvements, it will be good.
        I do not have a lot of questions or comments to make.
    Certainly some of the concerns about Indian Health and Indian
    Education have been problems in our State. We do not have a
    drop of energy besides wind in our State. That is not on your
    list.
        I will just add that in terms of education we have been
    concerned about the role that the BIA plays in the Bureau of
    Indian Education. We have one facility in the pipeline in our
    State, and the Committee has been very helpful with that, the
    Beatrice Rafferty school, which is a Passamaquoddy school. It
    has taken us 3 years to get from the design stage to the
    construction stage, and it still does not look like there will
    be a groundbreaking until 2019.
        In any other circumstance in school construction, it would
    not look like that. Every time there has been a hitch, we have
    followed up and tried to figure it out. It has been
    bureaucratic, intractable. It just does not make any sense.
    Even when there are, differences in the rules or everything
    else, you are just thinking, does everybody put a roadblock
    everywhere they can to keep this from happening? This is a
    school that was funded, but, funding delays cost money. Little
    glitches all of a sudden result in more money because somebody
    interprets one thing one way.
        You look like you might have a comment.
        Ms. Emrey-Arras. I would just say that the report that we
    are releasing today does get to that issue of construction
    delays. And one of the things that we heard repeatedly was that
    Interior was not providing enough technical assistance and
    oversight to tribes on construction projects, and that they
    were not responding in a timely way to requests, which was
    resulting in extensive delays.
        Ms. Pingree. So, we will look forward to reading the
    report, but that was what we have experienced from observing
    this process.
        As with most schools, and everyone on this Committee knows
    it better than me, these are already schools generally that are
    condemned, that have, unhealthy conditions, uninspected
    boilers, mold, all kinds of other problems already. When it
    takes long delays, you have got students locked in places that
    they should not be, and teachers trying to teach under
    inadequate situations. Communities feeling really bad about the
    situation, which leads to all the kinds of health
    complications, and, suicide rates and all kinds of other things
    when you are compounding problems, especially starting with
    kids.
        So, thank you for your work. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Joyce.

                BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION: CONSTRUCTION DELAYS

        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And then following
    along those lines, it seems like there was an 8-month interval
    between the initial finding of the problem and anything being
    done. Can you explain why there was such a delay?
        Ms. Emrey-Arras. I do not know why there was a delay, but
    this is not unusual. There are frequently issues where hazards
    are identified and they are not remediated. And in our prior
    work, we found that it was so extensive that it was not
    uncommon to have the next year's inspection find the same
    problems as in the previous year's inspection.
        We did make a recommendation for Interior to provide
    assistance to schools to be able to actually fix the problems
    and help them build capacity so that they know how to do that.
    But that recommendation remains unimplemented.
        Mr. Joyce. The funding exists for it. There is just a
    failure to do so at the local or at that one individual level.
    Is this occurring in other schools?
        Ms. Emrey-Arras. It is occurring at multiple schools in
    terms of identified problems that have not been fixed and
    remain for years. And in terms of the issues there, I think one
    of the issues is having staff at the school level who know how
    to read an inspection report, who know what to do to correct
    the problem. You may have janitorial staff, for example,
    responsible, and they may not know exactly what to do in terms
    of certain repairs. And we think it is critical that Interior
    provide that technical assistance to schools so that they can
    address safety concerns versus having concerns repeat from year
    to year, or last 8 months in this situation.
        Mr. Calvert. If the gentleman would yield.
        Mr. Joyce. Absolutely.

                  BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION: SAFETY CONCERNS

        Mr. Calvert. When something like that occurs where you have
    a boiler which obviously if it has a malfunction could blow up
    and kill a number of people, why was that school not
    immediately closed until that problem was fixed? Do they not
    have the authority to close that school, or does anybody not
    have the common sense to understand that?
        Ms. Emrey-Arras. We had the same concern. It was
    unfathomable to us that that boiler remained in that condition
    with those gas leaks while students and staff were in the area.
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair?
        Mr. Calvert. Yes?
        Ms. McCollum. Was that the yellow tag school? Because
    usually there is a big difference between a yellow tag and a
    red tag. I am not trying to pretend to be a plumber or a
    pipefitter here, but I have dealt with this a little bit in
    real life. We can see that is a yellow tag.
        Usually with the yellow tag you get told, okay, we are not
    going to shut you down. It is not immediate, but you have to
    get it repaired within X number of hours. They have a
    responsibility, the plumbing company. Maybe all States are not
    created equal--maybe it gets into State jurisdiction to be back
    in 48 or 24 hours to make sure that it is correct. But in other
    words, a yellow tag means we can fix this. It can be fixed
    properly. It will be fixed expeditiously.
        If this is the school we were just discussing, it seems to
    me whoever put the yellow tag on it put the wrong color on it,
    and the school should have been closed.
        Ms. Emrey-Arras. That is possible. You can see that the
    sign says, I think, that the carbon monoxide is too high on the
    tag. I mean, that is another issue in terms of the inspections
    is that they are not always done in in an accurate way as
    evidenced by some of our findings in terms of broken fire
    alarms and the like. People were told that they had a year to
    fix things when they should have been fixed within 24 hours.
    So, there is often an issue in terms of the directions that are
    provided by the inspector.
        Ms. McCollum. But it is not the school that puts that tag
    on it or the janitor. Usually that is somebody whose license is
    on the line.
        Ms. Emrey-Arras. That is an outside inspector. That is
    correct.
        Mr. Calvert. Mr. Joyce.
        Mr. Joyce. I am sorry, but I do not find it humorous. On
    top of the explosion factor, on top of the carbon monoxide
    factor, people are going to die. And so, I do not get the
    disconnect between you write a report that says these things
    need to be fixed and nothing happens. There has to be some
    other agency or somebody who is going to step in, because you
    are putting all these kids' lives at risk.
        Ms. Emrey-Arras. We have a similar concern. We think that
    things need to change. We have made recommendations, and that
    is partly why we have put this issue on the High Risk List.
        Mr. Joyce. Again, it is a list. There has to be some type
    of, I do not care who the local authorities are. If you have a
    theft of a million dollars, it is a theft of a million dollars.
    25 years as a prosecutor, that galls me, and the fact that you
    put in things like this. I used to represent school districts.
    You put in something like this, and nobody does anything about
    it? This cannot go on.
        Mr. Calvert. Well, they did not have anything to do with
    the crime.
        Mr. Joyce. Well, I appreciate that, but they find people
    who are doing this. Where is this disconnect? We have to find
    out where it is and fix it. I am sorry.
        Ms. Emrey-Arras. We share your concern.
        Mr. Calvert. We have a hard stop here at 3:30, and it is
    3:35. I certainly appreciate this panel. I have some additional
    questions I will be submitting to you.
        Ms. King. We will be happy to answer them.
        Mr. Calvert. We certainly appreciate your coming today.
        Ms. King. Thank you for having us.
        Mr. Calvert. We appreciate your testimony and your truthful
    answers. We are adjourned.
        Mr. Rusco. Thank you all.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                                Thursday, May 25, 2017.

                              U.S. FOREST SERVICE

                                   WITNESSES

    HON. SONNY PERDUE, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
    TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE

                      Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert

        Mr. Calvert. The subcommittee will come to order.
        Good morning. I would like to extend a warm welcome to our
    distinguished full committee, my colleagues; our witnesses; and
    to the audience. Today is a special occasion for the Interior
    Subcommittee.
        We have the Secretary of Agriculture, the Honorable Sonny
    Perdue, as well as the chief of the Forest Service, Mr. Tom
    Tidwell, testifying before us.
        My staff reviewed the committee hearing records as far back
    as the 1960s, found no mention of the Secretary of Agriculture
    appearing before the subcommittee on Forest issues. I
    understand your staff jogged the memories of long-time USDA
    employees, and no one could remember it happening either, so we
    are breaking new ground today.
        Secretary, Chief Tidwell, we are pleased and honored to
    have you both with us. We look forward to hearing from you on
    the fiscal 2018 budget request for the Forest Service.
        The President's fiscal year 2018 budget request is a
    significant departure from the last several fiscal years with
    his proposed overall reduction of $900 million, or 16 percent
    below fiscal year 2017 enacted level for the Forest Service
    programs.
        And again, we have a budget request in which more than 50
    percent of the Service's budget is dedicated to fighting fires.
    We will have many questions about these cuts and their effects
    on operations, staffing, and other programs. In particular,
    this subcommittee continues to be concerned about the cost of
    fighting wildfires and the effect it has on other Forest
    Service budgets, programs, and management.
        And I would like to thank you, Chief Tidwell, for the
    administration's efforts over the past several years to change
    the way we budget for fires.
        I would also like to thank Congressman Simpson for keeping
    the pressure on Congress to address the issue.
        While firefighting costs seem to dominate most discussions
    about the Forest Service, there are numerous other issues,
    including aviation management, law enforcement, land
    acquisition, basic budgeting, program management, among others,
    that need to be attended to.
        As I said before, the Service must demonstrate that it is
    accountable, transparent, and able to improve the condition of
    our national forests, all while managing unpredictable fire
    seasons. This is not an easy task.
        Secretary Perdue, we invited you to participate in this
    hearing, in part, to help you understand the importance of the
    Forest Service to this subcommittee, the Department of
    Agriculture as a whole, and the Nation. Healthy, productive
    national forests provide quality timber and other forest
    products. They clean our air and water, provide recreational
    opportunities, and enhance the natural beauty of our country.
        We understand the challenges facing our national forests
    and statutes under which they are managed. However, I believe
    our national forests need a renewed focus on their health and
    productivity. As Secretary, you can help with that, and I ask
    you to consider making forest management one of your
    priorities.
        For the past 1\1/2\ years, the subcommittee, along with our
    Senate counterparts, has been investigating the Forest Service
    accounting, budget, and management practices. We found some
    areas where improvements were needed.
        Some of these needed to be addressed by Congress; others
    could be addressed by the Service. In fiscal year 2017
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, we, one, imposed fiscal year
    limits on most Forest Service accounts. The Service has not had
    limits for 20 years or more. We directed the Service to
    standardize its budgeting across the agency. We understand each
    region does it differently. We directed the Service to reduce
    printing expenditures. The Service has significantly higher
    printing costs than any other USDA agency. Increased oversight
    of the Service by the Department's budget office to improve
    coordination and standardization of budgets, and we required
    more detailed budget requests in the future. We need more
    numbers and less narrative.
        Chief, we appreciate the dedication, creativity, and
    responsiveness of your budget staff. They are working long
    hours without complaint to address our concerns and make the
    Forest Service more accountable, effective, and transparent.
        The subcommittee is serious about the need for improvements
    in your accounting, budgeting, and managing practices. They
    need to be especially important if we see large reductions to
    the Service's budget. We must ensure that we are getting the
    absolute most out of every taxpayer dollar invested in our
    national forest. We pledge to work with you. I hope you also
    will pledge to work with us.
        Secretary Perdue, Chief Tidwell, I thank you and the entire
    Forest Service staff for your work to care for the Nation's
    forests. We know that all of you care deeply for our forests
    and the communities that depend on them.
        Now I am happy to yield to the gentlelady from Minnesota,
    who has a few forests of her own, Ms. McCollum, for any opening
    remarks she would like to make.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a few
    forests.

                        Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum

        Secretary Purdue, it is great to have you here.
        Chief Tidwell, good to see you again this morning.
        I would like to first echo the chairman's comments about
    the subcommittee's commitment to help the Forest Service
    improve its accounting and its budgeting and its management
    practice. But at the same time, Chief, I would like to
    acknowledge the hard work and cooperation of your budget staff
    as we move forward on this shared goal.
        The American people rely on the U.S. Forest Service to
    responsibly manage the national forest system in a way that
    sustains the health, diversity, and productivity of our
    Nation's forests and grasslands.
        Now, we can all agree on that a strong America is one where
    we protect our natural resources for future generations. Being
    good stewards of those resources requires robust investments in
    both resource management and the staffing to carry that
    management out.
        Unfortunately, President Trump's fiscal year 2018 budget
    request is a cruel and, I believe, a reckless plan that pays
    for lavish tax breaks for billionaires with cuts to the very
    investments our future families need, our small businesses, and
    our communities count on.
        When it comes to the U.S. Forest Service, this budget
    request is far worse than I could have imagined. It slashes
    many of the important programs that are critical to ensuring
    the health of our Nation's forests. Nine programs are
    completely eliminated, and States and local units of government
    must find the resources in their already strained budgets to
    replace these Federal funding streams.
        The programs within the State and private forestry accounts
    are particularly important to State and local governments. This
    account provides resources so that our State partners can
    manage their forests to protect water quality, provide habitat,
    forest products, and opportunities for recreation and other
    public benefits.
        So sadly, the Trump administration cuts this account by 46
    percent, or $99 million. Again, States--and I will speak for my
    State, which is going through a budget process right now--can
    simply not afford to fill this void that this budget will
    create.
        And I am disappointed that the administration has failed to
    pursue any proposals to reform the way we fund wildfire costs.
    As the chairman had pointed out, Mr. Simpson has been working
    tirelessly on this, and has the totally nonpartisan support
    from this committee on this, because the costs associated with
    fighting wildland fires continue to rise, and this budget
    illustrates how other important programs suffer when funding is
    diverted into fighting wildfires.
        So, Chief, in the past years, you have supported wildfire
    disaster proposals.
        Mr. Secretary, I would ask you to work with the Chief, with
    the Administration, with Mr. Simpson, with all of us, to
    develop a plan to tackle this issue so that we can fund
    wildfire fighting in a sustainable fashion.
        And as I pointed out, every member of this subcommittee,
    especially in the last Congress, was a cosponsor of Mr.
    Simpson's Wildfire Disaster Funding bill, and I hope he will
    reintroduce it again.
        If we continue on the path of underfunding programs to
    manage firefighting, we jeopardize the health and longevity of
    America's national forests.
        As you can tell, I believe this budget is grossly
    inefficient. It disregards the jobs, recreational
    opportunities, and the environmental benefits our national
    forests provide for our health and our economy to be prosperous
    for all the American people.
        So I hope that we will reject the proposed cuts and instead
    work with you to ensure that the Service has the resources
    necessary to remain a leader in natural resources;
    conservation; recreation; management; and, of course, with
    timber. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.

                  Opening Statement of Secretary Sonny Perdue

        And, Secretary Perdue, you may begin your statement.
        Secretary Perdue. Good morning. I really appreciate, Mr.
    Chairman, the informal environment here. It is a little
    different than many other committees we go through, and it is a
    welcome change. For that reason, I am going to forego reading
    my opening statement, you have that for the record, but I hope
    we can just have a genuine and transparent conversation this
    morning over the issues that I have seen already in visiting
    with 75 of your colleagues during my confirmation process. We
    understand that the U.S. Forest Service has had some
    challenges.

                                FIRE FUNDING FIX

        I want to thank this committee--particularly for being
    solution oriented in some of those, and we will talk about the
    fire funding, as Congresswoman McCollum mentioned this morning.
    It is a serious issue. As you and I visited in your office, and
    we have got to right size that and get ahead of that because
    you know the challenges there.

                             BUDGET ACCOUNTABILITY

        I also appreciated the fact that you want to hold us
    accountable. My goal, frankly, as Secretary and in the Forest
    Service is to earn your trust in management where you will not
    have to be as prescriptive as you were in the 2017 budget.
        I liked what you said, I have sort of said the same thing
    in my budget briefings: I want more numbers and less narrative.
    We are trying to do budget briefings with slides. I want to see
    the numbers over the historical trends of what we are doing.
        I view myself as a manager, my goal, as Governor of
    Georgia, which I think we made a lot of progress too, is be the
    best managed, most effective, efficient State in the Nation,
    and by and large, that is my same goal for this Department.
        When we leave our tenure here, I want people to say: ``That
    is the best managed agency in the U.S. Government.'' That is a
    focus on facts based, data driven, science based, transparent,
    ethical, integrity, and with a customer focus, and that means
    everything.
        What I heard as I visited, while the U.S. Forest Service
    has had a wonderful history and a wonderful contribution to the
    beauty of our Nation, I am not sure we are being as good a
    neighbor in our U.S. Forest Service as we had been in the past,
    and that is another one of my goals.
        Good neighbors treat one another with respect, with
    dignity. Private landowner neighbors, if they see something
    going on and they help one another or give counsel and advice,
    and we know that our private forests benefit from a combination
    of good neighborhood, and we want to be a good neighbor within
    the culture of the communities the U.S. Forest Service finds
    itself in that regard. So I look forward to that.
        Our new motto does not deal specifically with the Forest
    Service, but I think you can imply that as well when we say,
    ``Do right and feed everyone.'' We want to create jobs. We want
    to make our rural communities prosper where there was once
    millions and billions of board feet of timber cut. We know
    those jobs have disappeared there. Much of it has to do with
    litigation.

                                  FIRE FUNDING

        Fire funding is a huge issue. I look forward to working
    with this committee, who has been a huge sponsor, and Mr.
    Simpson kind of the spiritual leader of that effort, to see if
    we can get that across the goal line.
        I will advocate very strongly, as Ms. McCollum advised, to
    the administration over--and I think the President gets that.
    From a management standpoint, you cannot--as you and I talked,
    you cannot manage a budget where you do not know where your
    emergency or your disaster funds come out.
        Fifty three percent of the Forest Service budget is in
    suppression. It should be down, like it used to be, in the 15
    to 20 percent area, and let us use the rest of the funds wisely
    in the management of those.
        So that is a big issue, and I really appreciate you all and
    your efforts in that regard, and I look forward to working with
    you to make that a reality in our budgetary system.

                                   LITIGATION

        Certainly, you also know that litigation is a challenge for
    our U.S. Forest Service. Some of that has maybe been a problem
    because we have not been doing as well as we could do in some
    of those areas. The Cottonwood case is a particular one in
    mind. That ruling obviously creates a lot of problems over the
    continued consultation regarding habitat, if there is any
    change. I hope we can really look at some legislation to make
    sure and clear to the courts that that only delays all these
    projects more months and years sometimes, and we have got at
    least 80 forest management projects at risk of being enjoined
    through that ruling right now. That is affecting 72,000 acres
    and over 100 million board feet.
        Simply, that is jobs. We want to be good environmental
    stewards. I believe our farms and ranchers and forests are some
    of the best natural stewards of the land we can have, and we
    want to let them do it in a way that makes sense, while we
    regard the habitat and the wildlife and all those things in a
    reasonable commonsense kind of way.
        I will address some of the budget issues that I think are
    most important here we believe that we would like to ask for
    your help in.

                                     ROADS

        When you think about jobs that our U.S. forests can create,
    there was one, I think, that was probably ill-advised and maybe
    not in keeping with the President's wishes as well, and that
    had to do with our lack of improvements, particularly in roads.
    You can not harvest lumber on these if you do not have roads to
    do that.
        So I know you all will look at that in your consideration
    and think about the capital improvement and maintenance
    program. We do not need a lot more equipment, but you can not
    get to trees and you can not create jobs without roads to get
    to them, so we would like to talk to you about that.

                               PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

        Ms. McCollum mentioned a relationship that we have had. The
    U.S. Forest Service has had great relationships with our State
    and local forest programs, and I think we need to review that
    and see how we can restore some relationships there. This is a
    signal to them that we do not really appreciate that
    relationship, and I hope that we will do that.
        So you mentioned several times the management. That is what
    I think I am supposed to do. I am a manager, and that is,
    frankly, not in your area, but that is one of the reasons I
    elevated the Rural Development program up to my level, because
    I am not a micromanager, but I am a hands-on manager. And I
    plan to be a hands-on manager with the Forest Service utilizing
    the good services of a good chief forester, but I will be
    directly involved and accountable for those, the results of
    that.
        I know that you all have relied on the chief in years past,
    but the buck stops here, and we are going to change the Forest
    Service for the better to make it more responsive to our
    neighborhoods, our communities, and to our mills out there.
    Once again, we have got a great resource. It is renewable.
        It is a wonderful blessing, frankly, in this Nation to have
    the kind of forests that we have, and we want to be as equally
    good managers of our U.S. Forest Service as our private
    landowners. I come from a State that has amazing private
    landownership management, and we want to take those best
    practices and spread them across our whole U.S. Forest Service.
        So I will stop there and look forward to your questions.
        [The statement of Secretary Perdue and Chief Tidwell
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                2017 CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT DIRECTIVES

        Mr. Calvert. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        As I mentioned in my opening statement, the fiscal year
    2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act included several changes
    for our fiscal year limits to our forest accounts. The House
    and Senate Appropriations Committee also included directives in
    the statement of managers on the expectations regarding
    improvements to the Service's accounting, budgeting, management
    systems, and practices.
        Have you been able to review the changes in the Act and
    read the statement, Mr. Secretary?
        Secretary Perdue. Well, I am beginning my fifth week on the
    job, so only at a high level. The, obviously, omnibus came out
    within that period of time, and just recently, so I am not as
    specifically detailed. I have the numbers, certainly, in that
    area.
        Once again, my goal is to earn your trust, and as you see
    changes in management of doing things well in those areas, my
    goal is to earn more flexibility in that by proving that we can
    get the job done.
        Mr. Calvert. Well, as you go through that and you get more
    time to look at those changes and directives, we certainly want
    to work with you and help you and the Forest Service improve
    its processes. We are not here to obstruct or make your life
    more complicated.
        We all want the same thing and we think those directives
    are good directives. I hope that you will feel the same way
    after you look at them that they should be followed.
        We believe the Forest Service needs to impose certainly
    more discipline in the accounting, budgeting, and management
    processes, and I know you will be taking that seriously as we
    do, and we will look forward to working with you.

                               CALIFORNIA FORESTS

        I am going to get somewhat parochial now and talk about the
    California forests, the ones that are still standing. We have
    had significant fires in California. The Rim Fire is one that
    comes to mind. But national forests cover about one-fifth,
    which is 20 percent, 20 million acres of the land in California
    that people--you always think of California as an urbanized
    State, but a significant part of California is not.
        Fortunately, California's drought of record is now over. It
    is amazing what 1 year can do. We had a tremendous drought over
    the last number of years, and we had a tremendous amount of
    rain this last year. However, it caused lasting effects for the
    forests and expected to permanently alter forest cover in some
    areas. And we now have more than 100 million dead and dying
    trees in the State. The State and Forest Service have worked to
    remove the trees that pose the most risk to communities,
    however, the work seems to be a little too little and too late.
        So as the drought continued, why didn't the Forest Service
    take more decisive action? I think I already know the answer to
    this question, Chief, but why didn't the Forest Service take
    more decisive action to remove dead and dying trees?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have worked closely
    with the State, and with the Governor's task force to address
    the issue once we started to see the die-off occur. We have
    continued to divert additional funding for the last 2 years and
    again this year.
        Last year, we spent $41 million addressing the concern to
    be able to take out the trees that pose the threat to the
    public and provide access and ingress into the communities and
    also to keep the infrastructure there as far as power lines,
    and also water facilities. Then this year, we are planning to
    use another $37 million to be able to continue to do that work.
        We struggle with finding any market for this material, and
    we are able to remove a little of it, but that is another
    challenge that we are dealing with. We are working closely with
    the State and the local communities to be able to continue to
    address that.
        And even though, as you mentioned, we have had a very, very
    favorable moisture year, we do expect to continue to see more
    die-off to occur. So we are actually moving up into the areas,
    more to the north and be able to get out there, and instead of
    just taking out the dead and dying, to also be thinning out the
    parts of the forest that we have not seen the mortality yet to
    be able to get out ahead of this as we expect to have the
    lingering effects of the drought.

                               CALIFORNIA FORESTS

        Mr. Calvert. Well, I know you have authority to do this,
    and if you need additional authority, please let us know,
    because this is a huge problem in California. We expect--the
    rain is great, but I suspect there is going to be more forest
    fires because we are going to have a lot more brush that can
    burn, and that goes into the forest and that is going to
    potentially cause a big problem this summer. So hopefully we
    are ready to deal with it.
        Ms. McCollum.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Would you put that up?
        Chief Tidwell, I am putting something up here, and we are
    handing out the copies and some photos to the committee
    members.
        Mr. Calvert. Is your mike on?

                                   WATERSHEDS

        Ms. McCollum. I need to talk into it. Thank you. Thank you,
    Mr. Chair.
        This is Voyageurs National Park and the Rainey River Basin
    watershed. We come from all different parts of the country. So
    one of the things I wanted to show you, as I am speaking and as
    you are looking at this, is this water knows no boundaries. It
    is going to move. It flows north, not south, because of where
    we are on the Laurentian Divide, and it affects not only the
    Boundary Waters wilderness and Superior National Forest; it
    also affects Voyageurs Park and our neighbors to the north in
    Canada.
        So, Chief Tidwell, as you know, the Superior National
    Forest in Minnesota is the home of the Boundary Waters Canoe
    Area Wilderness. It is vast. It is an interconnected waterway
    of pristine lakes and streams, and this is an untarnished
    wilderness. It is a national treasure. The Forest Service is
    responsible for protecting it.
        Hundreds of thousands of Americans who visit this
    wilderness every year rely on your agency, as well as the
    17,000 Minnesotans who work on the outdoor recreation industry
    in the northeastern region of our State.
        I know that the Forest Service takes this responsibility
    seriously, because last year, the Service denied the renewal of
    mining leases by a foreign-owned company that, as you said,
    posed an unacceptable risk.
        The rejection of these lease renewals noted that, ``copper-
    nickel sulfide mining might cause serious and irreplaceable
    harm to this unique, iconic, and irreplaceable wilderness.''
    Multiple scientific assessments have shown that these sulfide
    ore mines are sources of toxic contamination. Acid drainage
    would cause significant harm to the waterways, aquatic life,
    and the forests that make the Boundary Waters Conoe Area (BWCA)
    such a special place. And in fact, 92 percent, 92 percent of
    the sulfide ore copper mines operating in the United States
    have experienced failures that impact water quality.
        The pictures that are on the other handout that the members
    have show what recently happened in 2014 in Canada. Canada has
    some of the same stringent safeguards that we try to put in
    place, but 92 percent of these mines fail.
        So I want to really give a shout out to the Forest Service
    for the work that you are currently doing with the Department
    of Interior to conduct a 2-year science-based study to
    determine if approximately 230,000 acres of national forest
    lands within the watershed of the Boundary Waters should be off
    limits to sulfide ore copper mining for the next 20 years.

                               MINING WITHDRAWAL

        Last week, the Forest Service staff confirmed with my
    office that you are going to have an additional public meeting
    in the Twin Cities regarding this mining withdrawal, and people
    from southern Minnesota as well as the Twin Cities are very
    appreciative of the Forest Service doing this. You have had
    hearings in northern Minnesota, but we really appreciate the
    ability for the folks in the Twin Cities to go forward.
        I am assuming this meeting is moving forward. I am asking
    you in public, could you please talk about the potential
    consequences for the wildlife, the waters, and the forests in
    the BWCA and the adjacent lands if there is a discharge, a
    leak, or a spill from the sulfide mine, all of which are common
    events for this industry.
        I know that you are receiving phone calls. I know you are
    receiving pressure from the mining industry, and we have a rich
    tradition of mining in Minnesota. This is the only mining in
    Minnesota that I have come out forcefully against, in part,
    because of its location in the watershed.
        So could you please enlighten us on what--and I am going to
    include you, Mr. Secretary--what you two gentlemen can do to
    ensure that this proposed study goes forward as planned so that
    we have robust public participation, grounded in science, and
    figure on how to best preserve this pristine wilderness when 92
    percent, even here in the United States, of these mines fail.
        Mr. Perdue, I think you saw what happened in Canada when it
    leaked up there.
        Mr. Tidwell.
        Secretary Perdue. Well, you have addressed your questions
    to him, if I may precede him in that.
        Ms. McCollum. Oh, yeah. Go ahead.
        Secretary Perdue. As I stated earlier, the buck stops here.
    I am the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, and the U.S. Forest
    Service is under the Secretary of Agriculture. While we have a
    chief forester who knows the history of this and can address
    those specific questions, I want you to know this is on my
    radar screen as well.
        Secretary Zinke and I have already met about this. And I
    think your statement regarding the two-year study over the
    sound science, none of us know what to do without the facts
    based and the sound science, and we are absolutely allowing
    that to proceed.
        You also know that your State has a shot at that after that
    recommendation as well. So we are determined to proceed in that
    effort and let it run its course. No decision will be made
    prior to the conclusion of that.
        Ms. McCollum. Well, thank you. Governor Dayton will be
    excited to hear that. Thank you.
        Secretary Perdue. Well, he is already well aware of his
    roles and responsibilities in this effort.
        Ms. McCollum. Well, he has taken the State lands off. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Tidwell.
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, the only thing I would add is that the
    study allows us to really pull together the information and the
    data and look at the overall balance.
        Mining is an essential part of multiple-use. It is
    especially very important in your State, but it is also
    essential for this country. We can have mining operations that
    are environmentally safe. There are many that have proven to be
    able to do that.
        You did raise the question about the sulfide ore. That is
    more challenging, especially in areas where we have as much
    water as we do up in that part of the State. So this gives us
    an opportunity to be able to pause, collect the information, to
    be able to visit, and really meet with the public.
        We just want to be able to sit down with them and really
    hear from their concerns. Then as we move forward, to find that
    balance, the balance where mining needs to occur and it can be
    done in a safe, environmental way. Then if decisions are to be
    made for other areas, that it is just potentially maybe too
    hazardous, those are the type of decisions that can come out of
    this study.
        Ms. McCollum. Well, I thank you, gentlemen, for your
    comments, and I thank you for your reassurance to let the 2-
    year study go forward. Thank you.
        Secretary Perdue. Let me give you maybe a principle that
    may help your feelings that way. While I might always do right
    and feed everyone, as a veterinarian, I also ascribe to the
    Hippocratic oath. First of all, do no harm, and that we hear
    you loud and clear.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. And as I look at this map of these
    beautiful pristine lakes, it reminds me of Minnesota's greatest
    exports to California: the Los Angeles Lakers. So I always
    appreciate that.
        Ms. McCollum. Yes. Jerry West was a hero of mine. I do
    remember when Mr. West left.
        Mr. Calvert. Mr. Simpson.

                                LAND MANAGEMENT

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
    being here, Secretary. As the chairman mentioned, this is the
    first time I can ever remember, maybe the first time ever that
    the Secretary has appeared before this committee, along with
    the chief of the Forest Service. When I look back at it, it was
    almost like there was the Department of Agriculture and the
    Forest Service.
        The Forest Service is going to stay under the Department of
    Agriculture. We have had hearings about trying to move them
    over into a land management agency with Interior. I don't see
    that happening. They do a good job where they are at.
        In fact, I will tell you, I have had a lot of dealings with
    the Forest Service over the years, and while we sometimes
    complain about them. I count 62 people in this room. That means
    there are 62 different people, there are 62 different ideas
    about what should be done with the national forests and how any
    particular decision should be made.

                                   LITIGATION

        So these are public lands, and the public has a right to
    say how they are managed. The question is, and you brought it
    up with the Cottonwood case, how do you maintain the public's
    right to have a say in how their public lands are managed and
    get on with managing instead of spending all the resources we
    use in lawsuits?
        I once asked a former chief of the Forest Service, when you
    decide to make a decision on a timber cut, or any decision that
    you make, how much of the money is spent making what you
    believe to be a good, sound, scientific decision, and how much
    is trying to make it bulletproof from a lawsuit?
        And he said given the decision, it is probably between 25
    and 50 percent on making a good, sound, scientific decision,
    and between 50 and 75 percent trying to make it bulletproof.
    Wouldn't it be nice if we could use some of that money to
    actually manage the public lands?
        And this Cottonwood case, and I am glad you brought it up,
    is a perplexing problem that we need to address legislatively.
    I don't have the answer about how we change some of these laws,
    and you could go through the litany of them. It is important to
    maintain the public's right to have a say but we should
    streamline it. We have created situations where you can get
    sued at every step of the way, and there are multiple steps all
    along the way, and it is just unmanageable, frankly.

                                  FIRE FUNDING

        Thank you also for mentioning the fire borrowing issue. We
    need your help. We need Secretary Zinke's help, along with this
    committee's, to make everyone understand the importance of
    addressing this issue. Fire borrowing has gotten out of hand.
    When 53 percent of your budget goes to fighting wildfires, that
    means there is no money left for anything else.
        That is one of the reasons my constituents complain about
    the Forest Service. They are not doing any trail maintenance.
    They are not doing fuels reduction. And I noticed in your
    budget that hazardous fuels reduction numbers are down, trail
    maintenance numbers are down, land and water conservation
    numbers are down. Well, we are spending all the money on
    fighting wildfires.
        And when they come up to me and say, I was out hiking and
    they hadn't done any maintenance on this trail, why haven't
    they. I say we have appropriated money for them, but guess
    what, it has gone to fight wildfires.
        Unfortunately, I don't know if this is a good idea or not,
    but what happens is because the Forest Service--and they are
    pretty good firefighters. They do a darn good job when you look
    at the number of fires that they actually put out on initial
    attack. It is the 2 percent that blow up that cause the
    problems. But we allow the Forest Service to borrow from every
    other fund to fight wildfires. It is an emergency, unlike any
    other agency or account.
        I thought of working with Chairman Calvert and see if we
    can strike that language that is in our appropriation bills
    that says you can't borrow from other accounts. The reason
    being, when the rest of the Members of Congress look at the end
    result they say, they must have had the money to put out fires
    because they fought the wildfires and didn't run out of money.
    What they don't see is what is not done because they are
    borrowing the money to fight wildfires.
        And if we stopped the borrowing legislatively--I would
    rather do it with our wildfire fire bill, but if we could stop
    the borrowing legislatively, it would force the Forest Service
    to come to Congress for a supplemental, and then people would
    understand what the true cost of fighting these wildfires are.
        And when you look at it, it has gone from 14 percent of the
    Forest Service budget 30 years ago to 53 percent now, and it is
    projected to be over 70 percent in the next 10 years if nothing
    is done about it. But we need your help, as well as the Members
    of the Congress and outside groups to make our leadership and
    others understand the importance of addressing this issue.

                             FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

        While I don't have a question in there, I will tell you
    that within the budget--and I know that you have just come on
    and your job is to support the President's budget. I understand
    all that. I do have some concerns about the reduction in the
    hazardous fuels management, the trail maintenance, LWCF, and
    some other areas within this budget.
        If you really what to see what LWCF has done, when you are
    out to Idaho, I will take you down to South Fork, and it has
    been incredible what LWCF funds have done there.
        Chief, I noticed that you said, when you were talking with
    the chairman about what you are going to do in northern
    California, that you are going to go out and you need to thin
    these forests.
        I suspect the reason you haven't done that is because you
    don't have the money. Last year, when we were hiking at the end
    of August and the fires were going on, you said we should be
    out doing some hazardous fuels reductions, fire mitigation, and
    those types of activities. The problem is we have spent all our
    money on wildfires, and the money is not available.
        That is a real challenge for how we get ahold of this. I
    don't know how you manage a budget where 53 percent of it is
    unknown. But let me also tell you, and since I don't really
    have any questions in there, I do want to tell you I have,
    there are a lot of people who complain about land management in
    the West. That is where most of the public lands are, whether
    it is BLM, Forest Service, Park Service, whatever. And there is
    movement to try to have the States take over all the Federal
    lands. I don't see that happening either.
        It would not happen, and I don't want it to happen in Idaho
    because, frankly, we live in Idaho because we love our public
    lands. We are oftentimes upset with our land managers because,
    as I said, in this room, every one of us could do a better job
    of managing the forest sometimes, or the BLM or whatever, or we
    think we could. We are all good Monday morning quarterbacks.
        They have a tough job. And I tell you, you have got some
    great employees out in Idaho that I have had the opportunity to
    work with that do a fantastic job, and I found that true
    throughout the Forest Service. For as much criticism as they
    get, they really try to manage an almost untenable position
    between the public that wants and believes something should be
    done one way. What I have seen them do is try to work with the
    public, and as you mentioned, try to become advocates for
    trying to solve a problem.
        And maybe they can't do it the way the individual wants it
    done, but what I have seen is they will sit down and try to
    solve problems. And I am proud to call these people my friends
    that have worked out in Idaho and have done a great job of
    maintaining our public lands out there and the reason people
    want to come to Idaho.
        So when you are out there Friday visiting NIFC, I would
    like to try to make it back with you. It is an incredible
    place. Welcome to Idaho early.
        Secretary Perdue. May I respond to your nonquestion?
        Mr. Simpson. Okay.

                                   LITIGATION

        Secretary Perdue. I think certainly the litigation issue is
    something we all need to be looking at, whether it is a
    retooling of the NEPA process or those kind of things that are
    in your job and in our jobs, we are never going to please
    everybody. That is what represented democracy is all about, but
    we have got to make the principles of good facts based, data
    driven, sound science decisions, and then move forward.
        I do believe we in the Forest Service have probably been a
    little intimidated and practiced defensive forestry over
    bulletproofing decisions that way and may have rolled over. I
    am willing to go to court on some of these things. If we are
    doing right and if we have got a good scientific base for our
    decisions, I think we need to be in court, if that is what the
    other side chooses to do. I think we need to win some of those
    decisions but first of all, we have got to get our house in
    order of doing the right thing.

                                  FIRE FUNDING

        I hope that we will be able to prevail on your best choice,
    which is the fire budget rather than the nuclear option of
    preclusion, because that would put the Chief and us in a pretty
    untenable position having a fire. You can not predict a
    hurricane, you can not predict a tornado, you can not predict a
    flood; and neither can you predict a major forest fire.
        The challenge is, as you indicated, typically one to two
    percent is all we need. If we can get that in the disaster
    budget like these other natural disasters, the Forest Service
    is perfectly capable of managing all these others, and then
    managing the forest.
        So again, from a flexibility standpoint, if we are not too
    handcuffed over those kind of things, we are going to take that
    increase in forest management and do the things that make for
    healthy forests.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Kilmer.
        Mr. Kilmer. Mr. Chair, I will yield to Ms. Pingree, because
    I know she has got to get to another subcommittee.
        Mr. Calvert. Okay.
        Ms. Pingree. Thank you. I appreciate my colleague yielding
    to me, because I know he has to go to another subcommittee too,
    but I appreciate that. I apologize in advance having to go to
    my other committee after this. So I will just be here briefly.
        But it is nice to see you again, Mr. Secretary. It was a
    pleasure to have you in the Agriculture Committee yesterday,
    and thank you for giving us so much time there, and also for
    being here today.
        And, Chief Tidwell, it is nice to see you again.
        My colleagues on the committee have mentioned some of their
    concerns with the budget, and I will submit a variety of things
    for the record. I am concerned that there is nine programs that
    are zeroed out. In particular, the Forest Legacy Program, which
    has been very important to us in Maine. I am concerned about
    the cuts at the Land and Water Conservation Fund. But I just
    want to focus my brief time on two other programs that actually
    are quite important to us and have your comments.
        First one is on the family forestry and forest stewardship.
    Coming from Maine, I know everyone has a lot of forests, but of
    course, we think we have bigger challenges and more of
    everything. Eighty-six percent of our State is forested, and I
    think that might be the highest percentage of any State. We
    don't always think about Maine or New England as having so many
    forests, but we are particularly proud of them, but we also
    have a lot of challenges, and we want to make sure they are
    preserved and well taken care of.
        We have about 264 million acres of land which are basically
    in private ownerships. Unlike many of the Western States, we
    have virtually no Federal land and have a lot of private
    landowners.
        The Forest Stewardship Program leverages millions from our
    State budget and from landowners themselves. It has helped
    landowners learn how to better manage their land, navigate
    numerous challenges to help them determine how to change their
    land management in changing situations, and adapting to new
    market conditions to stay financially viable. So that has been
    very important to us in very changing times.

                                FOREST PRODUCTS

        The forest products industry in our State has a big
    footprint. In 2016, the total economic impact of forest
    products was estimated at $8.5 billion, accounts for more than
    33,000 jobs. That may not seem a lot if you come from
    California, but in a State of 1.3 million people, it is very
    important to our State.
        But we have had a lot of changes in the forest products
    industry. In the last few years, we have seen five paper mills
    close their doors. That has been devastating to communities
    throughout our State and a huge change for us.
        My colleagues and I in the Maine delegation worked with our
    local industry and community leaders to request that the
    Economic Development Administration coordinate and mobilize its
    Federal partners to participate in an economic development
    assessment team. The goal of the EDAT was to help the industry,
    along with the State, local, and Federal leaders, not only to
    coordinate their work, but work together, combine their efforts
    and resources to support our forest industry.
        They spent about 3 days, and the groups did site visits
    around the State of Maine and learned a lot about our industry
    and our forests. And there were a lot of long-term strategic
    goals as well some immediate next steps in what they were
    doing.
        The most direct request was for the Forest Service to work
    with industry to define specific technical assistance data and
    other strategic resources that could support the forest
    industry aspect of the strategic plan. These efforts are
    already under way within our State, and we know that there will
    be additional modeling and support through the Forest Service.
        So between the EDAT and the forestry industry and forestry
    stewardship program, they are just very important to us. Mr.
    Secretary, if you would like to comment, thank you, and Mr.
    Chief, if you want to. Those are just things that we just hope
    will be there in the future and need your support and help.

                           FOREST STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM

        Secretary Perdue. I would comment on the fact that, Ms.
    Pingree, I think the way to accomplish more in tight budgetary
    times really is with public-private partnerships, and that is
    one of the ways we hope to do more with less. The Forest
    Stewardship Program with private landowners is one of those.
        I also come from a State where over 95 percent of them are
    privately managed, and our citizens have utilized those, I
    think, in a very wise way and developed some best practices
    along with our State foresters and our Federal partners to do
    that. So I concur with you.
        Obviously, rural prosperity is a big part of what we do
    overall. I think Mr. Simpson earlier talked about timber and
    agriculture. In Georgia and your State, timber is agriculture.
        Ms. Pingree. Right.
        Secretary Perdue. And that is the way we view it. So we are
    going to do everything we can from a rural prosperity. In
    Maine, it means helping your small organic farmers, as we
    talked about yesterday, it helps your private landowners in
    that renewable resource that grow so well in your beautiful
    State.
        Ms. Pingree. Thank you. I do appreciate that there are a
    lot of similarities between Georgia and Maine. Except the
    temperature, we have a lot in common.
        Secretary Perdue. Our lobsters don't grow as well in
    Georgia.
        Ms. Pingree. Yeah 'And don't start trying.
        Mr. Calvert. Mr. Jenkins.

                  MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST--FLOOD RECOVERY

        Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, congratulations. Welcome. Chief, great to
    see you. I would like to maybe ask about two things in
    particular. The Monongahela National Forest has a big chunk in
    my district. We call it The Mon. And last year, in June, we had
    a once in 1,000-year flood in West Virginia. Devastating.
    Almost two dozen lost their lives. The Mon took a real hit.
        In working with the Forest Service, working with the local
    superintendent, I know you have also been working with Federal
    Highways, what can you share with me as an update? The estimate
    was tens of millions of dollars in damage to roads and trails
    and infrastructure. Where are we in that work, if you are able
    to update me? And secondly, what is the road ahead, vis-a-vis,
    this funding cycle in the budget that has been proposed?
        Mr. Tidwell. We are continuing to collect information about
    all the damage that has occurred, because we have also, just in
    the last few weeks, have had additional flooding in West
    Virginia. We are working closely with Federal Highways to be
    able to use their emergency road funding, and we are applying
    to Federal Highways for funding, and going through a process to
    really prioritize what is the absolutely most important
    projects to get completed and the most urgent, to realize that
    it is going to take awhile and it is, as the Secretary
    mentioned, it is going to take a need for all of us to work
    together, the State, the counties, the Federal agencies to come
    together to be able to address this.
        Our first focus, of course, is going to be on public
    safety, especially on some bridges, to be able to maintain the
    highest priority roads. Some of those are actually used for
    school routes, for school bus routes.
        So that is what we are doing. And as we are completing the
    analysis, we are out there doing the urgent stuff to be able to
    get as many of these roads open, but it is going to be a little
    while, and I will be glad to provide you a more extensive
    update.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Jenkins. I would welcome that. We are, obviously, very
    engaged with it. We have got incredible need. This is the time,
    as we have seen, since last June to, collect the information,
    make the down payment, but also we understand this is a
    journey, not a point in time conclusion.
        So we really truly want to work with the Forest Service,
    your local superintendent. We want to help make sure you do get
    that data collection. I want to make sure I am doing what I can
    from a funding standpoint to address those needs. I am trying
    to avoid any surprises 6 months from now or a year from now
    that, well, the money just wasn't there. So please make sure we
    are fully aware of the needs as identified.

         MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST--TIMBER SALES AND SPECIFIC HABITAT

        The second, and also for you, Chief, it certainly plays on
    what the Secretary referenced, is still relating to The Mon.
    With regard to the forest management, and in particular, the
    timber sales, this is an ongoing frustration and challenge that
    we have seen, and I just need to figure out how to break this
    logjam. Pardon the pun. The Mon is 919,000 acres, 12 percent
    set aside as wilderness. But under the allowable sales
    quantities under the forest plan, each year, for the last 4, 5,
    6 years, we have only been selling about 12 percent of what is
    allowed. So for example, in 2016, only 12 percent was sold;
    2015, 10 percent was sold; 2014, 13 percent was sold.
        What are the impediments to a forest plan objective that
    has an allowable sale quantity, but each year we are in the 10,
    11, 12 percent actually sold? What is going on? What can we do
    about it? This is basic good forest management practice.
        Mr. Tidwell. First of all, I share your frustration. There
    is a combination of things that several members and the
    Secretary have already mentioned that we are working on. Your
    forest has history when it comes to environmental issues that
    go way back in time. We have been able to move forward on many
    of those concerns.
        So today, where we are at, is to be able to find more
    capacity. One of the things where we are making, I think, some
    great progress is using the Good Neighbor Authority that you
    provided with the 2014 Farm Bill so that we can work with the
    State forester and their staff to be able to actually get more
    work done out on the ground and use their capacity, and also to
    be able to learn from them.
        Many of our States have, I believe, some better practices
    than some of the things that we have in place that I could
    argue were put in place years ago because of certain lawsuits.
    We are finding, by being able to use the Good Neighbor
    Authority and working with the States, we are able to actually
    get more work done, get more timber harvested, and then to be
    able to do it in a way that we can cover the State's costs.
        So this is one of the things that we are really making some
    good progress on. I think your forest, especially, is one that
    is placed for us to move out using that authority.
        Mr. Jenkins. Well, if progress is being defined as
    percentage of allowable sold, we are not making progress.
        Secretary Perdue. I hear you loud and clear, Mr. Jenkins.
    Those numbers that you just described are pretty frustrating to
    me, and we will have a better answer and a better reason by the
    next time I come before you.
        Mr. Jenkins. Thank you.
        Secretary Perdue. I put this chart, Mr. Chairman, in your
    package there. Our forests are renewable resources. Forests are
    just like us and animals. If you do not do something with them
    while they are healthy, they die, and then they create more
    problems with fire and other things.
        So these are not good statistics here, and our goal is to
    make sure that we harvest the renewable part of our forest. We
    would love to have that balance. We talked about some of the
    root causes regarding the budget and the management aspect, but
    that is absolutely my goal is to use the resources from our
    jobs, from our revenue standpoint.
        These are crops. Those are crops there that ought to be
    harvested for the benefit of the American public.
        Mr. Jenkins. A breath of fresh air, Mr. Secretary. We look
    forward to working with you. We look forward to that better
    answer, and we look forward to getting her done. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Mr. Kilmer.

               COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PROGRAM

        Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for being with
    us.
        I have got one question for the Secretary and one for Chief
    Tidwell. Mr. Secretary, as everyone is extending invitations to
    you, I will do the same. We had the honor of having your
    predecessor come out to visit the Olympic Peninsula to see how
    important the Forest Service lands are to the rural timber-
    dependent communities that I represent and to visit with the
    Olympic Penninsula Forest Collaborative that is really making
    progress towards increasing harvest levels in a responsible
    way.
        We have got the conservation community and the industry at
    the same table working through some of these tough issues, and
    I think it addresses a couple of the issues that you raised.
    One, the value of public-private partnership, and two, trying
    to reduce litigation when it comes to timber sales.
        Having said that, I am somewhat surprised to see the
    elimination of funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration Program in the budget, because I just think it is
    fundamentally important to sound stewardship and was hoping
    that you could just speak to what the rationale was for that
    program elimination.
        Secretary Perdue. Well, certainly beginning my job here, I
    support the budget and its conclusions, but I think probably it
    would have been a little different had we been there long
    enough to have an impact in that area. The reason we were given
    was some duplicative programs, but I already expressed my
    desire to see more public-private partnerships. And we hope to
    persuade others in the administration that we think we can get
    more bang for the buck that way.
        Mr. Kilmer. Well, we would certainly love to have you see
    the success that our collaborative has had, but we need more
    help.
        Secretary Perdue. As for the visit, I hope to get your way
    soon. We are heading that way. We were in the Black Hills over
    the past weekend. We are going to be in Idaho next weekend, so
    we are moving your way.
        Mr. Kilmer. If you get any further west than me, you are in
    the ocean.
        Secretary Perdue. Yes. We are not going to Victoria Island.

                            LEGACY ROADS AND TRAILS

        Mr. Kilmer. Chief Tidwell, I think the last time I saw you
    was at an event celebrating the Legacy Roads and Trails Program
    and the removal of the 1,000th culvert. It was a pretty
    spectacular event in that you had recreationalists, sports
    fishermen, and a bunch of different stakeholders celebrating
    both the economic and ecological benefits of what is a pretty
    modest program.
        So this is another program that I was pretty shocked to see
    eliminated. According to your own budget justification, since
    2008, Legacy Roads and Trails has restored fish passage at
    1,000 sites, providing access to over 1,000 miles of habitat,
    improved almost 18,000 miles of road for safety and flood
    resiliency, constructed or reconstructed 141 bridges for
    safety, upgraded or fixed 4,390 miles of trails so people can
    actually enjoy the areas that they love, and created or
    maintained 800 to 1,200 jobs annually.
        It is really hard to argue with the success of this
    program, so I am hoping you can help me understand the
    rationale for eliminating it.
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, I would just like to basically repeat
    what the Secretary has said, but one of the reasons, the
    funding that is provided with Legacy Roads and Trails, we can
    do that same work with our trails budget and with our roads
    budget. Where it has been an effective program to really focus
    on the legacy work to be able to improve and deal with stream
    crossings and culverts, it is something we can do within our
    other budget line items. We are going to continue to do that
    work and be able to build on the partnership, but we will be
    able to continue that with our other budget line items.
        Secretary Perdue. I think prior to you coming in, there
    were two budget items that we would love to have your help on,
    and obviously, trails is one of those. We know, from an
    economic perspective as well as a recreation perspective, if
    you can not maintain, you can not get to it, you can not cut
    trees, and you can not have--enjoy the beautiful landscape. So
    we appreciate your help there.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.
        Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Mr. Stewart.

                                    GRAZING

        Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Mr. Perdue, congratulations on your new
    responsibilities.
        Chief, thank you for the time and extraordinary effort you
    have made in some cases to help people in the rural west.
        I know of one example where you flew out to my district and
    met with some of our county commissioners and flew back the
    same day. That is an example of you trying to make yourself
    available and trying to hear them, and I think that is so
    important.
        I love the fact that you are here together. And I would
    like to mimic something you said, Mr. Secretary, if I could,
    and that is, these are--our forests are national jewels. There
    is a reason I live in Utah. It is because I love Utah, and part
    of that is loving the forests.
        But they are also a resource. And as you said, Mr.
    Secretary, they are like a crop. They are a renewable resource,
    and properly managed, they can be a very effective economic
    resource that we could take such advantage of.
        I would like to make one point very quickly and then come
    to you, Chief, if I could, for an issue that I have been
    concerned about. We often talk about their value to us in
    timber, and that has been brought up several times here. But
    when I hike, as I often do in Utah, or at least I used to when
    I had a life before I came to Congress, but it wouldn't be
    unusual to see cattle grazing in our forest. And my father-in-
    law has a permit where he would graze his cattle in the forest.
        Do we agree--and again, this is a simple question. Do we
    agree that that is a part of management as well in taking
    proper advantage of this resource?
        Secretary Perdue. Absolutely. I would like to expand on
    that a little bit. By the way, I was in Rapid City, South
    Dakota this last weekend and Ellsworth Air Force base. There
    was a little airplane over there I think you may be familiar
    with.
        Mr. Stewart. Just a little airplane, yes.
        Secretary Perdue. Got up in the cockpit of the B-1 and I
    kind of chided them from stealing that from Robins Air Force
    Base, but we had a National Guard group down there, wing, that
    flew that airplane, I had been in it before.
        Mr. Stewart. Well, we can agree it is the sexiest aircraft
    ever built, right?
        Secretary Perdue. And pretty effective, as well. But on
    your specific question, certainly in your area, as well, I
    think grazing is a realistic management. I was in Northern
    Nebraska over our grasslands there, our cattle ranchers are
    doing things on their own lands that thrive and make good
    management practices. We want to adopt more of those.
        Frankly, I hope Secretary Zinke, and I, and you can go out
    to your area and hear from your people, not just the elected
    officials, but hear from those cattle ranches, hear from those
    people who have to deal with our Forest Service and our Bureau
    of Land Management (BLM) lands and let us really develop a
    level of trust and a good neighbor policy there that is more
    than just a name. We have a good neighbor policy officially,
    but being a good neighbor is more than just saying I am one, so
    I hope we can do that in your area.
        Mr. Stewart. Yes.
        Secretary Perdue. So I hope we can do that in your area.

                 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR--OVERTIME AND MINIMUM WAGE

        Mr. Stewart. And, Mr. Secretary, I am so grateful to hear
    you say that. I can tell you I grew up ranching and farming,
    and no one cares more about that land than those individuals
    who their livelihood depends on that resource being healthy,
    and they are as intrinsically interested in protecting it as
    anyone I can imagine.
        Chief, if I could come to you with a problem, as I said, I
    am a little bit frustrated, and I think we have talked about it
    before. 2014 the Department of Labor instituted a rule
    regarding overtime and minimum wage for Federal employees,
    which they had the right to do, and I don't object to that, but
    where we have a problem is it caught up, I think, individuals
    that it was never intended to be, that is outfitters and guides
    who work in the rural west.
        You know, people who take people on horseback rides, river
    rafting, et cetera, who help tourists and people who otherwise
    wouldn't be able to experience the west because they just
    wouldn't do it on their own.
        But they were defined as a Federal employee because they
    happened to traverse Federal lands or in some cases operate on
    Federal lands. And, you know, we worked with the Department,
    again in this case the Department of Labor, for a year, more
    than a year, trying to get them to relook at us and saying this
    isn't the intent. They actually agreed with us, at least they
    told us they did, though nothing came from that. We included
    legislation in the appropriations or language in the fiscal
    year 2016 appropriations bill, which would have exempted them
    from this.
        And I have to say before I make my final point, these
    aren't big corporate outfits and guides these are mom-and-pop
    shops, you know, people who are making a lot less money than
    most of us here in this room. And they just simply can't afford
    it. I mean, an outfitter out there hits 40 hours in the first
    two days, and after that he has got to be paid overtime on a
    minimum wage, a Federal defined minimum wage.
        It frustrates me that it seems like the Forest Service has
    ignored the intent of Congress because their permit requires
    still that they comply with this. I wonder if you could give us
    some relief on that and some hope that we can work together to
    come to what I think most of us agree is a reasonable
    conclusion.
        Mr. Tidwell. I appreciate you bringing it back up again.
    Well, we will go back to see what we can do to address that and
    continue to work with the Department of Labor.
        I agree with your point that most of the outfitter and
    guide operations I know are usually family operations, and its
    relatives, or you could even say they are all part owners in
    that operation, and I don't even think they work by the hour,
    they just work by the day to provide that service. It is one of
    the things that we work with the Department of Labor and will
    continue to do that to be able to address a solution there so
    that it doesn't have unintended consequences of impacting their
    operations.
        Mr. Stewart. I appreciate that, Chief, and we will pursue
    that with you, and if I could just conclude, and, Mr.
    Secretary, it seems like you want to respond----
        Secretary Perdue. Yeah. I think there are a lot of
    unintended consequences regarding that labor rule that we want
    to look at as it pertains to the USDA, and obviously outfitting
    is a seasonal job. They do not work year-round. Seasons do not
    last that long, and that caught up a lot of seasonal workers
    that is very intense for a period of time, that is when they
    have to work and make their money, and so we will be very
    attentive to that.
        Mr. Stewart. Well, please do, and I will conclude with
    this. I met with many of these owners, dozens of times, I
    suppose, but I have also met with generally college kids who
    come to me and say, Look, I don't get to do what I used to love
    to do. I was more than happy to do this for the wage they were
    paying me. I was doing it because I love it, and now my job has
    gone away, and now I am working at Walmart or McDonald's when I
    would much rather be out showing people the land.
        So thank you, and we look forward to working with you on
    that. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Ms. Kaptur.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr.
    Secretary.
        Secretary Perdue. Thank you.

                             FOREST SERVICE BUDGETS

        Ms. Kaptur. Chief Tidwell, thank you for your service to
    our country.
        According to the numbers that I have, and I hope they are
    correct, in the fiscal year 2016 the Forest Service had a
    budget of $7.03 billion. For this fiscal year what was finally
    signed into law was 6.17 billion. And for the proposal we are
    reviewing now it has gone down to $5.20 billion. That is a cut
    of 26 percent over the last 3 years. That is in my judgment
    enormous.

                          URBAN AND COMMUNITY FORESTRY

        I don't come from the west. I come from up where the U.S.
    border meets the Canadian border over Lake Erie. Congressman
    Joyce and I share this very important region with the
    shallowest of the Great Lakes in deep trouble.
        And when I look at this budget, I see that though Ohio is
    not like Utah and California and big western States with big
    Federal forest lands, trees are terribly important to us. Lake
    Erie has the least number of trees surrounding it of any of the
    Great Lakes. We have the most threatened of the Great Lakes. My
    home community of Toledo, Ohio, which has water systems that
    serve a region of half a million to 750 million people plus
    businesses was shut off two and-a-half years ago for 3 days
    because a very wicked little toxin called microcystin that
    forms an algae got into the water system.
        It is not the only water system on Lake Erie that has been
    shut off. Many of our rural water systems have been shut off
    over the last couple years. They didn't get a lot of publicity
    because we are not New York City, we are not Chicago. You know,
    we are out there on Lake Erie, and I will tell you what, it was
    completely frightening. And we live with this hanging over our
    heads every day, and the situation is not getting better.
        I won't go into all the details of what we are trying to do
    to address it, but because we don't have the full engagement of
    the Forest Service along Lake Erie because we are using the
    Urban and Community Forestry Program, which this budget
    proposes to eliminate along with the Community Forest and Open
    Space Program, and the Landscape Scale Restoration Program. We
    are trying to find ways to deal with planting 20 million trees
    we have to replace just because of the emerald ash borer just
    to keep pace with an inadequate number of trees to begin with
    to operate as buffer strips to help to filter the nutrients
    going into Lake Erie from the Maumee River. The largest river--
    God gave me the largest river in the Great Lakes, and with no
    resources to try to fix what is wrong.
        The NRCS has been great, Mr. Secretary, in trying to help
    us figure out what do we do with a tri-state bi-national
    watershed in order to prevent these nutrients from going into
    the rivers and streams and falling toward the lake, and your
    NRCS people in Ohio have been phenomenal. They are
    underresourced. There is no political jurisdiction that can put
    their arms around this region. And it is frightening to see
    what is happening.
        Cleveland, at the eastern end of my district, and the
    western end of David's district, used to be called Forest City.
    And with the levels of asthma there and other issues and many
    urban areas.
        I frankly take it as a personal offense that the Government
    of the United States, not you, but that the government of this
    country doesn't consider the Great Lakes and our urban areas
    important enough to focus on trees. We are always off, you
    know, in other areas that I feel sorry for because there is not
    enough money to keep trails. Deferred maintenance in this
    budget is eliminated. Legacy and Trails Program eliminated.
    Facilities accounts, 84 percent cut. I mean, I feel sorry for
    you, trying to take over this. I keep saying, where are we
    going to get some private sector people to donate money to fill
    the gap here.
        But I would love to invite you to our region because it is
    the canary in the coal mine. Your dad, I like his quote, ``We
    are all stewards of the land, owned or rented, and our
    responsibility is to leave it better than we found it.'' I
    couldn't agree more. NRCS sponsored a book one time called
    ``Land, Food, and People.'' I loved it, but there was a word
    missing, and that was ``water.''

                                   WATERSHEDS

        And what we face in our region is that in the two
    watersheds I represent, but the one that is causing the most
    problems that extends over three States and Canada, there are
    two million people that live in that watershed. There are
    between 10 and 11 million animals, the largest egg-producing
    region in the whole country, generating 43,500 train carloads
    of manure every year, much of it put on the land. And we've got
    no answer.
        When I was born there were 146 million people in this
    country. Today there are 320 million. By 2050 we will have 390
    million according to the latest projections, and somehow the
    formula for land, food, water, and people, to say nothing of
    temperature changes, it is not a winning formula.
        So we would invite you to our region. We would fly in your
    helicopter if you want to.
        Secretary Perdue. I would like that.

                               USDA MISSION AREAS

        Ms. Kaptur. NRCS has to play a role in this. I have a bill
    to recreate the Civilian Conservation Corp to help the whole
    country, including our area, and I got some ideas about it
    would require more than USDA, it would require Department of
    Labor, National Guard. We got to fix this, and I want to do it
    in my lifetime.
        So that we do what your dad said in our time and
    generation. It is our responsibility. And, unfortunately, we
    don't have structure to do it.
        I think NRCS is one of the few structures we really have,
    but it is not used to working across jurisdictions, and States.
    And we need its help. So we got the problem. We don't have the
    mechanism to fix it. And the problem is getting ahead of us
    just like in the west.
        I will tell you, I don't live in the west. The forest fires
    scare me to death because I studied a little bit about forest
    succession. I worry about the eastern forests, as well as the
    western forests. We are not taking care of this problem for the
    country. We simply aren't. And it is not true to our heritage.
        I just thank all the people that work for the Forest
    Service. I feel sorry for the firefighters, all those people
    that risk their lives up there all the time. We are not doing
    our job, and we have got to figure out a way to do it. If we
    have to beg the private sector and go to Goldman Sachs and all
    these people that ripped off the people of the United States
    and beg the money, I am willing to do it. But we gotta fix
    this.
        So my extension of an invitation is very serious. We need
    your help, and we need it fast. Ohio and Michigan, if we could
    figure out how to plant 20 million trees in the next 5 years
    that wouldn't be enough, but it would be a heck of a lot better
    than our limping along with what we are doing now.
        So that is just my statement and my concern about your
    budget, and we will work with you and our great chairman and
    ranking member to try to produce something better.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Marcy.
        Secretary Perdue. I appreciate your concern and your
    passion. I have heard great things about the Great Lakes
    Restoration Project. I think we were making progress in that,
    as well as the Chesapeake. And we hope we will have the
    opportunity to continue that.
        As a former governor, you know I know how this government
    works. We have an executive branch that proposes. We have an
    legislative branch that legislates and appropriates. We have
    got a judicial branch. So I hope all together we can come
    together and address some of those concerns certainly so we can
    leave it better than we found it.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Joyce. The Great Lakes are well
    represented here today.

                               EMERALD ASH BORER

        Mr. Joyce. Secretary Purdue, Chief Tidwell, thank you very
    much for being here today.
        I was happy to hear you call trees an agricultural product,
    having owned a small Christmas tree farm. I thought this would
    be a wonderful way for our family to all work together, and I
    found the kids only liked it when they were selling the trees
    and giving out candy canes and not doing much else during the
    course of the year.
        But I would like to follow up on my colleague from Ohio Ms.
    Kaptur's comments about the emerald ash borer. You brought up
    the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), and you happened
    to be able to get some of that money to help prevent what is a
    100 percent mortality rate with the emerald ash borer, but I
    understand only the Wayne National Forest is in Ohio.
        I know it is not necessarily part of your purview, but are
    you doing anything to help people or nongovernmental entities
    surrounding the forest systems to try to combat this emerald
    ash borer because having lost this in my own yard, once they
    are in there, boom, all your trees are dead within years. It
    really has become a problem.
        It is restricted. You can't even use it for firewood,
    transferring county to county, and we really need some help.
        Secretary Perdue. The Chief can address this specifically,
    but my goal, my principles are in cooperation with the Forest
    Service is just almost like the Ag Extension Service. We have
    got an education, a research education communication network
    out here, and that is where many of these private partnerships
    working with State and private landowners have been so
    effective in communicating what they can do.
        I have got a picture here in the west that talks about good
    forest management and how it impacts that. So the Chief may
    know more specifically about the emerald borer, but the
    principle is we want Forest Service to be an educational tool
    to get best practices both for private lands and for public
    lands.
        Mr. Joyce. I have got to tell you, Mr. Secretary, that is
    music to our ears. Because part and parcel of the GLRI is also
    educating the farmers to reduce the amount of fertilizer, and
    they get higher yields with less fertilizer but when the State
    comes in and says they are going to cut down on the amount they
    can use, well, the first thing a guy does is overloads the
    field to make sure he is in before the edict is actually
    implemented. So you really want to try to educate them.
        There are so many ways they can do that now. I am amazed. I
    was at one combine with a guy who uses his iPad, not even
    touching the steering wheel. We are going down the field, and
    he is measuring the soils and less fertilizer, higher yields,
    it all works but it is going to take education, just what you
    are saying.
        Secretary Perdue. It would. And technology and rural
    broadband connectivity. They depend on being able to connect
    into the data systems that do that. So there are a lot of
    opportunities, a lot of challenges, but that is why we are
    here.
        And I look forward to visiting your area. I am not as
    familiar with the border of Lake Erie as I could be. I lived in
    Ohio, down at Columbus, in the middle seventies in the Air
    Force but didn't make it up to your beautiful area.
        Ms. Kaptur. You are welcome.
        Mr. Joyce. Love to have you. If you like to fish we have
    some pretty good fishing, too. Chairman Calvert wants to come
    too and catch some walleye. Excuse me, Chief.
        Mr. Tidwell. Just quickly, we still haven't found a
    solution to the emerald ash borer, and our scientists are
    working with the other agriculture agencies and also with
    universities to find some type of--ideally a biological control
    on this pest that came into this country through one of our
    ports and now has spread all the way up to Canada.
        One of the things we are working with is the places to get
    out in front of it and actually have to clear out the ash to
    just be able to stop the spread. That is one of the tools that
    has been helpful, but when you are out in the country that is
    something you can do, but as it is going through communities,
    it is not what people want to see their ash trees cut down.
        So it is just still challenging, but it does make the point
    about our research and development branch of the forest service
    that we work very closely with the other agencies and
    universities for us to be able to maintain that, and this
    budget request does allow us to be able to maintain our
    research with the emerald ash borer to be able to find that
    solution. At the same time to be able to do what we can to
    prevent the next pest from coming in to this country, through
    our ports.
        Ms. Kaptur. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Joyce. Absolutely.
        Ms. Kaptur. Could I ask, on the emerald ash borer and the
    loss of ash trees, do you know, sir, how many we have lost
    already and what the projected loss is and what percentage that
    comprises of our ash tree population?
        I just know Ohio and Michigan. I don't know the whole
    country number.
        Mr. Tidwell. I can provide that information to you, but it
    is devastating to the ash in the east, and if we can't find a
    solution to this, there is a high likelihood we will lose the
    ash tree from the Eastern United States.
        [The information follows:]

        It is estimated that the emerald ash borer has killed more
    than 100 million trees in the cities and rural forests of the
    30 States in which it is currently found. According to FIA
    estimates, the total number of ash trees on forested lands is
    9.4 billion (this does not include urban areas). The most
    recent National Insect and Disease Risk Map estimates that more
    than 700,000 acres of ash forests are at risk to EAB-caused
    mortality in the next 15 years. The Forest Service does not
    track the total numbers of ash trees in forested rural and
    urban areas.

        Mr. Joyce. Wow.
        Mr. Tidwell. I wish I had a more positive response, but
    that is the challenge we are up against.
        Mr. Joyce. Isn't that what is used to make baseball bats?
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
        Voice. Baseball is gone, then we are into basketball.
        Mr. Tidwell. Aluminum.
        Ms. Kaptur. If you go through one of the communities I
    represent it is like you take a razor and you just zzzzzz, you
    go right, and they are gone. It is astounding.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you both. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

                                AVIATION ASSETS

        Mr. Calvert. I have a number of questions I am going to
    submit to you for the record, but one thing I would like to
    talk about quickly is some of our Forest Service aviation
    assets. As you know, we had $65 million in fiscal year 2015
    account that was to acquire an additional aircraft. So I was
    wondering what the status of that acquisition is and when do
    you expect to award the contract, and do you anticipate the
    award will be contested?
        Mr. Tidwell. We are currently reviewing the bids we
    received to acquire an aircraft, and I expect I can report back
    to the committee in the next few weeks on the progress of that.
        As to the second question, that is always just part of the
    process.
        Secretary Perdue. My question would be, how many people
    make the 130J?
        Mr. Calvert. I think you know what State it is from, too.
    You might like that aircraft.
        Also, the Defense Authorization Act in 2014, as you
    remember, transferred seven HC-130Hs from the Coast Guard and
    15 C-23 Sherpas from the Army just to the Forest Service, and
    we provided $130 million for the planes to be retrofitted.
        So I would like to get the status of where those aircraft
    are right now, what is the status of those transfers, if they
    have happened, and where we are on the retrofit.
        Mr. Tidwell. We will be flying one HC-130H again this
    summer, and then fiscal year 2019 we will have two C-130Hs with
    the tank installed. Then in fiscal year 2020 we will have four
    more. Then by fiscal year 2021 we will have all seven of those
    with the tanks installed.
        There was an issue with the contract Air Force was using to
    install the tanks. It slowed down the progress there, but as
    they have put on the new wing boxes on those planes, we take
    one each year and we fly that with a MAFS unit and then rotate
    that back in to be able to get the internal tank installed.
        Mr. Calvert. Okay. Good. Ms. McCollum.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Back to the aircraft, when I was
    up in Northern Minnesota talking to the pilots, they said it is
    really hard to get pilots right now because of what is going on
    in the industry. So I hope as we get the planes we can retain
    the pilots, and if you need any flexibility with how you go
    about retaining and recruiting pilots, please keep us apprised.
        Mr. Chair, I am also going to submit some questions for the
    record. As Secretary Purdue and Mr. Tidwell know, we want to be
    helpful on the backlog of maintenance. There is an inspector
    general's report on that, so I know that you are capable of
    getting us the ash tree number.

                                INVASIVE SPECIES

        Let me just put a couple statistics out there. I don't
    represent Minneapolis, but it is part of the Twin Cities. Five
    thousand trees a year are being lost until the city's public
    ash trees are gone. That is how much they are cutting down a
    year.
        And in Saint Paul where I live 8,500 boulevard ashes have
    been removed so far. The pace is increasing. We take them down
    in the winter when the little pests aren't active.
        By the end, we think that over 60,000 trees will be gone.
    It is important we remove them in the urban areas because how
    they got here to the Twin Cities was hitchhiking on railroad
    cars. So if we don't get them down as the railroad cars and the
    shortlines go through, these little pests will figure out a way
    to get on them and go into more rural areas.
        This is really an all hands on deck to reduce the spread of
    this from going any further east than the Mississippi River. So
    I appreciate the work that the Forest Service Station in the
    Twin Cities and the St. Paul Campus for the University of
    Minnesota are doing together.
        This is all hands on deck, and we are going to see more and
    more of this as the climate puts more stress with the climate
    change on our forests and hardwood.
        So I want to thank the Forest Service, and thank you Mr.
    Perdue. It was a delight meeting you today.
        I thank you for your support of keeping our pristine waters
    clean in the northern part of our United States.

                                  BARK BEETLE

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. We will be closing down here in a
    minute, unless there is any further comment.
        But one comment about these invasive species. I am from
    California, and we have not just the bark beetle, which is
    obviously devastating the forest, but since we have you here in
    the citrus industry, which is kind of important in my State
    still. It has literally wiped out the citrus industry in
    Florida, as you know. It is in Texas now. So it is in
    California, except it is not as affected at this point. They
    found some in the Hacienda Heights area.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman, I just want you to know that in
    parts of Idaho, we consider Californians an invasive species.
        Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman----
        Mr. Calvert. With that I think we may adjourn here pretty
    soon.
        Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Yes.

                              USDA REORGANIZATION

        Ms. Kaptur. I would just, since the Secretary is here and
    he has been very gracious with his time, I wanted to just ask
    you when you realigned USDA and you put farm production and
    conservation together, could you expound a little bit on how
    that relates to the Forest Service and what is your thinking?
        Secretary Perdue. Sure. As you know, NRCS was under the
    missionary of the Forest Service. The Forest Service has about
    a third of the employees of USDA and in many areas. We have got
    a lot of challenges. As I went around and I heard it looked
    like to me we had a lot of challenges for forest management and
    the Forest Service. I wanted someone, first of all, who was
    dedicated to resolving many of those issues of the questions
    you raised this morning.
        The second point was NRCS is a customer-facing
    responsibility. There are more aligned with the Farm Service
    Agency and the risk manager from a producer standpoint. So
    those missionaries are going to be under one Undersecretary and
    have three directors there that collaborate.
        Our data systems weren't talking to one another, and
    sometimes we were colocated, but it was all separating. We act
    like we were separate agencies. So this is a customer-facing
    responsibility trying to fulfill our customer service
    responsibility.
        The other thing on the realignment had to do with rural
    development. As I said, I am not a micromanager, but I am a
    hands-on manager. I wanted that person with access to be on a
    walk-in basis where we got projects we can move quickly, rather
    than having to float up through a chain and sometimes lose the
    opportunity, so that was the purpose.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you sir.
        I just wanted to say that I would very much appreciate your
    review of my bill on a Civilian Conservation Corps. You can
    redline it. You can amend it. You can do anything you want, but
    I would be very interested to hear what you think about it, and
    how we might achieve it. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Secretary Perdue. If I can close, I probably should have
    started this, but I wanted to see in this packet.
        This is healthy forest versus unhealthy forest. This was
    from the Black Hills. I was there last weekend. And it just
    shows you what good thinning management can do.
        This is the mountain pine beetle, one of those species that
    can be--those brown where trees have died there. The green
    areas where they had been thinned ahead of time. That is why it
    is so important we get the forest budget straightened out so we
    can do more of this all over our forests there.
        So we have used over a thousand words, but that picture is
    worth a thousand words there.
        Mr. Calvert. Well, thank you, Secretary Perdue. We
    appreciate you getting on top of this and working with our
    chief, Chief Tidwell. We appreciate all your years of service,
    and with that we are adjourned.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                                Thursday, June 8, 2017.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                                   WITNESSES

    HON. RYAN ZINKE, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
        WASHINGTON, D.C.
    OLIVIA FERRITER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUDGET, FINANCE,
        PERFORMANCE, AND ACQUISITION
    DENISE FLANAGAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET

                      Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert

        Mr. Calvert [presiding]. If everybody can grab a seat, we
    are going to get going here in about 30 seconds.
        The committee will come to order, and we want to welcome
    everybody here. We are the only folks in town not watching the
    Comey show. [Laughter.]
        Good morning, and I would like to welcome to the
    subcommittee the 52nd Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke.
    Joining the Secretary this morning is Olivia Ferriter, Deputy
    Assistant Secretary for Budget, Finance, Performance, and
    Acquisition, as well Denise Flanagan, director, Office of
    Budget.
        Our hearing today will address the Fiscal Year 2018 budget
    priorities for the Department of Interior.
        Mr. Secretary, this is your first formal budget hearing
    before our subcommittee. On behalf of our members,
    congratulations on your confirmation, and welcome back to the
    House. We look forward to outlining your goals for the
    Department and discussing a variety of important issues with us
    this morning.
        Having worked alongside you here in Congress and knowing of
    your passion for the outdoors and recreation, I look forward to
    working with you to address the many challenges facing the
    Department. As a native Montanan and a Westerner, you have a
    deep understanding of and bring a welcome perspective to many
    of these issues.
        Our challenges are diverse and many: addressing the
    maintenance backlog in our national parks and across the
    various Interior bureaus, adequately funding fire suppression,
    meeting our legal and moral obligations throughout Indian
    Country, funding PILT and complex water issues affecting the
    West and my own State of California. These are some of the very
    tough challenges we stand ready to roll up our sleeves, work
    with you, and to seek solutions to these and other issues.
        This morning's hearing marks the beginning of a very candid
    conversation about your Department's funding priorities
    overall. The President's Fiscal Year 2018 budget request
    provides $10.6 billion of discretionary for the Department of
    Interior programs under this subcommittee's jurisdiction, which
    is $1.6 billion, or 13 percent, below the Fiscal Year 2017
    enacted level.
        At the outset, let me state the obvious. This is going to
    be a very challenging year. The President has presented a
    budget proposal that will be closely examined account by
    account, line by line. The budget requests for your Department
    may not be exactly what you would have proposed, but ultimately
    Congress will have the final say over the Fiscal Year 2018
    budget.

                                 INDIAN AFFAIRS

        This subcommittee is committed to moving the Interior bill
    quickly. We will complete our work in a bipartisan fashion.
    Under both Republican and Democratic chairmen, this
    subcommittee has made a concerted effort to address the
    greatest needs in Indian Country. Education, healthcare, and
    law enforcement issues continue to be a nonpartisan
    subcommittee priority. We welcome your active involvement
    working with us and our American Indian and Alaska Native
    brothers and sisters. The challenge of providing adequate
    wildfire funding remains one of the great challenges facing
    this subcommittee.

                                 WILDLAND FIRE

        I want to applaud my good friend, Mike Simpson, for his
    leadership and continuing efforts to address this issue through
    his bipartisan legislation, which, by the way, is being
    introduced, I think, in the House today, right?
        Mr. Simpson. Yes.
        Mr. Calvert. I encourage you, Mr. Secretary, to lend your
    voice to supporting the Simpson bill as you did while you were
    serving in the House, and encourage the President to do the
    same.

                             ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

        Another challenge facing the Department and subcommittee is
    the Endangered Species Act. ESA is a well-intentioned statute
    that has saved numerous species from extinction, but its
    authorization has long expired. It is critical that we have
    open, realistic discussions in Congress about what is working
    and what is not.

                                ANTIQUITIES ACT

        Like many from the West, I welcome the Department's review
    of the authority under the Antiquities Act for designating
    national monuments. As you know from your travels, there is
    great concern that these designations often disregard the views
    and concerns of affected communities, local stakeholders, and
    the representatives of Congress.

                           PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

        Identifying stable, long-term funding for payments in lieu
    of taxes, PILT, is another major challenge. Until a solution is
    identified, funding PILT is going to continue putting pressure
    on program budgets within the Department, across our agencies,
    and within this bill.

                             NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

        The National Park Service recently celebrated its
    centennial. In the Fiscal Year 2017 enacted budget, this
    subcommittee made a substantial investment in our national
    parks by providing additional funds for park operations,
    addressing longstanding deferred maintenance issues, and we
    certainly look forward to working with you to ensure that these
    national treasures are adequately funded, and seek avenues to
    reduce the longstanding maintenance backlog.

                             U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

        Lastly, I am glad to see that the USGS budget includes full
    funding for Landsat 9 core mission areas, including energy, and
    minerals, and mapping, are mostly spared. That said, I am
    concerned that some programs might have been too hastily
    proposed for termination. The West Coast and my home State of
    California, in particular, is counting on the Federal
    government and their expertise of the USGS to make earthquake
    early warning systems operational. This is a public safety
    program that will protect millions of lives and critical
    infrastructure. So, this subcommittee will be taking a close
    look at the program and how we can keep its momentum going as
    we consider Fiscal Year 2018 funding.
        In closing, I want to express my appreciation to your
    outstanding professional staff. Our subcommittee could not do
    its work without your budget shop, the various bureaus, and
    talented other people sitting next to you and behind you.
    Thanks to each of you for all you do.
        And with that, I am happy to yield to the gentlelady from
    Minnesota, Mrs. McCollum, for any opening remarks she would
    like to make.

                   Opening Remarks of Congresswoman McCollum

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    the courtesy of the opening remarks. I would like to just
    reiterate, Mr. Chairman, for many, if not pretty much
    everything, that you said in your opening remarks, you have my
    support to work on those issues together with you.
        Mr. Zinke, thank you for being here with us today. Mr.
    Secretary, I know this budget was put together before you had
    an opportunity to have a full imprint on it, and so I know that
    there is lots of room and where we can have discussions and
    work forward.

                            PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT

        But I want to begin by saying how profoundly disappointed I
    am that President Trump is withdrawing the United States from
    the Paris Climate Agreement. His decision harms the health of
    our children and grandchildren. It jeopardizes the environment
    that we will leave them. This Administration's willful denial
    of the threats of climate change is reflected in the Department
    of Interior's budget, which cuts funding for climate change
    research and mitigation by an appalling 80 percent--80 percent
    cut--to climate change research and mitigation.

                              2018 BUDGET REQUEST

        The Department manages hundreds of millions of acres of
    America's most precious land and resources. Despite this
    tremendously important responsibility, President Trump's 2018
    budget cuts the Department of Interior by $1.16 billion, or 13
    percent. After we adjust that for inflation, we are well below
    2010 levels of spending.
        These proposals contained in President Trump's budget, I
    believe, are reckless. They are reckless and they endanger our
    natural and cultural resources. This budget guts funding for
    programs critical to appropriately manage our public lands, it
    dishonors our commitment to Native Americans, and it rejects
    science. Sadly, this budget advances an agenda that puts the
    profits of oil companies above the public good.
        There is a place for responsible oil, gas, and development
    on our public lands, but it must be balanced, and it must be
    sustainable. This budget abandons the Department's conservation
    responsibilities.
        The Administration has already begun to reverse critical
    environmental policies, such as those that limit offshore
    drilling, a moratorium on coal mining leases, and the control
    of methane venting from drilling operations. These policies
    were carefully developed through scientific and public
    processes, but the Administration would rather ignore the
    science and the public opinion.

                                 INDIAN AFFAIRS

        The Administration also proposes significant reductions to
    Indian programs. The Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs and
    Education is responsible for enhancing the social and economic
    well-being of Native Americans. This budget ignores that
    obligation and cuts Indian programs by $372 million, or 13
    percent. In particular, the Department's decision to eliminate
    the Tiwahe Initiative's investments in family supports will
    devastate tribes like the Red Lake Nation in Minnesota. The Red
    Lake Nation has used the funding to open their Children's
    Healing Center, and to stop an epidemic of suicide on their
    reservation. This is a successful pilot project, and we should
    be expanding it, not eliminating it.
        The budget request stalls the progress that we are making
    as a committee to replace BIE schools that are in deplorable
    condition, and cuts the programs that provide social services,
    welfare assistance, and Indian Child Welfare Act protections.
    The United States has an obligation to protect tribal treaty
    rights and resources, and I find it disgraceful that the
    Administration's budget turns its back on this duty. I am proud
    and grateful that the funding for Native American issues has
    been an area of bipartisan cooperation, and I will go as far to
    say, on this committee, nonpartisan cooperation. I fully expect
    that we will continue our commitment to work together for the
    good of Indian Country.

                                    SCIENCE

        The Department's science programs that provide data and
    tools for information and sound decision making to address
    complex challenges, such as drought, natural hazards, and
    climate change, is shortsighted. And it is irresponsible to cut
    programs that provide advance warning protections to protect
    life, health, and property of millions of Americans as proposed
    with the elimination of the $10 million for the Nation's early
    warning earthquake system.

                                    STAFFING

        We can all agree that a strong America is one where we
    protect our natural resources for future generations. Being
    good stewards of those resources requires a robust investment
    in both resource management and the staffing to carry it out.
    The staffing reductions proposed in this budget and the long-
    term workforce reduction plan that you are developing do not
    provide any assurance that you will be able to properly execute
    your duties and responsibilities in this Department of
    Interior.

                                  2018 BUDGET

        The budget is unacceptable, and I expect my colleagues on
    both sides of the aisle to reject it. The Interior Department
    and the American people deserve a budget that reflects the
    economic and recreational opportunities and the environmental
    benefits that the Interior programs have on the lives of all
    Americans, especially their health and economic prosperity.
        I am going to make my position very clear. I will not
    support an Interior environment bill that appropriates less
    than our current 2017 Fiscal Year level. I pledge to work with
    my colleagues in Congress and you, Secretary Zinke, to ensure
    that the Department of Interior has the necessary funding so
    our national resources, our Nation's cultural heritage,
    continues to benefit all Americans.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the courtesy of an opening
    statement.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you for your opening
    statement. We are also joined today by our distinguished
    chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, Chairman
    Frelinghuysen. I want to thank him for taking time to
    contribute to this important conversation.
        Chairman, would you like to make some opening remarks?

                   Opening Remarks of Chairman Frelinghuysen

        Mr. Frelinghuysen. I would. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And
    may I say there may be a lot of activity on the Senate side,
    but there should be a lot of praise because many happy returns
    of the day to you, Mr. Chairman, on your birthday.
        Mr. Calvert. Well, thank you. I appreciate that.
    [Laughter.]
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, you can give him a round of
    applause. [Applause.]
        Mr. Calvert. It is good to have birthdays, I know that.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. I also want to welcome Secretary Ryan
    Zinke to the Appropriations Committee, and while it is your
    first time before the committee, we welcome you back as a
    former colleague.
        Today's hearing is an important part of the oversight
    duties of this committee. Now that we have formally received
    the Administration's budget request, the committee will
    undertake a thorough analysis of it. We will go through each
    and every budget line, question witnesses, and demand credible
    spending justifications, and only then will we make our own
    determinations on the best use of tax dollars.
        When I travel around my congressional district in New
    Jersey, the Department of Interior's strong presence cannot be
    missed. We have the Nation's first historical park founded in
    1933 in Morristown. We also have the most remarkable Thomas
    Edison National Historic Park in West Orange, and acknowledge
    his contribution to this Nation's research and development. I
    also have in my congressional district the Great Swamp Wildlife
    Refuge, and, if I may just take a personal note, by an act of
    Congress proposed by my late father. This is a remarkable open
    space, the largest such refuge and swamp other than the
    Okefenokee on the East Coast.
        When I look at your budget, I obviously share the Nation's
    concerns about where we are going in terms of spending, but I
    am also concerned about some of the cuts that are being made
    across the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service.
    And I look forward to hearing from you the rationale for
    including them.
        And may I say on another note, there are oftentimes
    differences between the East and the West and the Western
    Caucus, but in our neck of the woods on the East Coast, we are
    awfully proud of the work of the Department of Interior. And we
    salute the activities of the men and women who provide such
    incredible services interpreting those types of histories to
    future generations.
        I look forward to working with you, and I want to thank
    Chairman Calvert for his leadership, and we look forward to
    working with you again. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am also pleased to
    see our ranking member of the full committee. Mrs. Lowey is
    here today. I am happy to yield to the gentlelady for any
    opening remarks she would like to make.
        Ms. Lowey. Thank you, and I would like to thank Chairman
    Calvert and wish him a happy birthday.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.

                      Opening Remarks of Congressman Lowey

        Ms. Lowey. And Ranking Member McCollum for holding this
    hearing. And I join you in welcoming Secretary Zinke before the
    subcommittee.
        Secretary Zinke, your Department is charged with protecting
    and managing our Nation's natural resources and cultural
    heritage. Despite responsibility for preserving American land,
    water, and wildlife, from the gates of the Arctic in Alaska to
    the Virgin Islands National Park, and everywhere in between,
    your budget proposal abandons your Department's critical
    mission.

                                 CLIMATE CHANGE

        During your confirmation, you stated you would dedicate
    yourself to conservation and protect our national parks, but a
    report from last month found that Glacier National Park's
    glaciers are rapidly disappearing, shrinking an average of 39
    percent over the past 50 years. Some have shrunk by as much as
    85 percent over the same time. One of our most prized natural
    resources is melting before our eyes. By ignoring the threat of
    climate change, this Administration is breaking its promise to
    protect American lands for generations to come.
        The science is conclusive. Human activity is contributing
    to a change in the world's climactic patterns. As average
    temperatures and sea levels rise and weather becomes more
    extreme, our natural resources face an increasing risk. These
    facts demand action, and your Department's budget request is
    wholly inadequate to address the dangers presented by climate
    change.

                                  2018 BUDGET

        Decreases to the Department of $1.6 billion, or 13 percent,
    would render it incapable of meeting our Federal
    responsibilities. Misguided policy proposals would further
    endanger American lands by allowing oil and gas leasing in the
    Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and expanding offshore
    drilling along the Atlantic coast and the waters around Alaska.
        In addition to being critical to our national security,
    Arctic waters are home to endangered species and diverse
    ecosystems. Any oil spills in the Arctic would be disastrous
    for the region, and our ability to clean up a spill in the
    region's harsh weather and light conditions is limited.
        The Fiscal Year 2018 request for the Department of the
    Interior shortchanges the American people by failing to provide
    adequate resources to preserve our Nation's cultural heritage
    and public lands, while padding the pockets of the oil and gas
    industry. Your priorities, in my judgment, are just wrong. It
    is my hope that Congress will reject the President's budget
    request and instead pass a spending bill that invests in
    America, addresses climate change, and moves us forward in the
    21st century economy.
        I must say, Mr. Secretary, that this committee has always
    worked in a bipartisan way. And although we have some
    differences, in the end we produce some pretty good bills. So,
    I just want to say I look forward to working with you. And as
    harsh as my statement may seem, I am optimistic that we can get
    together because the issues are so critical, and we have to
    move forward together, Democrats and Republicans, to protect
    our Nation and our Nation's heritage.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady for her statement. With
    that, Mr. Secretary, you may proceed with your opening
    statement.

                       Opening Remarks of Secretary Zinke

        Secretary Zinke. As a former congressman, Chairman,
    Chairman, Chairman, Chairman, Chairman, Ranking Member, Ranking
    Member. [Laughter.]
        Thank you for allowing me to testify, and, if I can, I will
    request permission to submit my entire statement into the
    record.
        The budget. The President has delivered a responsible plan
    to put America back on track for a balanced budget by 2027.
    This is what a balanced budget looks like. As the Secretary, I
    look at it as a starting point. Everyone talks about balancing
    the budget, but this is what a balanced budget would look like,
    and it has some very difficult decisions along the way. Not all
    these decisions we agree on, but this is what a balanced budget
    would look like.
        I fully understand the Department of Interior touches more
    lives than any other Department. I fully understand the
    obligation of being a steward of our greatest lands, spanning
    12 time zones. 330 million visitors pass through our parks,
    and, yes, parks do create jobs.

                                  2018 BUDGET

        The President's overall budget proposes about $11.7 billion
    and saves the taxpayers about $1.6 billion. It does prioritize
    America's energy independence with an all-the-above strategy.
    We do not value oil and gas over alternative energy. All-the-
    above is a prudent focus.
        Let me give you an example of the importance of revenue
    when we talk about the budget. If you go back to 2008, we made
    about $18 billion in offshore revenue alone. That was our
    revenue per year. Last year we made $2.6 billion. That is a
    drop of $15.5 billion a year in revenue. I am faced with a
    $11.3 billion maintenance backlog at our parks, about half of
    that is roads. The $11.5 billion backlog in the parks
    represents about 73 percent of our total backlog in maintenance
    and repair.
        Dropping revenue $15.5 billion a year, is equal to getting
    caught up on our entire backlog of maintenance in 1 year, the
    full NPS backlog of $11.3 billion and $3 billion dollars to
    invest in new infrastructure and capitalization. That is the
    scale of what has occurred. When you add timber and onshore
    energy revenue, and the reduction of that, the balance sheet
    gets worse.
        One of the first acts I have done is I have looked at
    revenues. I formed a committee to look at revenues across the
    board because I am concerned we are not getting full value. If
    you are going to do a commercial enterprise at all on public
    lands, we are all stakeholders, and I want to make sure that
    how we gain rents and royalties is transparent, as it should
    be. It should be fair. The rules should not be arbitrary, and
    it should be in the best interest of the public because the
    public owns our public lands.

                                 INFRASTRUCTURE

        When it comes to infrastructure, we plan on taking care of
    what we have. The budget reduces LWCF, which I have always
    supported. That reduction simply is no more land acquisition.
    We are going to take care of what we have. I am concerned, as
    you are, on infrastructure, and if you want to look at an
    example of the failing infrastructure, I invite you to go to
    Arlington House.
        Arlington is hallowed ground. It is a national disgrace
    what has occurred with Arlington. The shutters need to be
    replaced. The foundation is leaning. The gardens are
    inappropriate, and that reflects where we are on our
    infrastructure, and that is hallowed ground.
        The budget calls for a $35 million increase for a total of
    $766 million for national park infrastructure. Even though the
    budget is tight, we increased it. This includes $18 million for
    the first phase matching grant with the Department of
    Transportation for the Memorial Bridge repairs. The Memorial
    Bridge project alone is $262 million, and as Secretary, I was
    amazed at what I owned and what I did not own. [Laughter.]
        Of the $11.3 billion backlog, about half are roads, and
    about a third of those roads really are not in parks. They are
    parkways, like the George Washington Parkway, like the
    Baltimore-Washington Parkway, which are really transportation
    hubs, not a park asset as most Americans would understand it,
    but I am responsible for it. Believe me, if there is a
    chuckhole, I hear about it.

                           PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

        Also on PILT. Last budget, as I recall from the Congress,
    it was not requested in discretionary at all, so I remember the
    conversation of going out and having to hunt and find money for
    PILT. This budget includes $397 million in discretionary for
    PILT, so if PILT is fully funded, you will not have to find so
    much because we did include funding in the budget.

                                 INDIAN AFFAIRS

        We also support Indian trust responsibilities with a focus
    on, as I have said this many times, self-governance, self-
    determination, sovereignty. On Indian education. We spend about
    $15,000 per student. That is in comparison to about $9,000 or
    so off reservation, and the results are far worse. We have to
    have a candid discussion on how to provide better service for
    Indian education.
        It is the same across the board with Indian health. I have
    seen it. I have stood in line with people that are waiting for
    healthcare, knowing they are only going to see 20 and the line
    is 50 long, and they are going to come back day after day after
    day.
        We have to have a candid discussion about what service we
    provide and how to do it better, because, quite frankly, I
    think we are failing on Indian education. More money may not be
    the answer, but we need to have a conversation to provide the
    service, and the hope, and the opportunity for every kid in
    America.

                                  2018 BUDGET

        At the end of the day when you look at the budget, it
    reflects what it would look like if it is balanced. This is the
    starting point of the budget process, Congress also has a say,
    and in the budget, Congress has the last say. The budget does
    encourage some important things. It does encourage innovation.
    It encourages us to look at public/private partnerships where
    we can, particularly in our national parks, to move people.
    When you have 330 million people going through our park system,
    some of our parks, I would think, are at capacity and maybe
    over. We have to look at public/private partnerships to find
    new solutions and transportation methods to move people at
    crowded parks. I do not particularly want to be in the industry
    of transportation, but I think there are some great people out
    there who could move people in our parks more efficiently, to
    make sure we maintain the park experience that is valuable to
    us all.
        I appreciate this subcommittee and your strong support of
    the Department's mission. The budget looks at core tasks and
    goes back to core missions. I am happy to go through and work
    with you during this process. I can say this. I am red, white,
    and blue. I have never been red or blue. I am red, white, and
    blue. I think our public lands are one of the many areas where
    it is not partisan. Our public lands are American, and I am
    confident this committee also shares that same feeling.
        So, with that, I yield back.
        [The statement of Secretary Zinke follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I am happy to yield
    time to our chairman emeritus, Mr. Rogers, for any questions he
    may have.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    letting me sit in. Welcome to our birthday party for our
    chairman. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Secretary, welcome back to your old stomping grounds.
        Mr. Calvert. Is your mic on?

                              AML ECONOMIC GRANTS

        Mr. Rogers. I think so. Can you not hear me?
    Congratulations on your confirmation, and thanks for what you
    have told us. You are on top of the job, and we appreciate that
    very, very much.
        As you know, I come from Coal Country, or what used to be
    Coal Country. Now these towns have more plywood windows than
    pane glass. I have lost 12,000 coal mining jobs just in my
    district in the last several years, a good part of which was
    caused by the United States Federal government under the last
    Administration. The war on coal is real, and unfortunately has
    had a devastating impact.
        That is why the Congress, over the last 2 years, passed a
    pilot program to help reclaim abandoned mines that have been
    sitting there for all these years for the purpose of doing what
    we are supposed to do, reclaim these abandoned mines, but
    probably, more importantly, hopefully produce some jobs to keep
    these families from going completely under water.
        So, for the last 2 years, this subcommittee wisely funded a
    pilot program within your Department focused on the reclamation
    of abandoned mine lands. The AML Pilot Program is a win-win. It
    is good for the environment, and it is good for jobs. It has
    bipartisan support here in the Congress, and we are seeing
    results, good results, of projects that have been undertaken
    and delivered with this 2-year pilot program. It is working,
    and it is helping in desperate areas of the country. It is
    limited to a few States where the impact has been the most
    severe.
        That is why I was completely flabbergasted to see in your
    budget request the elimination of that program. This coming
    from an Administration that I had been led to believe was
    wanting to help Coal Country. In eliminating this kind of
    program, that sends not just a message, it sends a blaring,
    glaring message to these desperate people who had a big impact
    in the recent elections. My office had asked the Office of
    Surface Mining to draw up a report on the projects funded under
    the pilot project in Fiscal Year 2016. I am told now that OMB
    has ordered even that study to be canceled.
        I just want to say to you, Mr. Secretary, that this is
    serious stuff, and I am hopeful that you can at least shake
    loose that report so we can see whether or not it is working. I
    maintain that it is, but we are entitled to have proof. I would
    hope that you could help us shake loose that report. Do you
    have any ideas about it?
        Secretary Zinke. Mr. Chairman, I have not heard about the
    report. I will do what I can to shake it loose. By and large,
    coal is up 16 percent. The President has said the war on coal
    is over. I will go back to this is what a balanced budget would
    look like. It is a good starting point.
        And I, too, have spent time in the beautiful State of
    Kentucky, and I was just in Ohio with the coal miners there. I
    have seen communities hollowed out, and it is devastating.
        Mr. Rogers. Yes.
        Secretary Zinke. It is not just coal country. It is the
    small logging towns. It is along the coast line in Alaska,
    which has arguably the toughest conditions, and they have not
    had access to their livelihood.

                                  RECLAIM ACT

        Mr. Rogers. Quickly, secondly, let me mention to you the
    RECLAIM Act, which is now a bipartisan, bicameral bill. Several
    at this table are co-sponsors of it. RECLAIM, which would take
    monies from the unused, unspent, Abandoned Mine Lands Fund,
    which has been in existence, as you know, for years, and has
    accumulated billions of dollars sitting there unused while the
    reclaimed mine lands out there are un-reclaimed, and employment
    is hard to come by.
        So, the RECLAIM Act would take $2 billion from the
    Abandoned Mine Lands Fund to require it be used for what it was
    saved up for and authorized by law, to reclaim abandoned mine
    lands. This bill would do that, but it would also add an
    asterisk. The money must be used on reclaimed abandoned mine
    lands, but with a bent toward economic development potential
    for creating jobs at the same time with those funds.
        It is a multistate bill. It has agreement in the West and
    the East of the U.S. and from both parties in both houses of
    the Congress. And I would hope, Mr. Secretary, that you would
    see your way clear to be supportive of that type of bill. Have
    you thought about that?
        Secretary Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Mine RECLAIM
    Act is interesting. The reclamation fund has about $13 billion
    dollars. Now, it is not sitting there anymore. The program was
    designed to collect revenue from energy activities at Federal
    dams, as an example, and then be distributed for water
    reclamation projects. There's $13 billion that has not been
    distributed. It is in Treasury. The same thing with LCWF at $20
    billion as with the reclamation fund.
        A lot of these programs, money was designed to be targeted
    to an area, but the process of how it has occurred has not
    allowed that to actually happen. And I do agree that in water
    reclamation, those are jobs, not only the construction jobs,
    but also improving our water distribution in the West, our
    canal systems when we can coordinate and work together with the
    Army Corps of Engineers. On mine reclamation, there are about
    1,800 mines, I guess, that are on the list for reclamation.
        But to turn those lands over to something productive, I
    think is beneficial to us all.
        Mr. Rogers. That is what the RECLAIM Act does, and is what
    it is intended to do. I am overstepping my time. Mr. Secretary,
    thank you for listening to me on this, and I hope we could
    confer further about it as we go along.
        Secretary Zinke. I look forward to it, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I suspect those obligations exist,
    but I suspect that money that is supposedly in those lockboxes
    does not. [Laughter.]
        But we will get to that later. With that, Ms. McCollum, you
    are recognized.
        Secretary Zinke. There may be a call for a structural
    change. [Laughter.]

                                  2018 BUDGET

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. It has been pointed out that the
    Fiscal Year 2018 budget request for the Interior programs under
    the subcommittee's jurisdiction is 13 percent below 2017
    enacted level. Mr. Secretary, you have been quoted as saying,
    ``I looked at the budget. I am not happy. We are going to fight
    about it. I think I am going to win at the end of the day,''
    and you talked about this just being a start.
        This committee has been made very much aware of how OMB
    plays a significant role in deciding how much funding a
    Department requests. But you have expressed some concerns on
    some cuts, so I am going to pop my questions together. One of
    the questions that I have is on the Department's ability to
    fulfill its responsibilities. I am very concerned about
    staffing cuts, as I pointed out, and some cuts in some other
    area programs.

                               LETTERS OF INQUIRY

        Another question that I have, and I am going to give you
    something to take back with you, is I need to better understand
    your policies on whether you are going to respond to Democratic
    letters of inquiry, and how the time commitments are going to
    be filled between Democratic and Republican letters of inquiry.
    The reason why I ask this is I do not want to believe that this
    is true, but we have been told that the Administration's policy
    is not to respond to requests from the Minority.
        And so, I have submitted a couple letters as Ranking
    Member, and I have had other Members contact me about letters
    that they have submitted going all the way back to February and
    have not heard anything yet. I just want to make you personally
    aware of this because from your statements I know you want to
    work collegially with this committee on these issues.
        I will give this to the chair to give to you just to put
    this on your radar screen.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        CLIMATE CHANGE

        Ms. McCollum. I would like to take a few minutes to talk
    about climate change. As I pointed out, the President's
    decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement is very
    disappointing to me, extraordinarily disappointing. But there
    has been call for clarity about what the President and the
    Cabinet believes about climate change and what they are willing
    to do to address it, because the President has said that he is
    willing to discuss this.
        You yourself have made conflicting statements about climate
    change over the years. In 2014, you said it is not a hoax, but
    it is not a proven science either. During your confirmation
    hearing, you acknowledged that humans are an influence on
    climate change, but you noted that since the U.S. Geological
    Survey is part of the Department of Interior, you will become a
    lot more familiar with it, and you are looking to work on
    objective-based science.
        Could you clarify for us whether you do agree that climate
    change is caused by greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide
    and methane that is being released into the atmosphere. In
    2013, the oil and gas industry contributed 29 percent of the
    methane released into the atmosphere. Coal mining accounted for
    10 percent. And so, because you have in the Department of
    Interior regulation over mining, oil, and gas development on
    public lands, how are you going to use your position to combat
    the threats of climate change as leases are put forward?
        I believe that there needs to be a balance in development
    and conservation on our public lands. So, I am interested in
    learning what you see as an acceptable limit to energy
    production on Federal lands to achieve balance, and what
    actions are being proposed in the 2018 budget to mitigate or
    adapt to the effects of climate change on Federal lands. This
    is something that I have people from all over the country
    inquiring about. What we are going to do now that we are out of
    the Paris Agreement, so that we do not lose our leadership role
    and we do not become a rogue nation among other nations in this
    world with Syria and Nicaragua when it comes to addressing
    climate change.

                                  2018 BUDGET

        Secretary Zinke. To go down the list real quick. I think
    the budget looks at core responsibilities. And, again, what
    does a budget look like if you did balance it in 10 years? This
    is the President's budget and I support it. This is what a
    budget would look like if we are going to balance it in 10
    years without increasing revenue.

                               LETTERS OF INQUIRY

        As far as responsiveness to both sides of the aisle, I have
    committed to come over to the Hill and talk to you personally
    every quarter. I also said that to Chairman Bishop's Committee
    in a bipartisan way.
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Secretary, I know you have, but I want to
    know what guarantee we have that the people who work for you
    will respond to our letters.
        Secretary Zinke. I will look at that, but I will come over
    personally, and certainly we want to be responsive on your
    issues as well, on both sides. I think that is just what
    government should do.

                                 CLIMATE CHANGE

        The Paris Agreement. It is about 20 pages, and as you go to
    about the 5th page, I think it was just a badly negotiated
    deal. We pay $3 billion, one billion dollars up front, cash. It
    lets China, India, Russia walk. The CO2 in China
    actually increases until 2030 because the deal is structured on
    people. China has more people, so the world's greatest polluter
    takes a walk until 2030.
        We have to immediately reduce ours. That puts us at a
    permanent disadvantage economically. Aside from the climate
    change argument, and then you look at the MIT report, at the
    end of the day, it makes an insignificant difference. The
    structure of the deal I think was less about climate change. It
    was just a bad deal.
        And there were a couple bad deals. The Iranian deal, in my
    judgment, was a bad deal.
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, and, Mr.
    Secretary, I do not mean to cut you off. But could you then
    address what I asked you regarding what you think the
    Department should do? As much as you and I could get into a
    debate about the Iranian nuclear deal, this is not the purview
    of this committee.
        Secretary Zinke. But my point was, I think it was a bad
    deal. So, climate change. I have been pretty consistent in my
    views on climate change. I do not believe it is a hoax. I think
    man has had an influence. I think the climate is changing. In
    reference to Glacier Park, glaciers started melting in Glacier
    Park right after the end of the Ice Age. It has been a
    consistent melt, including Lake Missoula, which has an ice dam,
    and I grew up in Glacier Park.
        I have seen the glaciers melt while eating lunch on a
    glacier. The problem is we do not understand what the effects
    are. There is no model that exists, and USGS has some terrific
    scientists. Some terrific scientists. There is no model that
    can predict yesterday from all the data we collect.
        But certainly, the climate is changing in ways we do not
    understand. Man has had an influence, but man has had a
    negative influence not only on CO2, but you look at
    arsenic. You look at chemicals. We have looked at agriculture.
    Man has not been a particularly good influence anyway on a lot
    of things, and CO2 is a concern.
        But what should we do about it? What can we do about it?
    What is the right path forward? I think we need a discussion
    away from politics and go to science, and I have full
    confidence in USGS. We have looked at some great leadership
    coming in. Let us just focus on science. Let us focus on
    absolute core science.
        The budget. We had duplicative, redundant programs where
    even among our departments we were not together. On the climate
    issue in USGS, we combined activities in one division because I
    want to know from a division what is going on. That was the
    decision. Some activities were in the Fish and Wildlife
    Service, BLM, and the Park Service. We need to be on the same
    page so we can address what the conclusion is.
        I invite you to work with us on that and we will be
    transparent. I will get your study out of there. But I am
    confident we have enough expertise, but I also want to redirect
    it into research to make sure we are addressing the core
    science of it.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
    seeing a detailed budget with the cuts that were in USGS on how
    you consolidated and kept all the research moving forward at a
    consistent level. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Simpson.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for being
    here, Secretary. I am sorry I could not be with you last Friday
    when you were in Idaho. I understand while you and Secretary
    Perdue were visiting NIFC, you had a chance to go see the
    famous blue turf.
        Secretary Zinke. It is there. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Simpson. It is there, and it is blue, is it not?
        Secretary Zinke. It is. Mr. Chairman, it is blue.
        Mr. Simpson. I also want to thank the chairman for
    mentioning that we are going to be reintroducing our wildfire
    bill today with a whole bunch of original co-sponsors.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        I am introducing another bill that you might be interested
    in that I would like the Department to take a look at. We are
    going to be introducing it today also. It is the Land Act,
    which is going to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund for 7 years under mandatory funding, half of it to go to
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund to be split between the
    State and Federal side, and the other half to be used in
    backlog maintenance in our parks and our other land management
    agencies for $450 million a year. Hopefully this will get at
    addressing that backlog maintenance in these various agencies.
        As I said, it would be mandatory funding. We still have to
    find the offset for it, but we are hoping that we can maybe
    work that into the infrastructure package because it is
    infrastructure that we have the backlog on. So, I would like
    your Department to take a look at that and give us your
    thoughts on it.

                                 CLIMATE CHANGE

        I want to follow up just a little bit on what Ms. McCollum
    said. I do not think any of us deny that climate change is
    occurring, but I also realize that there is no one in this
    government that can tell me how much money government wide we
    spend on climate change because it is diverse. It goes
    everywhere, every department. That is the key phrase now. If
    you want to increase your budget, put money in for climate
    change. So, every agency has money in for climate change in
    their budget request.
        I thought, at one time, I would take all the climate change
    money out of all the budgets and put it in one place, so that
    we could find out how much we are spending and that we are not
    being duplicative. In fact, I thought of the USGS because they
    are a great organization, and maybe that is where it should be.
    But right now, climate change is the key phrase everybody uses,
    every agency uses, when they want to get money in their budget.
        After 9/11, it was national security. If you want to grow
    corn in Iowa, we did it for national security reasons. That was
    the key phrase you had to put in every budget. So, those terms
    change, and climate change has become the one now. But we need
    to do a better job of coordinating how we spend.
        Now my question after all that. You did a secretarial order
    today, or you are going to, on sage grouse. Explain to me the
    secretarial order and what are the next steps that we take to
    address this issue.

                                  SAGE GROUSE

        Secretary Zinke. I did sign a Secretarial Order. I had a
    conference with the Western governors last night, and this is
    what it did. On our side, it formed a task group, with the Fish
    and Wildlife Service, BLM, and with a coordinating reach to the
    Forest Service. We can actually begin a consultation process
    where we are on the same page.
        Some of the complaints were BLM had a different view from
    Fish and Wildlife, so you would go down a path for a while, and
    BLM would give you some guidance, and then Fish and Wildlife
    would come in at the last moment and change that guidance or
    vice versa.
        From our side of the house, the Secretarial Order did three
    things. One, it prioritized the effort as Secretary Zinke's
    priority. Two, it formed a task group so we could coordinate
    the plans better, and it opened up a State's ability to
    formulate a plan shaped to that State rather than just to us.
    We incorporated things like if a State feels comfortable about
    going on numbers vice habitat, captive breeding, predator
    control, we allowed the States more flexibility on how they
    approached it.
        What the Secretarial Order did not do is it did not stop or
    mandate a revision of the work that has already been done
    because there has been a lot of really good work on sage
    grouse, and we do not want to reinvent the wheel. We just
    wanted to give the States flexibility, if they can think of or
    they want a more innovative approach according to their data,
    then it allows that. That is what occurred.
        Mr. Simpson. What were the governors' reaction just out of
    curiosity? Characterize it.
        Secretary Zinke. Positive. One is the consultation. Many of
    the governors had not read it yet, but that is why we had the
    conference call to assure them that most of it was on our side,
    to form the task group, to make sure we are on the same page,
    and then give them more latitude. The governors are not all the
    same on the approach.
        Mr. Simpson. Right.
        Secretary Zinke. You know, Utah is quite a bit different
    than even Wyoming, and I think that is a good thing to have
    some flexibility on approach. The evaluation is really not on
    habitat per se. It is on whether the numbers of the sage grouse
    are healthy.
        Mr. Simpson. Right.
        Secretary Zinke. So, it does give another tool to evaluate
    their plan periodically as we look at what the numbers should
    be, whether their plan is effective or not.
        Mr. Simpson. Well, thank you for working on that. I am sure
    it is something we will be revisiting with you many times over
    the coming years as we try to work this out. Thanks for being
    here today.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Lowey.
        Ms. Lowey. Thank you very much. And before I go to another
    subject, I just want to say, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your
    response to Ms. McCollum that you have agreed to really
    evaluate all these programs and not just discount them, not
    just accept the cuts, but make your own determination in areas
    where you think we should be taking positive action. I think
    that is really important. You are entitled to your own review,
    but what we are really asking is that it is as an objective a
    review as possible, and then report back to us your decision.

                            NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS

        But on another area, the National Heritage areas. The
    Heritage Partnership Program supports grants to local nonprofit
    groups in support of historical and cultural recognition,
    preservation, and tourism activities. This funding is so vital
    for the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area, which
    happens to include my district, and it is truly an investment
    in the economy.
        The Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area has an
    estimated economic impact of $584 million, sustains 6,530 jobs,
    brings in $67 million in tax revenue to local communities,
    giving taxpayers a good return on their investment. And yet
    your budget proposes to wind down Heritage Partnership
    Programs. Eliminating this initiative would mean there is no
    direct financial support to the National Heritage Areas, which
    are managed by nonprofit organizations, and just would not be
    able to make up these cuts.
        Without this Federal assistance, I would like to know how
    many congressionally-designated National Heritage Areas will be
    self-sustaining.
        Secretary Zinke. I will find that number out, but you are
    right. I recognize the Heritage Program has been terrific over
    time and has done an enormous amount of good in communities
    that may not have all the resources to protect part of our
    Nation's history. The budget zeroes it.
        [The information follows:]

                            National Heritage Areas

        Sixteen of the 49 National Heritage Areas have undergone
    independent evaluation of their operational sustainability. Of the 16
    NHAs evaluated, 11 have the governance and staff to operate a
    sustainable NHA organization. However, loss of federal funding would
    reduce activities in those areas. For the remaining five areas, loss of
    funding would have a significant negative impact on the ability of the
    coordinating entity to carry out the area's legislative purpose and
    activities necessary to reach a self-sustaining operating model.

        Ms. Lowey. That is right.

                                   FACILITIES

        Secretary Zinke. The reason is the priority is addressing
    our holdings first. I mean, when we have Arlington House, when
    we have the battlefields, when we have our parks, we have our
    facilities, our fisheries, we have 2,400 facilities and sites
    across the country. The view was in a balanced budget, what
    would it look like is that our stuff comes first.
        We give $5.5 billion in grants out. I would love to give
    ourselves a grant for fixing what we have. The worst actually
    is Washington, D.C. If you look at the Jefferson Monument, it
    is going to take about $26 million because Jefferson sits on
    mud and is leaning now. We have to pump up the foundation for
    it. We still cannot figure out how to fix the Washington
    Monument elevator, which drives me nuts, believe me. And then I
    look around our parks, the fountains.
        We need to fix our stuff; so the priority in this budget
    was fixing our stuff first. The $35 million plus-up in our
    infrastructure came at the expense of Heritage Areas and other
    things.
        Ms. Lowey. Let me just say I appreciate that you are just
    assuming these responsibilities, and that you and your staff,
    if you can afford your staff. I am not sure where that is right
    now. [Laughter.]
        Secretary Zinke. Well, we are making a lot of savings by
    not having anybody. [Laughter.]
        We save money every day.

                                  PARTNERSHIPS

        Ms. Lowey. Well, a judgment has probably been made that you
    are so talented and that you have that capacity. But in all
    seriousness, I know so many of these things are partnerships.
    Without mentioning names, there are philanthropists that had a
    major role with the Washington Monument. The same person is
    doing the Arlington Cemetery. The same person did the welcoming
    exhibit at the White House.
        Secretary Zinke. And terrific, terrific commitment to our
    country.
        Ms. Lowey. Yeah, he is quite extraordinary.
        Secretary Zinke. And an absolute first-class patriot.
        Ms. Lowey. He really is.
        Secretary Zinke. I wish we had a thousand people like that.
        Ms. Lowey. Well, maybe that is a good thing for you to do,
    reach out and explain the importance of all these projects. I
    am just saying that another commitment of the President and
    this Administration is creating jobs, and these historic areas
    with their grants do create very important partnerships.
        So, I am not underestimating the importance of Arlington
    Cemetery and all the monuments, and we know they all have to be
    done. But as you are reviewing the entire budget and putting
    your own footprint--hopefully you will have staff to assist you
    in this effort--you remember the National Heritage Areas, not
    that they are going to take money from Arlington Cemetery. I am
    sure they will not, but it is an important project, and I would
    appreciate your consideration.
        Secretary Zinke. I certainly recognize the value of our
    country's heritage.
        Ms. Lowey. And if you need any more numbers or facts, I am
    very happy to share.
        Secretary Zinke. Thank you.
        Ms. Lowey. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the ranking member. Mr. Cole.
        Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all,
    Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure to have you here. Everybody
    around this table certainly knows, we appreciate your service
    to our country in uniform, we appreciate your service when you
    were here as one of our colleagues, and we appreciate your
    service now as Secretary. I do not think the President could
    have made a better appointment. And we may agree or disagree on
    something, but, look, you are the perfect person for this job
    given your background, your values, and the commitment in
    Indian Country. So, thank you for doing it.
        I want to run through some things really quickly, and then
    I want to get to some questions, particularly on tribal energy
    development. In some places, I am going to agree with you, and
    in some I am going to disagree.

                                 CLIMATE CHANGE

        I am going to start with agreeing with you and the
    President of the United States on the Paris Climate Accord.
    Thank you and thank the President for pulling us out of I think
    what you described perfectly as a very bad deal. And in my part
    of the world, believe me, that was an extremely popular
    decision by the President of the United States, and we think it
    was the right one. And I applaud him for being willing to
    negotiate and saying we are happy to sit down and talk with
    you. We are just not going to stay here with a bad deal for the
    United States of America. I think that is exactly what he did.

                                     ENERGY

        I also want to thank you for sticking up for the oil and
    gas industry. You know, that is pretty important in my part of
    the world, and everybody here sure likes $2 a gallon gas rather
    than $4. And you will know this as a military guy. The biggest
    strategic advantage we have probably developed in the last 30
    years is we are finally energy independent again, you know, and
    that is a big deal. There is a wonderful article today about us
    exporting a million barrels a day right now to other parts of
    the world, so that is a pretty big change. And finally, the
    biggest raise any American have gotten in last decade is $2 a
    gallon gasoline and the cheaper cost of heating and cooling
    their home. And that is largely driven by private energy, and
    initiatives, and enterprise.

                            NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS

        I am going to agree or disagree with you a little bit. I am
    going to agree with my good friend, the ranking member, Ms.
    McCollum. The cuts in some of these Indian programs are just
    not acceptable. I mean this is the poorest part of our
    population. This committee has struggled, as she rightly
    pointed out, on a bipartisan basis to try and make some
    progress in these areas, and you do not balance the budget on
    the back of your poorest citizens. So, I think that some of
    these decisions are driven more by numbers than by equity in
    looking after people.
        And, frankly, in this case, these are treaty obligations,
    and tribes have taken us to court before and beaten us for not
    living up to our treaty obligations. And I know you take those
    seriously.

                                  2018 BUDGET

        Finally, I am going to disagree with you also that this is
    a budget that balances. You know, I was sent to the Budget
    Committee. I do not know how I offended Chairman Rogers, but he
    sent me there. [Laughter.]
        And so, I am now in my 7th year. He liberated Calvert, and
    you kept me there. I mean, I do not know what I did, but I did
    learn a few things there. And I do not say this critically of
    the President. He made some commitments. But we will see a
    serious balanced budget when we see serious entitlement reform.
    That is just the fact of it.
        You know, we are trying to leave 75 percent of the budget
    untouched and balanced within the rest, and meet the priorities
    that we need to do in terms of defense, and I think your budget
    is a victim of that. I think other budgets are a victim of
    that. I hope next year we actually do have serious discussions
    or the year after at some point about how you really balance a
    budget. But you do not leave Social Security and Medicare out
    of the equation and think you are going to balance it.

                            NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS

        So now, an area we do agree because I know how much you
    value sovereignty, and, frankly, your commitment on Native
    American issues because I got to work with you here. We always
    talk about gaming revenue, but one of the most important
    sources of revenue for tribes, of course, is energy
    development, particularly oil, gas, and coal. And Interior
    plays a very important role in that.
        The whole issue of permitting, I mean, at the end of the
    day we sometimes treat Indian land like it is public land. It
    is not. It is owned by the Indian tribes. We hold it in trust
    for them. But we have an obligation obviously to do the best we
    can to enable them to develop their resources, and, frankly,
    that works to our advantage because they reinvest in their
    people, and it actually lowers some of the demands that we have
    in these critical areas like law enforcement and healthcare.
        So, could you give me an overview of what you are doing to
    try to help those tribes that are blessed with natural
    resources to develop those resources as rapidly as possible?
        Secretary Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Overall in Indian
    Country, at least on contract support costs, that was fully
    funded, and the tribal grant support costs were also fully
    funded. So, that part of the budget. The self-determination and
    support for tribal administration those are there. We have had
    a couple of water settlements, so that is moving forward. We
    are meeting our obligations.
        We are looking at some of the water settlement issues. What
    I did not realize, and maybe I should have, is that funding for
    some settlements goes into an account, but they cannot withdraw
    from the account until the account is full, and making the
    account full takes years.
        Mr. Calvert. Will the gentleman yield for a second?
        Mr. Cole. Certainly.
        Mr. Calvert. Why can Interior not use the judgment account
    out of the Justice Department in order to settle some of these
    water rights issues?
        Secretary Zinke. Mr. Chairman, we are actually looking at
    that. We are also looking at other tribal settlement issues
    because if you are looking at a $40 million project and you
    have to wait 10 years, it is not going to be $40 million. It is
    going to be $60 million. This is where tribal sovereignty would
    make sense. If a tribe wants to, as money goes into the
    account, if they want to use it, maybe we should allow them a
    path to use it. We are looking at that.
        If they have money in the account and they have a water
    project and the water compact specifies they can get started on
    it, let us distribute funds rather than locking it up for a
    generation by the time the account is full. We are looking at
    that as well.

                                     ENERGY

        On the energy side, it includes about $27.4 million in BIA
    for energy. But I can tell you from looking at the structure of
    what it is like to live on an Indian reservation and to try to
    get through the hurdles for development as opposed to non-
    reservation land. Energy, in my view, is the right of the tribe
    to decide. It is not the U.S. government's right to decide
    whether they should develop or cannot. We just want to make
    sure that sovereignty should mean something. We have to look at
    our permitting process and how it is much more encumbered on
    Indian territory than it is off.
        At least it should be on par, but it is not. We are looking
    at making sure we are actually a partner rather than an
    adversary on such things, and pushing more authority if a tribe
    wants to develop their energy. Again, it is their decision.
    Then we should honor that and actually be helpful. In some
    cases, the system is so complicated and has hurdles.

                                   PERMITTING

        What we are also looking at, which I think will be helpful,
    is how can we, as a Department, be more integrated. How can we
    improve the permitting process, rather than having the hurdles
    of going through Fish and Wildlife, and then BLM, and then
    cross decks over to the Army Corps of Engineers, and then to
    NOAA, because if you have a trout and a salmon in the same
    stream, who has jurisdiction? Well, trout are Fish and
    Wildlife. Salmon are NOAA. You might have irrigation, which is
    Bureau of Reclamation, and you might have Army Corps. And of
    the three, you might have two which are in conflict with each
    other, that is not reconcilable.
        We have to look at how we, as a government, can act
    jointly, and we are looking at a model a lot like a combatant
    command and a lot like how we fight forest fires. At least from
    the government side, we should be able to offer an industry or
    a tribe a permitting process that early in the development they
    should know whether or not it is possible or not.

                               ENERGY REGULATION

        Mr. Cole. Well, let me give you a quick suggestion on the
    energy part, as you think through this, as you know, where
    Indian reservations are at, there is Indian reservation land,
    and most of them have state regulatory systems that decide who
    can drill. I have talked to some of the people that developed
    the Bakken shale from Oklahoma. And this was before they had
    gone on to three affiliated tribes' land, which now have
    substantial energy development, and it is benefitting those
    tribes.
        But I asked why are you guys not dealing with Indian
    reservation land, and one of them told me, it is real simple.
    He said, on one side of the imaginary line, I have got a State
    regulatory system that I can get a permit in 3 weeks and it
    costs about $250. On the other side of this imaginary line on
    the reservation where the feds are doing it, it costs about
    $6,000, and it takes almost a year. So, guess where we drill?
        It is not like North Dakota does not know how to regulate
    drilling--it does--or Oklahoma or these other States. So, we
    ought to try to mirror image the State regulatory system. I
    even suggested, although the tribes were not too keen on this,
    I said, why do not you compact with the State and have them
    come on your land, and they can do the regulatory process. But,
    there is deep concern about violation of sovereignty, and there
    is a lot of tension between State and local governments.
        But if we are going to do it through the feds, we ought to
    just basically look at what is the State system here that seems
    to be acceptable to most people, and we should operate
    accordingly. Try to match their timelines, and their costs, and
    not propose something that might or might not be appropriate on
    public lands. But it certainly should not be imposed on Indian
    lands once they have made, as you rightly point out, the
    decision that they want to develop. I agree with you a hundred
    percent.
        Totally their decision whether they want to do it. But if
    they do, then we ought to give them the same kind of speed
    that, private land get, in State-regulated areas that are
    immediately adjacent to the reservation.
        With that, anyway, you have been very generous, Chairman.
    Thank you. Yield back.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Pingree.
        Ms. Pingree. Mr. Chair, with your permission, I would like
    to yield to Ms. Kaptur, who has another meeting she needs to go
    to.
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection.

                                  GREAT LAKES

        Ms. Kaptur. I want to thank Congresswoman Pingree very much
    for that.
        Mr. Secretary, welcome back. I am going to be passing out a
    little map here of the Great Lakes to any committee member who
    is interested. And my questions will actually involve USGS and
    the substantial cuts your Administration proposes.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

        Ms. Kaptur. But in listening to the conversation this
    morning, and thank you for your testimony and for your
    commitment to our country, you referenced an $11 billion
    backlog of----
        Secretary Zinke. $11.3 billion. It is just in parks.
        Ms. Kaptur. Just in parks. Okay.
        Secretary Zinke. That represents about 73 percent of our
    total maintenance backlog.

                             WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL

        Ms. Kaptur. Okay. Let me share an experience. In 1987, I
    began the long quest to build a World War II Memorial here in
    Washington, and it took us 17 years. Not a penny of Federal
    dollars went into it. At that time, there was a deficit also.
    You know, every decade there is a deficit, so we said, well,
    okay, how are we going to do this?
        And we began with the issuance of minting coins that raised
    the first $7 million dollars. We did not do postage stamps,
    although I am thinking of something in that regard, adding a
    penny or two to a postage stamp for a certain purpose. The
    Postal Service has the ability to do that. A private committee
    was set up. Senator Dole helped lead that committee. FedEx
    contributed, and thousands and thousands of other companies
    did, and individuals. And the total cost of the memorial was
    probably about a half a billion dollars, all told.
        What happened at the beginning was that the fountain was
    restored. I actually fought against the Department of Interior
    getting the World War II Memorial because I wanted it to be
    with the American Battle Monuments Commission. They had to
    transfer ownership. But to date, the Department has done a very
    commendable job.
        But what happened at the beginning was the first major
    expense we had was that Americans were coming to the site, and
    just like three coins in a fountain, they were throwing money
    in the fountain. So, rather than the Department of Interior
    figuring out, hey, wait a minute, the American people want to
    help here, they put up signs, ``Do not throw money and coins.''
    [Laughter.]
        And then, the signs got bigger, and I thought, wait a
    minute, this is nuts. The people want to help. Why do not you
    find a way for them to help? Well, I guess now there may be an
    app or something that somebody can find somewhere that they can
    contribute. But I really think with your background and your
    leadership, you could put together the most gangbuster concept
    to engage the American people to help our national parks, and
    to help to raise the money that is necessary to fix this stuff.
        I am all for Federal appropriation or I would not be here
    in Congress, so I agree with that, but I know what we were able
    to mobilize. It has been 30 years now since we began that
    effort. It took us 17 years to finally dedicate in 2004. But I
    learned a lot from that experience, and I learned about the
    generosity of the American people. I learned about how
    difficult it was to work with the government of the United
    States to try to get donations. So, there is something wrong at
    the Department of Interior.
        Now, I do not want a McDonald's sign over Mount Rushmore.
    This is not what I am getting at, all right? But I know what we
    did with the World War II Memorial, and we continue to this
    day. There are NGOs, like there is 501(c) called Friends of the
    World War II Memorial, that sits out there with a chair, with a
    committee. Many sites have these kinds of organizations.
        I really would urge you to consider using that example in
    kind of looking at other assets that we must manage. Imagine
    what the American people would do if they really understood
    what was needed at Arlington. Every State would adopt a
    section. I mean, the creativity that is needed here is someone
    who thinks about fundraising and has a great national
    commitment, and the baby boom generation is about to retire
    with the largest transfer of wealth in American history.
        So, I just think there's a lot there. So, I just want to
    put that on the record this morning.
        Mr. Calvert. If the gentlelady would yield on one point. I
    know we talked about this. If you go to Canada, you pay more to
    go to a Canadian national park than canadians. I know a
    substantial number of people that come to our national parks
    are not U.S. citizens. I would just put that out there as a
    suggestion.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, I will say, I have commissioned a
    quick study. Everyone loves their parks. Absolutely. It is
    amazing that about half of the parks do not charge at all. We
    do not charge at all. We divided our parks into tiers for
    charging fees, and a lot of our parks do not follow that, the
    tier system.
        We want to make sure our parks are a value, especially for
    families who want to go to our parks. We are not Disneyland, to
    your point, about our fee.
        Ms. Kaptur. Right.

                          PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

        Secretary Zinke. But I think we have got to be innovative.
    I am forming a committee on public/private partnerships----
        Ms. Kaptur. Yes.
        Secretary Zinke [continuing]. Because there are things like
    Wi-Fi that we should be able to do. The airlines do it, so, we
    should be able to have Wi-Fi. On our fees coming in, there has
    been an incentive for a superintendent to at least follow the
    rules. And the incentive is that a lot of that should come back
    to that specific park and give some latitude how to spend it.
    There has to be an incentive structurally how to do it.
        There are a lot of really good people that love our parks.
        Ms. Kaptur. Oh, absolutely. My cousin just walked the
    Appalachian Trail. We cannot find him. He is out there
    somewhere.
        Secretary Zinke. The trail needs a little work, too, by the
    way. [Laughter.]
        Ms. Kaptur. Yes. But the point is, you know, I think
    enlivening the spirit of the American people, if you give them
    a target, they will reach it. They just do not know. I think
    you are divided up into so many subcomponents, people lose
    sight of you. I am just using stamps. I have been doing my
    bills. I do not do bills by the Internet. I do it by hand.
        Secretary Zinke. Mr. Chairman, also----
        Ms. Kaptur. Based on all these pictures of wild animals,
    you know, I am thinking is the Park Service getting an extra
    penny for this?
        Secretary Zinke. We talk a lot about the National Park
    Service, but Interior reminds me every day that there are
    wildlife refuges. There are other assets that are not Parks. I
    remind them if I talk about BLM a lot on the East Coast, people
    do not know what I am talking about because the face to a
    degree of Interior is the parks.
        Ms. Kaptur. Right.
        Secretary Zinke. When you go to a park, you should be in
    the right uniform and the bathrooms should be clean. We will
    just start there. We are re-emphasizing, I would say,
    infrastructure and clean bathrooms to begin with.

                                  GREAT LAKES

        Ms. Kaptur. Okay. Now, I will get to my question very
    quickly. Very quickly. I have been discouraged, but I
    understand the pressures you are under, with OMB. But being a
    Great Lakes representative, I have to say that the State I
    represent means many rivers. ``Ohio,'' that is what the word
    means. And you were at the Ohio River, I believe, just
    recently? I do not know if you saw the Asian carp jumping out,
    but they are there. They have eaten up all the local species.
        And my question and the map I have handed out points at
    what is happening to the Great Lakes, particularly relative to
    algal blooms. Your budget proposes an 18 percent cut in the
    National Water Quality Program. And I would really direct your
    attention to that because language in your submission states
    that with that cut, you would have to lay off 108 full-time
    equivalent employees. You would suspend studies about how
    nutrients, carbon, and sediment are transported and delivered
    to small streams in the agricultural Midwest.
        You will note those lakes, particularly at Toledo that I
    represent where there was a major water crisis 3 years ago,
    where a toxin called microcystin got into the fresh water, we
    have to have data to understand the emerging contaminants and
    their threat to fresh drinking water supplies. Lake Erie is the
    most drawn upon of the lakes, serves the most people in the
    United States and Canada.
        This really is a very dangerous proposal with USGS because
    when the crisis happened just so you know, and I was flailing
    around on the weekend trying to find the right person in the
    Federal government to help us understand what level of
    microcystin can people drink. Guess what? We do not really have
    a standard. So, the United States defaults to the world
    standard of 1 part per billion. And we needed proper testing.
    We needed a regimen. You do not want to know how bad that
    system is in our country.
        So, USGS is important. I would urge you to revisit that
    part of your budget, and, believe me, I am going to try to help
    you. But we do not need to threaten fresh water supplies across
    our country.
        Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady. I appreciate it. Mr.
    Joyce.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and happy birthday as
    well. And, Mr. Secretary I would echo and second the comments
    already made by Mr. Cole, and I am glad to have you here today.
        I would like to talk about sage grouse. [Laughter.]

                                   ASIAN CARP

        No, I do not want to steal Mr. Amodei's thunder. You get
    tag teamed here by the Lake Erie people, and so I want to
    follow----
        Secretary Zinke. We put $13.5 million in for the carp.
    [Laughter.]
        I have never seen one, but I know they are there.
    [Laughter.]
        Mr. Joyce. Well, I am surprised you did not get a picture
    because Congresswoman Kaptur has sent one around with the
    ugliest looking fish that I think she could ever find, and she
    sent it around and captured everyone's attention when we were
    at a full committee meeting one day when we were talking about
    carp.
        Secretary Zinke. And I do not mean to joke about it because
    I understand how serious it is.
        Mr. Joyce. Yes, it is.
        Secretary Zinke. It is a serious issue.
        Mr. Joyce. It is game, set, match if they get in the Lakes.
        Secretary Zinke. Yeah.

                       GREAT LAKES RESTORATION INITIATIVE

        Mr. Joyce. Lake Erie is very important and critical for
    drinking water, but it also supports commercial and sport
    fishing, to name only a few of the benefits. Visitors to Ohio's
    Lake Erie region spent more than $14.1 billion in 2015.
    Approximately 124,000 northern Ohio jobs, including jobs in my
    and Congresswoman Kaptur's districts, are directly linked to
    Lake Erie.
        The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, or GLRI, aims to
    restore the Great Lakes ecosystem under one single initiative.
    The GLRI is guided by an Action Plan with detailed performance
    goals. An interagency task force, led by the U.S. EPA, is
    coordinating Federal efforts and directing funding to other
    Federal agencies, States, cities, and non-governmental
    entities.
        As you know, the President's Fiscal Year 2018 budget
    request eliminates funding for the GLRI. As of February 2017,
    Department of the Interior agencies have received significant
    funding under the program. For example, the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service has received more than $356 million to
    implement 814 GLRI projects, and the U.S. Geological Survey has
    received more than $100 million to implement 152 GLRI projects
    in the region.
        Can you describe for this committee the consequences your
    agencies would face if you eliminate or significantly reduce
    funding for the GLRI Program? Can you give us examples of
    Department of the Interior projects that would end or be
    significantly curtailed if these cuts were to take place?

                                  ALGAL BLOOMS

        Secretary Zinke. Well, let me pivot and tell you what we
    are doing. The USGS, I am not sure how many studies were under
    way, but there are multiple studies on it, but there are some
    conclusions that have been made. About 43 human deaths and
    animal illness have been related to the blooms. We know that.
    We know the blooms primarily are coming from nutrients in
    agricultural areas. That is what is causing the blooms, so it
    is the chemicals and nutrients from ag. We have to address
    that, and that is both EPA and ourselves, as well as the Army
    Corps of Engineers. We know just in Lake Erie about 400,000
    residents went without water for days, so we understand the
    consequences and the importance of it.

                                  GREAT LAKES

        At Interior, the budget as far as the Great Lakes goes
    includes about $65.9 million, and it includes about $13.5
    million, which is about the same funding level as in 2017 for
    the carp. And the restoration part, I will have to get with you
    on line by line on that part of it.
        Again, I understand the importance of it. I would think
    this budget is a baseline, and I will work with you on it, and
    Congress gets the last chop.

                       Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

        Under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the Department has
    received funding from the Environmental Protection Agency to support
    habitat restoration, to strategically target the biggest threats to the
    Great Lakes ecosystem, and to accelerate progress toward long term
    goals for this important ecosystem. DOI funded 193 projects valued at
    $64.7 million in 2016. Between 2010 and 2016, the Department allocated
    more than $330 million to more than 1,250 projects through the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park
    Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. Funded projects address the
    highest restoration priorities in and around the Great Lakes including:
               Cleaning up toxics and areas of concern;
               Combating invasive species;
               Promoting nearshore health by protecting watersheds
            from polluted run-off;
               Restoring wetlands and other habitats; and
               Tracking progress, education and working with
            strategic partners.

        Mr. Joyce. I appreciate that, and we managed to insert
    funding for the GLRI of $300 million a year for 5 years. As you
    well know, a lot of these studies and the things that we are
    doing are very important because they have to have some
    continuity to them. You cannot stop and start some of these
    studies in order to make them effective and worthwhile.
        But I also take pride in the fact that the vote was 407 to
    18, and not that I have those 18 names laminated. [Laughter.]
        But, taking the time to explain to people who are normally,
    as you well know, voting no on everything, that this is the way
    we should operate because all these task forces, all these
    agencies share information and work in concert to produce the
    desired result of trying to clean up this problem. And I agree
    with you, it is an agriculture problem. Of course, we have
    reached out to the States and tried to explain to farmers that
    it is, in fact, a problem, and that they can yield more with
    less fertilizer, and that takes time in the education process.
        So, I would appreciate working with you and offer any time
    to come down to your office and go through the budget on a
    line-by-line basis. You are more than welcome to come to the
    Great Lakes, you and Chairman Calvert, and I promise we will
    highlight the visit with some fishing, and you can see
    firsthand all the work that Governor, and Senator Voinovich,
    has done to restore the sport fishing to Lake Erie and the
    Great Lakes.
        Mr. Calvert. Hopefully it is walleye and not carp.
    [Laughter.]
        Mr. Joyce. I hope so.
        Mr. Calvert. We have a large Great Lakes contingent on this
    committee.

                                 REORGANIZATION

        Secretary Zinke. If I could talk to the Great Lakes just
    for a second, we are looking at reorganizing how we do business
    with Interior because the carp issue is an example. It is
    important to the Great Lakes, but if you go across to Florida,
    they do not know what it is. Even our areas within our
    different regions in Interior, how you rack and stack the
    importance of things, a lot of really important issues locally
    and within the State get lost.
        We are looking at different models rather than, well, USGS
    reporting to their region, the Parks report to their region. We
    have these huge regions, but we are looking at actually
    breaking them up a little and going to a joint model in smaller
    areas based on based on drainages. Powell suggested it back at
    the turn of the century. He and Pinchot were late, and when
    Roosevelt left, it became out of favor. We are looking at more
    of a model on smaller ecosystems to base a reorganization. And
    rather than everyone report to their own region, they would
    report to a joint management area, like combat commands, so
    these smaller areas can focus on the problems that are within
    their smaller regions.
        We think the one-size-fits-all model in D.C., and as over
    time we developed these huge regions that sometimes gloss over
    issues that are incredibly important, need to be prioritized. I
    will go through with it with you and in some detail the next
    time where we sit on it.
        I talked to Department of Agriculture. They are going to
    help us with the joint command because I think if we can, among
    our bureaus, be a little more joint in how we do it, I think we
    are all better served.
        Mr. Joyce. I commend you on that thoughtful strategy to
    getting this developed. I was recently in the Everglades
    because they have the same algal bloom issue that we are having
    in Ohio. While they do not have Asian carp, they have pythons,
    which are a problem. You drive down 41, as you go across the
    Everglades, there is no road kill. The Pythons manage to eat
    everything. And so, the problems are alike, but different
    slightly. But that is a great strategy to try to combat the
    water crisis throughout the country.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        Ms. McCollum. Would the gentleman from the Great Lake of
    Erie yield for just a microsecond to the gentlewoman from a
    Lake Superior State?
        Mr. Joyce. If I have any more time left, Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Calvert. The gentlelady is recognized.

                                   ASIAN CARP

        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Secretary, when the Great Lakes
    Restoration Fund was set up, Asian carp and the funding for
    Asian carp was not part of it. When Asian carp needed to be
    funded, they came and looked at the Great Lakes Restoration
    because we are concerned about invasive species.
        So, invasive species, as the gentleman from Ohio pointed
    out, is one issue we have to look at. But the Great Lakes
    Restoration has already been nicked once with some of the work
    that it can do. They are willing to help out with Asian carp,
    but I just wanted to make sure that the record was clear that
    the Great Lakes Restoration originally did not have any funding
    dedicated towards Asian carp.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Ms. Pingree.
        Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome back again, Mr.
    Secretary. It is nice to have a chance to chat with you again.
    I forgot when you came before that I meant to tell you I spent
    a wonderful time on a pack trip in the Bob Marshall Wilderness
    area. It was one of the greatest experience of my and my
    children's life several years ago. And I do think we have some
    things in common between our M States--Montana and Maine--just
    because you have mountains and we have ocean. We have some
    similarities.
        Also, Mr. Chair, happy birthday. I do not know if you know,
    but this is also the 110th birthday of the Antiquities Act, so
    I am sure it is a joint party.
        Voice. Because they are about the same age. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Calvert. Yeah. Sometimes I feel that way.
        Ms. Pingree. You would be a great grandchild or something
    of the Antiquities Act.

                           KATAHDIN WOODS AND WATERS

        Anyway, so, Mr. Secretary, when you came before, we had a
    chance to talk a little bit about Katahdin Woods and Waters. I
    did not know and I was kind of disappointed to find out that it
    was the next day that it got added to the list. So, maybe you
    did not know that day, but obviously it was under
    consideration. And since I did not know it was going to be
    added, now you will have the benefit of hearing everything I
    have to say about it and why I am concerned about it being on
    the list.
        It is not a hundred thousand acres, which was your original
    criteria. I understand that one of the reasons it is being
    looked at again is to see if there was sufficient public
    process. I just want you to know from my perspective and so
    many others there was a lot of public process. It goes way back
    in this area, and also just the north woods of Maine have been
    talked about for a very long time.
        I brought this little folder of the 200 letters I received
    in my office and this nice sticker. But I realize that I have
    to get a privacy waiver on every one to give them to you, so I
    cannot do that, although if you would like to see them, I will
    call each person personally and make sure I get a privacy
    waiver so you can see them.
        I hope you do get a sense of how much public comment and
    how much dialogue there has been. I have heard or I understand
    you might be coming to Maine in the next week or two to visit?
        Secretary Zinke. I am coming to that exact site next week.
        Ms. Pingree. Wonderful. Well, if you need any assistance, I
    am happy to welcome you, even though it is in the 2nd
    Congressional District, but we all kind of care about the State
    as an entirety. I am thrilled that you are going to be there
    because I think you will have an opportunity to see what a
    wonderful area it is. And you can hear firsthand from the
    communities, many of whom have gone through a transition over
    the years, at first deeply concerned, partly because of the
    loss of the paper industry and the wood products industry, and
    some real economic changes up there, and worried about what the
    impact of this area might be to them.
        But after years of public dialogue and debate, the area was
    designed in a--in a very good way. And now a lot of those
    people, many of whom I served with in the State legislature--I
    know them very well--have come around to the other side and
    said, ``you know what? Now we are in this, and we want to take
    advantage of the economic opportunity.''
        Just as a reminder, the Park Service director, Jon Jarvis,
    came up and held a meeting, which had about 1,400 people. My
    understanding is 1,200 of them were monument supporters. By the
    way, in this pile I have of 200 letters, those are 200 letters
    in favor. I got a handful of people who raise concerns, but not
    very many. So many business owners have talked to us, been to
    visit us here, talked about the opportunities and the support,
    whether it is for inns and restaurants, tourism businesses, or
    new businesses that they hope to create.
        There have been 5 years of this public dialogue and
    discussion. Elected officials, as I said, have come around.
    Chambers of commerce have been writing to us. City councils,
    rotary clubs, so many traditional and nontraditional groups
    have come around to say, it is here. It has been donated to us.
    The money is behind it, and we want this to continue,
    particularly since the decision has been made.
        I do not know if you will meet with our governor. He has
    been in opposition to this, but I think he is increasingly
    becoming a lone voice, and I hope that you will take that into
    consideration in your conversation with him. CNN named the area
    one of the best places to visit in 2017, showing that there has
    been a lot of attention to this. I myself have been up there. I
    think it is a great place to be.
        So, I hope you see all that, and I hope you see and have a
    chance to talk to some of those groups and individuals who have
    really started to see this as a great economic opportunity for
    that area. Visitors are starting to come in big numbers,
    especially as we begin our very short summer season.
        So, one of the things I am puzzled about that I would like
    to get you to comment, I know the governor has suggested and
    others, does this not just become a State park. It is right up
    against the Katahdin area, which is a State park, maybe three
    times the size with many, many more restrictions than the
    Katahdin Woods and Waters have. Some have suggested it go to
    the Forest Service.
        In keeping with what you were talking about before, I
    appreciate all you had to say about the fact that everybody
    loves national parks. We have Acadia National Park. It is one
    of the most visited parks in the country. Parks create jobs, as
    Mr. Kilmer has noted for us and you have agreed. People see the
    face of our parks, and they do not say, oh, ``I think I will go
    visit a national forest.'' They say I want to see a national
    park, or I want to see a national monument. It has a lot of
    significance and brings behind huge economic opportunities.
        So, can you tell me if you have had conversations or
    thinking about this idea of let us call it a national forest or
    something else, or you can give me your overall thoughts about
    this and what your current concerns are.
        Secretary Zinke. I was tasked by the President, as you
    know, in the Executive Order, to review parks that are 100,000
    acres and above, and from 1996 forward, and Maine was not
    included in that. I have learned more about the Antiquities Act
    in the last few months than I think most people, probably even
    the people that designed it.
        It is singular, so the Antiquities Act does not require a
    NEPA. It does require public consultation. It is the power of
    the President to do it. Under the law, it does state minimum
    area that is compatible to protection of the object, and the
    definition of the object because the Antiquities Act itself is
    not very long.
        My sense is that I do not intend to rip off band-aids. Many
    of our monuments are, to a degree, settled. There are some that
    are more controversial than others, but is it in the best
    public interest. I have to be consistent in my review of it,
    and I will make my recommendations.
        I do not really have any preconceived notions. I have
    talked to Senator King, Senator Collins. I have not talked to
    the governor in person. We have an open process where the
    public can comment, it is regulations.gov. When I evaluated the
    Bears Ears, I think I talked to Nature Conservancy and spent an
    enormous amount of time, and then reviewing the thousands of
    comments on it.
        I cannot wait to see it. My understanding is I am going to
    go canoeing, which is something Maine is known for. But if you
    want to talk about your experience, I would love to hear that.
    But I do not have any preconceived recommendations because I
    just want to see it. I am talking to the family that gave the
    property with, I believe, somewhere around a $40 million
    endowment. I will ask what was their intent on the property? I
    have heard, although it has not been verified, that at one time
    a national park was looked at, which would take an act of
    Congress to do.
        It is interesting just as a point, in some of the monuments
    that were recently created, they were created over things, like
    over a wilderness or a proposed wilderness area. How does that
    work? Because you have a proposed area that is wilderness that
    operates as a wilderness until Congress takes action, which
    many times is more restrictive than what the monument
    proclamation is. So, what takes precedence?
        I think no doubt my recommendations are going to be I am
    going to ask Congress to clean up some of the ambiguity to
    clarify when you place a monument over on top of something
    else, how do I manage that property, and what should it be at
    the end the day? Is the monument the right vehicle? Is a
    national park the right deal? In some places, it is a national
    recreation area? And parks and national recreation areas are
    authorized by Congress, not the President.
        My basic look at such things in Maine is, is the decree
    settled? Are people comfortable with it? Are the majority of
    elected officials that are responsible for their voice, are
    they comfortable with it, and is it in the best interests of
    the public? And then looking at what is the right vehicle for
    this and make a recommendation. There is no question that I am
    going to have a recommendation for Congress to help clean up
    some of the management side of it.

                                   BEARS EARS

        I can tell you when I when I visited Bears Ears, there are
    some unbelievably important sites culturally for the American
    Indians there and some dwellings, but you pull up along the
    road, there is no sign. There are no lavatories. There is no
    parking lot. There is no infrastructure. There is no structure
    in place to protect exactly what the intent was to do.
        There is a visitor experience, but also you have to monitor
    and put in place some basic protections for the resources.
    Including something as simple as a bathroom along a trail
    because if there is not a bathroom, we all know what happens. I
    think in some cases we need to walk through from bow to stern,
    in a canoe analogy, to make sure that when it is a monument,
    there is a responsibility to manage it for the proclamation,
    but that management piece, we have to make sure it makes sense
    and we are not in conflict with other land classes within it.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
        Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Calvert. Mr. Stewart.
        Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And once again, Mr.
    Secretary, thank you. I have a number of times to congratulate
    you, and I just have to add my voice to Mr. Cole and others
    what a wonderful choice I think you are for this position. I
    understand the responsibilities you have, and our desire is to
    help you in those responsibilities.

                                 CLIMATE CHANGE

        I have to say before I get to my issues, and that is thank
    you, thank the President for his decision on the Paris
    Agreement. I know there is some disagreement here among the
    committee. But if you care about climate change, and if you
    think climate change is important to the future of our country,
    then you cannot support the Paris Agreement because it did
    almost nothing to address the problem, and came at the cost of
    trillions of dollars. And I do think we can do better than that
    if you feel like that is an issue that is important to our
    future.

                              PUBLIC LANDS IN UTAH

        Thank you for coming out to Utah. It was great to spend a
    few days with you touring the Grand Staircase Escalante and
    Bears Ears, and spent some time flying in helicopters that you
    have both done. And if I could just make one comment and then
    get to my issues, and that is, as you know, having spent some
    time in my State, and it will not surprise you anyway. These
    communities are tiny islands in a sea of Federal lands. I have
    got three counties. They only have 7 percent of their county as
    privately owned, and the rest is Federal or State lands, and
    mostly Federal lands.
        The last thing my constituents want to do is get up in the
    morning and think about Washington, D.C., to think about
    policies that are taking place here in Congress. They do not
    want to be part of Washington. That is why they live where they
    do, many of them. They want to just have Washington leave them
    alone. And yet, the irony is that Washington has enormous
    impact on their lives, far more than most Americans because of
    the fact they are surrounded by Federal lands and the problems
    that brings.

                        MINIMUM WAGE AND OVERTIME RULES

        So, if I could address two things, Mr. Zinke, and ask for
    your help on these. And the first one is not as dramatic. I am
    going to save the more dramatic one for the second. But that is
    the previous Administration had an executive order that
    required minimum wage and overtime rules for Federal employees.
    Well, I think this order unintentionally spilled over to
    hunters and guides.
        I love to run river. I run by myself sometimes, but in
    other cases it is unfamiliar. I have had to hire a guide to do
    it. There are scenic guides. There are hunting guides. There
    are a lot of that where people from the East Coast, for
    example, who do not know the West, they will not come out enjoy
    this land without someone guiding them and showing them how to
    do it. And yet, this minimum wage and overtime rule is
    literally driving small mom and pop businesses out of business,
    because they cannot do it.
        Look, if you are a college kid and you love to run river,
    and you say, I will pay you a couple thousand dollars a month
    to come run river, they will go. I would do that for free. But
    they cannot do that in many cases now because they are working
    at McDonald's. They do not have any choice because that company
    no longer exists.
        And, Mr. Secretary, we have talked about this. I hope you
    will work with us on trying to refine this rule. I know it
    mostly falls under Labor purview, but it is a ridiculous over
    extension of Federal policy that is really having negative
    impacts on not just Western lands and families, but, frankly,
    on everyone around the country who wants to enjoy those lands.
        And I do not ask you a question. If you have a response to
    that, I would be happy to. But we just look forward to working
    with you and continue try to fix this problem after what has
    been a frustrating 2 or 3 years.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, I am painfully aware because I have
    many friends that are outfitters, and I understand the
    Administration is looking at it. I do not know where it is, but
    I can ask, and I will work with you because it is causing havoc
    for some people. You know, short seasons.
        Mr. Stewart. Seasonal work, exactly.
        Secretary Zinke. And it is tough. And one size does not fit
    all.
        Mr. Stewart. Yes, I am asking for the same exemption that
    the ski resorts were given, again, seasonal work. And if you
    would lend your voice to that, we would, of course, appreciate
    that.

                                  WILD HORSES

        The second one is a little harder. Like Mr. Amodei has the
    sage grouse. Chris Stewart has the horses. That is because it
    has just such an enormously adverse impact on my State, but it
    is not just my State. It is, frankly, the West. And I have a
    couple of visuals here I am going to pass around.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Stewart. And, again, Mr. Secretary, I know you know
    this, but it is something that is worth showing.
        This shows a 26-year history. This is what the range used
    to look like in my district 26 years ago. Healthy grasses could
    support wildlife, and support horses. This is what it looks
    like now. It is just dirt. I have page after page of examples
    of this.
        Again, this is what it used to look like. This is what it
    looks like now. It is just dirt because of the abundance, over
    abundance, of wild horses. And this is what it leads to, and
    this is the last thing I will show. This is a horrible picture,
    but this is what people need to recognize. This is what it
    leads to. It is like building a zoo, and not feeding the
    animals and starving them to death.
        And you have these, otherwise, beautiful animals that you
    and I both love. I love the fact you drove into--you should not
    drive. [Laughter.]
        Actually, you drove a horse. You rode your horse into the
    office on the first day. I grew up ranching and farming. I love
    these animals, and we are trying to help these animals.
        And one last just anecdotal piece of evidence. An
    individual I know, he is a horseman. He loves these animals as
    well. He has a 10-year permit, 330 cows he was supposed to be
    given on his permit. Some years he is given between 30 and 50
    permits is all. And instead of for 4 months, it is for 1 month,
    and it is because this is what his range looks like because of
    the horses.
        And I am asking not only you, Mr. Secretary, but, frankly,
    this committee and Congress to help us solve these problems. I
    know there are some horse advocates out there, but I am telling
    you, if you care about these horses, you cannot look at this
    and say that is okay. You cannot have thousands of them
    starving to death and go, well, that is all right with me. We
    have got to do better.
        And if you would give us your thoughts on that, we would
    really appreciate it.
        Secretary Zinke. Thank you, and here is where we sit on the
    horses. By science, the ranges can accommodate around 26,000
    horses or so. That is what the range can sustain. We have about
    117,000 horses, and about 45,000 of those horses are in a
    degree of captivity, in which we feed the horses, we pay the
    vet bills, et cetera.
        No one loves a horse more than I do, but I am going to host
    a wild horse seminar in the great State of Nevada, because
    Nevada has most of the problems. We have to figure out a path
    forward. We spend about $80 million a year on the horse
    program. The birth control part of the horse program has been,
    by and large, a failure. You have to shoot the horse twice with
    a dart in 24 hours. Trying to find a horse in the woods, the
    same horse, is almost an impossibility.
        Mr. Stewart. At a cost of several thousand dollars per
    horse by the time you round it up and shoot it, yes.
        Secretary Zinke. Absolutely. And the horses are unique.
    Some folks look at a horse as a pet, some folks look at horses
    as livestock, but it is not being managed as either. The horses
    are unique--and the burros--are another unique animal we have
    decided we are not going to manage other than captive, put them
    in a corral and going to feed.
        I think we have to have a seminar with all parts, and this
    is a good point because it is unaffordable at $80 million. It
    is not only unaffordable, it is inhumane to watch horses over
    populate the same ground and starve. If you have ever seen a
    horse starve, it is not a pretty picture. This is what happens
    when you kick the can down the road long enough, and it becomes
    a crisis.
        I think we should have a roundtable, include everybody, but
    let us get a plan on how to manage the population the way it
    is. Again, if it was 23,000 or so, it would not be an issue,
    but 108,000. We are not adopting that many. You know, when the
    adoption program began it was fairly successful, but I think we
    went through that and now we adopt out, you know, 3,000 or
    4,000 horses a year, and the population doubles I think every 4
    years.
        I would love to work with you, but this is a joint issue
    between the Executive, no doubt, and probably all three
    branches. I have gotten some very creative judgments recently
    in the courts as we try to even round up the horses.
        Mr. Stewart. Again, thank you, Ryan. I appreciate it. And
    please let us help you with that conference. We would love to
    participate. This is going to destroy BLM budgets if we do not
    get a handle on it, and putting these horses in these dusty
    corrals where you have got hundreds and hundreds of them packed
    together, that is not a good life for them either. We can do
    better. That is the bottom line. And we look forward to working
    with you.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Calvert. I appreciate it. Mr. Kilmer.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    being back with us.
        You have some history representing a very large rural
    district. Yours was a bit bigger than mine, but I think you
    probably understand that for a lot of rural communities and for
    Indian Country, this budget has a lot of challenges. And to
    that end, it was hard to decide what to focus on today. A
    number of my colleagues addressed some of the issues, whether
    it be stewardship programs, or climate programs, or investments
    in Indian country. So, I wanted to just focus on two issues in
    particular: public safety and jobs.

                                  EARTHQUAKES

        Let me start with public safety. A couple years ago, The
    New Yorker did an article about the Cascadia subduction zone,
    and the article was entitled, ``The Really Big One.'' It
    suggested that when a significant earthquake hits along the
    Cascadia subduction zone, it will be absolutely devastating. It
    could be the biggest natural disaster in the history of our
    continent.
        I brought you a map and a copy of the article. I encourage
    you not to read it at bedtime because literally it has caused
    me sleepless nights. I am going to hand that to you if that is
    all right.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Kilmer. And you can see from the map the district I
    represent is really ground zero.
        I guess I will give you the good news. The good news is
    that there are really smart people that are working on an
    earthquake early warning system to give people time to take
    cover, to shut down rail systems and power plants, to alert
    hospitals so if someone is in the middle of surgery, they can
    put down the scalpel and secure their patient, to open fire
    house doors so first responders can actually get deployed.
        We have been making real progress on this. In fact, this
    April we were able to connect sensors in Washington, Oregon,
    and California to create a unified West Coast network because
    earthquakes do not know State boundaries. So I honestly do not
    know how to explain to my constituents why the President's
    budget zeros this out.
        The Seattle Times, after interviewing the folks who are
    running and working to deploy that system, ran an article with
    the headline ``Trump Budget Would Likely Kill West Coast
    Earthquake Early Warning System.'' The experts on this say that
    if the Federal government commitment goes away, this gets shut
    down.
        So, I am hoping you can help me understand the rationale
    for suspending this program, not to mention other hazard
    monitoring programs, like the Advanced Lahar Warning System on
    Mount Rainier, when there are literally millions of lives at
    stake.
        Secretary Zinke. I also attended the University of Oregon.
    Again, this budget is what it would look like to have a
    balanced budget. Obviously, you have the last say on it.
    Overall, it makes some very tough choices. It funds the core
    and, USGS does a lot of volcanology, and they do sensitive
    programs on the high side, too. It funds the core monitoring,
    but the expansion of that program is not in this budget. If you
    look at it, it funds about $54.9 million in this budget, and
    that is down about $9 million. Not all of the Earthquake
    Program is cut but the early warning program is, looking at it,
    I think it is bare bones on it.
        I will be glad to work with you on it. I understand it is
    important. My alma mater, the President came, and certainly
    that system goes all the way down the west coast. Your Chairman
    has talked to me about it as well, expressed his support for
    that system. Glad to work with you on it.

                                   EMPLOYMENT

        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, and I thank the chairman for that,
    too. If I can switch gears, I would like to talk to you about
    how this proposal would impact jobs in my district and other
    rural communities across our country.
        I think everyone at this table knows that national parks
    are not just about recreation and enjoyment. They also create a
    lot of jobs. I am conscious of that. My grandfather was a road
    paver and helped pave the road up Hurricane Ridge in the
    Olympic National Park.
        Last year we saw a record number of visitors, 3.3 million,
    who infused $280 million into the local economies around
    Olympic National Park, and it is just a huge economic driver.
    You have talked with us before about some of the challenges in
    terms of maintaining existing facilities to support that growth
    in visitation, and to make sure the visitors have a good
    experience. I think in responding to Ms. Kaptur you talked
    about the maintenance backlog of $11 and a half billion. Well,
    over half a billion dollars of that backlog is for repairs
    needed in my home State.
        There are more than 60 miles of road in Olympic National
    Park, and some places have become completely inaccessible due
    to maintenance issues. Drivers who head down Olympic Hot
    Springs Road have to navigate a single lane, temporary bridge
    because of frequent washouts. A lot of the visitor centers have
    aging water and wastewater systems, and they simply cannot
    accommodate the number of visitors. I know these are concerns
    that you share.
        I recently introduced a bill with Will Hurd from Texas to
    address that maintenance backlog. I think previous
    Administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have supported
    creating a dedicated funding stream to address the maintenance
    backlog. I would love to get your view on this Administration's
    stance on Congress providing a dedicated funding stream to
    address that maintenance backlog?

                          DEFERRED MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

        Secretary Zinke. Well, I agree on the backlog. I have done
    a couple of things. One is I tasked, internally, a review on
    the best revenue options, the most flexible, or the ones at the
    gate on that. But when about half the parks do not charge at
    all, it is very inconsistent what we do charge. A lot of our
    passes are more or less are free. Whether or not we are going
    to take the same or propose the same model as Canada does, U.S.
    citizens, non-U.S. citizens.
        Does it affect the value, but also does it affect people,
    families that do not have a lot of disposable income, because
    we do not want to make the parks exclusive. We are conscious of
    that. We are looking at that.
        When you drop $15 and a half billion in revenue, life is a
    lot happier when we have money. We are looking at our revenue
    stream, and we are looking at direct revenue to address our
    infrastructure. Offshore revenue, for instance, funds LWCF. But
    the mechanism of the LWCF is it goes into Treasury, and the
    fund builds up to, currently around $20 billion. Would it not
    be nice if you could direct some of that into infrastructure,
    and onshore, we basically do not touch.
        Mr. Kilmer. That is the plan.
        Secretary Zinke. Onshore we do not touch. It is not just
    oil and gas. I am all-of-the-above. I do not favor oil and gas
    over coal, over wind, over nuclear. I am just all-of-the-above
    because I think being energy independent and, in some cases,
    energy dominant is in our best interest of the country. We all
    want clean, affordable, reliable, abundant energy.
        But that is part of our royalty review, too, is that are we
    getting a fair value on our royalties? We will make a
    recommendation to you on how to fund our infrastructure. I do
    not think there is anyone on this committee and anyone on my
    leadership team that does not recognize that our infrastructure
    affects jobs. Our lack of roads when we shut down a road that
    natively impacts the experience in our parks.
        I care about the experience of a park. You drive in, the
    rangers going have the right uniform, the bathrooms are clean,
    the facilities are great, the trails are marked. I want to
    protect the experience of the park so the next generation holds
    it in as a high esteem as we do. And the experience in the
    parks also is not just the parks anymore. When we have 330
    million visitors through our parks, it is time to look at
    public property around the parks and make sure those trail
    systems connect, the wildlife corridors connect, the watersheds
    make sense.
        The camp grounds are not just in the park anymore, and the
    camp grounds, quite frankly, were developed in the Eisenhower
    years when most people camped in a tent with a station wagon.
    The RV business is booming, and people have larger cars, and so
    our campgrounds have to be reconfigured to what people really
    use, and not all of it is going to be in the parks. There are
    some parks already looking at that. Yosemite as an example--I
    have never been there--I was shocked how small Yosemite
    actually is, the valley. The experience at Yosemite for many
    people anymore is an I-5 traffic jam.
        Now, it is time to look at how to move people through. That
    is probably partnering with somebody who can really think of
    transporters and that kind of thing. That is an opportunity to
    make additional income and have someone else run that
    transportation system, but I am open. I am going to ask to work
    with you because we both care about it enough. But we have to
    address and have a mechanism to do it.
        We are not going to make it at $500 million a year on
    infrastructure. We are not going to make it on $750 million
    when we are $11.3 billion behind. There is going to need to be
    a national push to address the infrastructure, and then put a
    stream in place so we do not constantly run behind. And, again,
    I leave it at this. This is not a partisan issue. This is a
    bipartisan issue. I think the American public demands
    rightfully that we take care of our parks.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. Thanks, Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Amodei.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it is
    good to see you. I want to publicly thank the ranking member
    for coming out to sage hen country a couple of months ago to
    see firsthand what was going on at the horse sorting facility
    north of Reno, and then out into the central area of the State,
    hunting visually for chickens.
        The reason that Mr. Stewart, the record should reflect, has
    horses and I have sage is because I got first pick. [Laughter.]

                                  SAGE GROUSE

        And so, let us just start with that briefly. And I want to
    thank you for your effort to get together beforehand, but I
    know schedules are what they are. What I would like to do is
    just kind of hit on some areas that we can then schedule before
    we go through this committee's work to visit with you or your
    folks that are appropriate for those subject areas. And the
    first one kind of gets to your deal yesterday.
        Obviously, I am concerned about, it sounds like a great
    idea. We are going to be interested in what the timelines are
    for that, or generally, or whatever, or if there are none. We
    are certainly concerned about the focal area establishments
    since you have mentioned the courts earlier, and a judge in
    Nevada who is not exactly known as being in the tank for any
    side of the issue, and has referred the focal area finding back
    because there was not any in the process. And so, kind of want
    to talk to your folks about, listen, if we need to protect
    certain areas more than others, that is fine, but let us talk
    about what criteria go into that instead of just having that
    come out between draft and final EIS.
        The same issue with the mineral entry stuff that is going
    on. There is on the books in your existing regulations a fairly
    specific process that provides due process for that. And so,
    the main concern will be if you are going to follow that,
    great. But if it is going to be a hurry up thing, then we have
    obviously got concerns about that.
        The final thing, Mr. Secretary, on that is during the
    previous Administration, some of us had challenged your
    predecessor to, hey, with all this sage hen stuff going on and
    tasking private owners in States to do their parts in the
    stuff, you folks had not even asked for money. Not, hey, we
    asked and those jerks in Congress did not give it to us. And to
    her credit she asked for it, and this committee initiated
    giving $65 million, and it is, like, okay. And the discussion
    on that, I may need some tune up on history.
        But, so we followed up on that and said, okay, so how did
    you do that? What States did, we then go to this State and that
    State and see how you did it, and we got back a document that I
    am going to leave with your folks that says of the $65 million,
    $35.8 stayed in D.C.
        Mr. Amodei. Now, there may be a real good reason for that,
    and I would love to hear it. But when we are talking about, at
    least at that point in time, it was habitat loss and
    fragmentation. All the court orders, all the Fish and Wildlife
    stuff, habitat, not numbers, to get a document, I think this is
    from BLM, but we will certainly give it to you. So, to say that
    $35 million of it stayed in D.C. is, I will just pick the word
    ``surprising'' and leave it at that.
        So, those are kind of the three areas on the sage hen
    update. And, by the way, you are willing to come to us. I would
    love to come there if it is either after lunch or before lunch
    because the cafeteria, as you can tell from my figure, at the
    basement of the Department of Interior building is a great one.
    So, I would be happy to do that.
        Secretary Zinke. For the record, I think you look great.
    [Laughter.]
        Mr. Amodei. I am glad you finally said it publicly instead
    of----
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Joyce. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Amodei. What you do not know is that Mr. Simpson is
    looking for somebody to sit on his other side. [Laughter.]

                                REALTY STAFFING

        Mr. Amodei. Do not tell Mr. Cole. The second thing is kind
    of an operational thing in terms of my district has an urban in
    western Nevada, Reno Sparks, Truckee Meadows, that sort of
    stuff. And so, in the district office there, you have got a
    fairly active real estate portfolio in terms of government's
    right of way, stuff like that. And, quite frankly, and this
    maybe gets back to the budget discussion; we have got incidents
    where we have got a 20-year airport lease that they are being
    told because there is one person in an office that is slated
    for four, and no help on the horizon because you cannot just
    tap somebody and create a realty specialist. You have got to
    send them to BLM land university or whatever I think is in
    Phoenix.
        But, I mean, we have got folks with right-of-way requests
    that lie within existing rights-of-way that the Bureau has
    granted to the Department of Transportation to put utilities in
    there, and the existing grant says, well, it is only for
    highway. And they are saying, hey, we cannot look at that for 2
    years. And so, you sit there and look at that stuff. And, I
    mean, I can do some more, but I will not take your time up.
        But I would say that it is something where for routine and
    things that have categorical exclusions that clearly apply, and
    they are saying we cannot even look at that for 6 months. You
    are sitting there going, hey, this is a bottleneck. It is not
    NEPA skirting or anything else like that, but it is something
    that, quite frankly, we want to talk with you with your folks
    about. Now, this is a BLM issue, but to say, hey, we have got
    to staff these things.
        I am not a guy who thinks money is the answer to
    everything, but, quite frankly, when you talk about the budget
    overall, probably--do not tell anybody I said this--but I am
    thinking maybe the last resource administration was Teddy
    Roosevelt. And so, when we talk about cuts in an area,
    especially as a westerner, and I do not have any maps like the
    Great Lakes people do or pictures like my colleague from Utah.
        But when you talk about the importance of the majority land
    homeowners not being funded to take care of things, like
    grazing, or minerals, or real estate stuff, it gets to be a
    point where I think the Department is being given a rap that is
    avoidable when we talk about that stuff. So anyhow, that is one
    of the areas we would like to talk about.

                          FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLISHING

        The other couple real quick are the Federal Register
    publishing has always been a struggle in terms of when you
    folks get ready to do an action. You had indicated concerns
    about the process, and that for NOAs to be published, maybe put
    that down to the State level or something like that. So, we
    would be interested in seeing how that is going just because it
    is something that we have talked about at the Federal level.
    Sometimes it is pretty good, sometimes it is not, but it is
    recurring.

                                 LAND TRANSFERS

        And the last one that I would like to put on your radar
    screen, if I could, Mr. Secretary, is the whole idea of land
    transfer bills, because the discussion started out with this
    Administration of opposition to wholesale transfer. And it is
    like, you know what? In my neck of the woods, those people
    heard that. And so, those ideas of saying, hey, we want to
    transfer a bunch of stuff to the State just because are done,
    and they are over with.
        But I have a concern, and especially when a budget seeks to
    sweep the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act Fund when
    we talk about budget challenges, where on the one hand, we are
    happy to take the money from land transfers, transferring half
    of it to the U.S. Treasury, which is an awful place to put it,
    that is otherwise available to the Department to do good work,
    resource related, up and down your jurisdiction, and then to
    have, for instance, a county lands bill that is supported by
    the resource community, the sportsman's community, everything
    else, and get what I think--maybe I am wrong--was if we come
    testify, we are going to have to oppose it because of a
    philosophical issue.
        I would only say I look forward to that discussion because,
    just like you mentioned in climate change where it is like I
    want this to be based on facts, and I want this to be based on
    science and empirical stuff, I think land bills ought to be
    judged on that, too, since the history in Nevada is pretty good
    in terms of bipartisan support, and creating wilderness areas,
    and bringing on the sportsman's community, and doing the right
    thing on a scale that is, quite frankly, pretty tiny compared
    to the Federal 56 million acres ownership.
        The last fact I will leave you with, when we talk about
    facts, Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act is going to
    be 20 next year. Some of us think it is the most successful
    public lands legislation in the history of the West. And
    obviously that transferred at public auction, completely
    transparent from the Bureau of Land Management to private
    developers, land in and around Las Vegas to allow the Clark
    County folks to grow and do what they wanted to as they grew.
    And when we look at that experience and say, oh my god, it is
    Las Vegas, and it is growth, and it is all this stuff. And it
    is, like, the total transferred in almost 20 years is 68,000
    acres.
        So, I would submit to you in the hot real estate market of
    Las Vegas, in a State that was one of the top two or three in
    growth in the last 20 years in the Nation percentage wise, if
    they can absorb 68,000 in 20 years, it is not a threat to the
    Federal ownership picture in the State of Nevada. And by the
    way, I do not want anybody to lose sight of the fact that that
    was for value, which, unless it is stripped, creates funding
    for your Department to do some pretty good resource work in
    areas around that State.
        And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I look forward
    to seeing you, and let me know what color you like. I will make
    sure and wear the right color outfit when I come. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.

                             LAND TRANSFER AND SALE

        Secretary Zinke. Just a couple. On the Southern Nevada
    Public Land Management program, there is a balance of $542
    million in it. What was proposed to take is just a portion. We
    just did a sale on that program, 17 parcels. I do not know what
    the income was on it, but we just did a sale. But the thoughts
    were about the funding balance and the reduction, there is
    enough money there to continue historically in the last 10
    years what has been offered. There are enough balances in there
    to continue the program. If we are wrong, I would love to work
    with you on it. I talked to Senator Heller about it, and we
    just had a release on, I think was 17 parcels on that.
        You know, philosophically, I am just not an advocate for a
    sale or transfer of public land, but I am an advocate for good
    stewardship programs. Within the Department of Agriculture
    there was a bipartisan effort that transferred management as
    long as all parties agree with what that management would look
    like. I think that is on the table.
        In some places you are stacked up. You have local
    management, State management, and the Federal management on the
    same piece of property. Is that really in the best interest of
    the country on how you manage the property? I think that is
    always an open dialogue.

                                 PERMIT PROCESS

        The permit processes is universally broken considering that
    Boy Scout troops are not going in the wilderness in some places
    and the monuments because the monument permit process does not
    allow more than 11 people to go in. It should be just for such
    things or groups going in, if you want to film a documentary,
    why is it so difficult to get a permit for our filming industry
    to film documentaries on public property? It should be more or
    less on a website going online, pay a small fee if you are a
    Boy Scout troop or you are an organized troop, where you are
    going to go so someone knows you are in there. Where are you
    going to camp? Have you ever done this before? Do you have a
    compass, you know? [Laughter.]

                                  RIGHT-OF-WAY

        These type of things, we should be able to do online rather
    than make it so difficult where a lot of people are being
    restricted, I think, too much to use our public lands just on
    the simple permits. Then you get on a right-of-way. We did add,
    by the way, $16 million in it to address some of the right-of-
    way issues. But you are right, it is just not putting more
    people behind a desk.
        If it is a Cat. Ex, then who should be able to sign off? At
    the lowest level, the office should be able to sign these
    things off. But I can tell you the policy has been, and there
    is a lot of frustration, believe me, out in the field. You
    would think being a park ranger or superintendent would be the
    best job ever. Among our employees, we are ranked 11 out of 18
    Departments, and the bureaus were ranked about 300 out of 320
    or so. These are our employees. Is it because they have just
    been micromanaged too much? I think we are too short in the
    field, and we are too heavy in middle management and upper
    management.
        We have got to push more resources to the front line, give
    them the authority in a lot of cases. And these permits, they
    should just be signed at the local level, especially if they
    are Cat. Ex and if it is a right-of-way issue, they just need
    to be renewed. Why are they coming up to me?
        Mr. Calvert. Mr. Jenkins.
        Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it is
    great to be with you. As you and I both know, the class of 2014
    in Congress is maybe the best class ever.
        Secretary Zinke. With some exceptions. I got kicked out.
    [Laughter.]
        Mr. Jenkins. I am wondering what you did right and I did
    wrong. Congratulations.
        Thank you for your love of country. So many people around
    this table have acknowledged your incredible service to our
    country, our safety, and thank you for all you have done. And
    we are very excited about your new capacity.

                                 CLIMATE CHANGE

        I want to thank you, like so many around this table, for
    the clear articulation of why the Paris Accord was such a bad
    deal. I think many, many people, just because of the way it was
    labeled, because of the way it was sold, it has taken on a
    different life and perception than reality, and we know in many
    respects perception is reality. Your clarity, this
    Administration's clarity, of describing those 20 pages,
    describing what is and, most importantly, what is not in it,
    and why it is a bad deal is critical. Thank you for the clarity
    with which you have brought to this decision to withdraw. I
    think it was the right decision, and I thank you and the
    Administration for that.

                  WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY

        Like so many also around this table, we all have incredible
    assets in our State. I invite you to come to the National Fish
    Hatchery. 9.2 million rainbow trout eggs are spawned, in White
    Sulphur Springs. We had a devastating flood, a thousand-year
    event, last June, and the National Fish Hatchery was
    devastated. But working with Fish and Wildlife, working with
    the Federal Highway Administration and other resources, it is
    back, it is open, and it has a great history to build on that
    we have already enjoyed since 1902.
        There still are some funding needs to fully return to its
    true capabilities and capacities. And I invite you to visit
    this treasure. The eggs from this hatchery go to and are
    shipped to 26 other Federal and State hatcheries around the
    country. So, again, literally, millions of rainbow trout start
    in little White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia.

                               AML PILOT PROGRAM

        In addition to the fish hatchery and your continued
    support, I want to associate myself with the comments from
    Chairman Rogers relating to the AML pilot project that I had
    the honor of working with him and Chairman Calvert over these
    last 2 years. And Chairman Rogers said in no uncertain terms
    how he feels about the zeroing out of that program. I, again,
    associate myself with his feelings and sentiments, and will
    fight tooth and nail to make sure that that program continues.
    I am also a proud co-sponsor of the RECLAIM Act he talked
    about.
        Virtually everybody around this table has described a
    project, a program, an initiative in their State. And with all
    the compliments to you and your leadership style, and this
    Administration and the new direction that we have from this
    Agency, one of the issues is staffing. I want to give you the
    opportunity to talk about your efforts for a culture change.
        My frustration with the OSM has been on this AML pilot
    program where we had very clear directive from Congress on how
    that was to be administered. And OSM took it a 180-degree
    different route and applied AML standards when we were not
    dealing with AML funding. It just happened to be used as an
    entity to administratively handle it, but we got shouldered
    with all AML criteria when it was not AML funds, simply because
    we ran this through the Office of Surface Mining.

                                 REORGANIZATION

        So, my question is, Mr. Secretary, what are you able to do,
    and what is your process moving forward, to take these
    incredible leadership skills that you have displayed on the
    battlefield and now bring to this administrative capacity, to
    bring about a culture change where we can get at the staff
    level the kind of support, the actions that you are
    demonstrating on the administrative leadership level in this
    Administration?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, I agree with you, and the issue is
    that one size does not fit all. As a former SEAL commander, I
    view much of my job at Interior as just one big command of
    70,000 folks divided in different services. By and large we
    have good people, and, without question, we have great assets.
    So, I am actually an optimist.
        What has occurred over time is every cost-cutting measure
    has regionalized assets up. And a lot of it was for the right
    idea. The priorities have become too D.C.-centric and not out
    in the field.
        For the restructuring and reorganization, we are looking at
    taking the super regions and about this 6,500 people we have in
    D.C., and pushing those assets to smaller units out there.
    Quite frankly, we think based on watersheds and population, it
    is hard to do an ecosystem approach because there is a lot of
    variables to it. There are wildlife corridors. There are
    watersheds. There are terrain temperature States. But we have
    done a map, and we were looking at about 13 areas we think of
    these as you divide the country.
        We want to focus more on the efforts in those ecosystems so
    we can, when money is given by Congress and it is for a purpose
    for an area, we want it to be executable in that priority area.
    Carp is an example. Again, if you are in Nevada, you do not
    really care about the Asian carp, because you do not live with
    it every day. But in that area in the Great Lakes, you care
    about carp all the time. The same thing with wild horses and
    burros. If you are in the area, that is what you really care
    about.
        And somehow, we have got to push to get the priorities out
    of D.C. and focus on a smaller unit so you address the problems
    that are there. We are diverse country. We are a large country.
    We are a great country. But sometimes when it is moved just
    from D.C., again, the one-size-fits-all sometimes does not fit
    everybody. We are trying to push more of the authority out in
    the field and redesign Interior.
        I guess, in a Teddy Roosevelt analogy, the last time
    Interior really was reorganized was about a hundred years ago.
    When Roosevelt put a park system in place and made some really
    large changes on how we view public land in the West. I think
    it is time to have a look, a visionary look at what Interior
    should be the next hundred years. Think about what Interior
    should be a hundred years from now, because our public lands,
    there is going to be continued stress on our public lands, and
    it is going to change.
        We have 330 million visitors through just our park system.
    I surmise it will probably increase over a period of time.
    Recreation is going to be a bigger piece of our public lands
    experience, and we are going to have to coordinate the classes
    of public lands better so the water systems connect, the sewer
    systems connect, the wildlife corridors are connected. Wildlife
    corridors do not just stay in a park. They go out to State
    land, and they go out to private land. They go sometimes into
    different jurisdictions, and we are going to have to figure out
    on the government side how to make them more joint, and have
    the State also at the table early on these projects.
        That is what the reorganization is doing, and we intend to
    do it with your help. The power of the Secretary, I can
    reorganize the troops pretty much, but I am committed to work
    with you. The funding should not really matter because the
    Forest Service does not have to walk over. On these JMAs, we
    just have to have an MOU to work together. But we should have
    this discussion because it matters to us all to make sure we go
    ahead and do it right. One can argue the current system is not
    working as well as it should.
        Mr. Jenkins. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I appreciate it. I know we have
    been here for a while. I have a couple of questions that maybe
    I can ask you that are short, and then we can submit the rest
    for the record.

                    GAO HIGH RISK PROGRAM IN INDIAN COUNTRY

        One issue I want to bring up is the GAO High Risk Program
    in Indian Country. It is a real problem. I hope you take a very
    close look at that report and get back to us, to commit to
    making these programs one of your top priorities in the
    Department, because this is something that has to be dealt
    with.

                             ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

        The other issue, of course, the Endangered Species Act. We
    did not get into that too much, but obviously it has not been
    reauthorized in some time. Obviously, you know the act as well
    as anybody, and we need to deal with that as far as what is the
    future of that.

                        EARTHQUAKE EARLY WARNING SYSTEM

        I mentioned payments in lieu of taxes. Obviously, and you
    mentioned it in your testimony, that is something that is very
    important in the West especially. And I want to also double
    down on what Mr. Kilmer commented on, the USGS earthquake early
    warning system. We have invested a substantial amount of money
    into that program. California is very concerned about this, and
    I am, too. I live pretty close to a fault myself, so I
    certainly care about what we are going to do on that.
        Secretary Zinke. How could you not live to close to one
    when you are in California?

                              SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

        Mr. Calvert. There are faults everywhere. And Mike Simpson,
    and I share this concern, on school construction and the BIE. I
    have talked to you privately about this. Some of these schools
    you cannot fix. There is no amount of maintenance you can put
    in there to make it work. I mean, these schools are just old
    and decrepit, and some of these tribes, are very remote and
    have no resources. And so, I hope we can work together to find
    revenue for these schools.
        You know, as you know in your experience with DOD, we went
    through a program to rebuild all the schools throughout the
    Department of Defense. It was very successful. We had a public/
    private partnership on that program. A little more difficult in
    Indian Country I know, but if we could put our minds together,
    hopefully we can find a solution to this problem, because it is
    not going to go away.
        And so, I will submit this record, and we will get that all
    to you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Calvert. And with that, Ms. McCollum, I understand you
    have----
        Ms. McCollum. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. And let me wish
    you happy birthday again, and I hope you enjoy your little
    piece of cake later.
        Mr. Calvert. I will, yeah.

                                   BEARS EARS

        Ms. McCollum. I have a couple of comments, and we can move
    forward on getting answers with staff. One of the letters that
    I mentioned when we handed you the lists of letters was a
    letter from Mr. Lujan and I about Bears Ears National Monument,
    and it addresses tribal sovereignty. I take you at your word
    that you want to be respectful of tribal sovereignty, so I look
    forward to a response from that latter.

                                  BWCA MINING

        Another thing I am going to touch on just briefly and
    follow up with is when Secretary of Agriculture Perdue was
    here, we talked about the BWCA mining threat. I understand from
    Secretary Perdue's comments that he had met with you about the
    issue, and that you are looking to have the study go forward to
    have sound science guiding the outcome.
        I have a few more questions, and I will submit those for
    the record to you.

                          GRAND CANYON URANIUM MINING

        Additonally there has been discussion about uranium mining
    in the Grand Canyon, and this is an issue that I started
    working on--cleanup in the Grand Canyon--when I first came to
    Congress on the Oversight Committee. That was bipartisan,
    bicameral work. Mr. Udall is over in the Senate working on it,
    because the past mining has left polluted sites in Arizona that
    are inhabited by Native Americans. The Navajo unwittingly let
    their livestock drink from pools of water that were
    contaminated, their children playing in mine debris pile sites.
    There is a lot of concern about that, and a lot of people have
    died due to kidney failure.
        So, until we clean that up, I am very hesitant about
    looking at doing any more expansion of mining in that area
    because of legacy pollution that has not been addressed yet.
    Now taxpayers are on the hook for it. In my area, the Great
    Lakes Restoration, it is legacy mining from taconite tailings.
    We have learned a lesson. We do not dump our taconite that way
    anymore, but there are still people cleaning up the pollution
    from that.
        That is where I come from when I am talking to you about
    mining. It is taxpayers on the hook for legacy cleanup. And I
    know you have got a big backlog of that that we could talk
    about.

                                 CLIMATE CHANGE

        Lastly, could you direct me to who in the staff I can work
    with to understand better what you are doing with climate
    change? You talked about how you were consolidating things, and
    then I just heard you talk about how you were trying to take
    things out of Washington. Let me tell you why I want to know
    who I should be speaking with.
        For USGS, you go from eight climate centers to four, so
    that is more centralization, or maybe it is not. I need to
    understand. You are not funding carbon sequestration. That has
    been cut. You are not funding climate research development.
    That is out. Fish and Wildlife, you eliminate funding for the
    LLCs. You eliminate funding for adaptive strategies. You
    eliminate funding for science support. Bureau of Land
    Management takes a $5 million cut in ecosystem assessments. You
    do not fund $2 million in adaptation strategies.
        So, I want to understand what was left over that you are
    consolidating. I agree with you about having agencies be in the
    lead. When Mr. Joyce and I worked on the Great Lakes
    Restoration Initiative for some of the funding on that, we had
    all the partners at the table, including the White House, and
    we said what makes the most sense here. I had been kind of
    inclined to think, we should have USGS be in charge, and other
    people thought it should be the Army Corps. But all of us when
    we were done around the table realized it needed to be Fish and
    Wildlife working on it because that is what made the most sense
    in the Great Lakes region.
        So, I get the idea of what you are saying about how to pull
    things together, but I just see all these negative numbers on
    climate change and the work and the research that needs to be
    done on it. I take you at your word that you are going to
    continue to research and work on it. I need to understand what
    is going on so that where we can be supportive of one another
    on these issues, we can be supportive.
        So, Mr. Chairman, thank you, and we will follow up on that.
    Thank you so much. You have been just very, very thoughtful and
    very accommodating with all the questions. So, I want to thank
    you for being here.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Ms. Pingree, you have a brief
    question?

                                 CLIMATE CHANGE

        Ms. Pingree. 2-second question? Well, thank you again. I
    agree you have put in a lot of time here with the committee
    this morning, and I will be brief. I want to echo the concerns
    many of my colleagues have already raised about both the
    changes to the climate accord, the Paris Accord, and also just
    the cuts at the Department, and the ranking member listed them
    very well.
        But coming from a State where we have so much coastline,
    and our fishermen are already worried about ocean warming. Our
    residents are worried about inability to get insurance and
    mortgages on sea level rising, ocean acidification which hurts
    our shellfish industry. We just cannot walk away from these
    issues, and the USGS is an important part of the science and
    the monitoring.
        So, while I know there has been this talk about
    consolidating and making sure it all comes, to one place, I
    think we observe in the President's budget something very
    different, and that is just everything is cut everywhere. It is
    not clear where that consolidation is coming together, so we
    will look forward to talking with you more about that.
        I want to again say I am very happy that you are coming to
    Maine, and I think you are going to have a great experience
    visiting our national monument. I think you will see that the
    infrastructure development to make it a good experience for the
    visitors has already started. I will send them an email and say
    make sure the bathrooms are clean before the Secretary gets
    there. [Laughter.]
        Secretary Zinke. That now precedes me.
        Ms. Pingree. Get your uniforms pressed. [Laughter.]
        I think I should warn you, this is black fly season in
    Maine. I do not know if you have that in Montana, but just come
    prepared because we do not want to see you with all kinds of
    scars and bumps when you come back.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, as you can tell,
    this is going to be a challenge. This budget season is going to
    be a challenge, not just for this committee, for a number of
    committees that I am on. And we have a short time, short window
    here that we have to solve this. And so, we are going to be
    working hard on this committee. We certainly thank you for your
    time.
        We are adjourned.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                               Thursday, June 15, 2017.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                    WITNESS

    SCOTT PRUITT, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    HOLLY GREAVES, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
        PROTECTION AGENCY

                      Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert

        Mr. Calvert [presiding]. The committee will come to order.
        Good morning. Today we continue to keep all those affected
    by yesterday's events, including our colleague, Steve Scalise,
    in our thoughts and prayers. We applaud the Capitol Police for
    their continued efforts to be the first line of defense to
    serve and protect all members, public servants, and visitors
    here to the Hill. We have a few of them here today with us.
    Thank you for all the work that you do. We thank you.
        Now, turning our attention to the hearing, we are joined by
    the 14th administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
    Scott Pruitt. On behalf of all our members, congratulations on
    your confirmation. You have joined a distinguished group. We
    look forward to hearing your vision and working with you to
    provide the resources necessary to manage an important agency.
        We are also joined by Holly Greaves, senior advisor to the
    administrator. I believe this is your first time testifying
    before the subcommittee as well. Welcome to both of you.
        Before we dive into the specifics, Administrator Pruitt,
    you have a tough job here today. Overall, the President's
    Fiscal Year 2018 Budget proposes to shift $54 billion from non-
    defense spending to the defense side of the ledger. Those are
    tough, tough top lines to meet, and many tough choices were
    necessary in order to meet those targets.
        Earlier this morning, I, along with Chairman Frelinghuysen,
    Ranking Member Lowey, Ms. McCollum, and other members of the
    subcommittee discussed the defense budget at the hearing with
    Secretary Mattis. That conversation further underscored the
    need for additional funding to support our troops and overall
    U.S. readiness. I certainly wholeheartedly support that goal.
        However, enacting $54 billion in non-defense program cuts
    in one Fiscal Year is an untenable proposition. To propose cuts
    of this magnitude puts agencies and important tasks at risk. I
    suspect that may be a common critique that you probably hear
    from other cabinet officials and may hear from Congress through
    the budget process. And that is why it is necessary, I hope at
    some point, that the Administration, Senate, and the House come
    together and come up with a budget agreement where we can have
    a common goal that we can work with.
        Nonetheless, we appreciate your being here today to defend
    a budget that proposes to reduce the Agency's funding by $2.4
    billion. In many instances, the budget proposal proposes to
    significantly reduce or terminate programs that are vitally
    important to each member on this subcommittee. For example, the
    Diesel Emission Reduction Grants, or DERA, are essential to
    improving air quality in my home State of California. So, too,
    are the target air shed grants, but the budget fails to support
    the targeted air shed grants, and DERA grants are proposed to
    receive an 83 percent reduction.
        The Superfund Program, while considered an infrastructure
    priority for the President, is reduced by 31 percent. This
    reduction will most certainly impact new clean ups and slow
    ongoing clean ups. These are all proposals that we are unlikely
    to entertain.
        Further, the budget proposes to significantly reduce other
    important State grants while asking States to continue to serve
    as principal leads to implement delegated environmental
    programs. Finally, most geographic programs are proposed for
    termination. This is perhaps not how you personally would craft
    EPA's budget, but it is the budget you have to defend here
    today.
        I am pleased the budget supports a healthy investment in
    water infrastructure, a priority of the subcommittee. The
    budget maintains funding for the Clean Water and Drinking State
    Revolving Funds at current levels, and continues to fund the
    new WIFIA program. These are both programs that create
    construction jobs in every State and every congressional
    district. As you know, I strongly support the WIFIA program
    given the ability to leverage additional sources of funding. It
    could be a game changer to stem the growing backlog of needs
    for improved water quality and a nice complement to the SRS.
        Turning to policy, we all want clean air and clean water,
    and a strong, robust economy. My constituents in California
    command both a healthy environment and job creation. It is not
    an either/or proposition. In southern California, we have made
    tremendous improvements in our air quality over the past number
    of decades. It is important that we continue to look for ways
    to clean our air.
        I supported EPA's decision last week to recalibrate the
    implementation of the 2015 ozone standards so that we can
    ensure our clean air efforts are carried out in an effective
    manner. I remain as committed as ever to providing resources to
    support proven programs that actually reduce particulate matter
    and ozone, and in doing so, improve outcomes in the impacted
    areas.
        At last year's EPA budget hearings, the subcommittee raised
    concerns that statutory obligations were given insufficient
    attention while new regulations were prioritized. I think it is
    fair to say that you bring a refreshing new perspective to that
    position. We look forward to hearing that perspective today. It
    is my hope that moving forward we can work together in
    coordination with our State, local, and tribal partners to find
    sound solutions to tackle the challenges before us.
        I know all members are eager to discuss various issues with
    you, so I will save additional remarks for the period following
    your testimony.
        I am pleased now to yield to my friend and distinguished
    ranking member, Ms. McCollum.

                        Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning,
    Administrator Pruitt. The Environmental Protection Agency is
    responsible for protecting human health, the environment,
    ensuring clean air and clean water for families and children.
    The budget you have come before us today to support would
    endanger the health of millions of Americans, jeopardize the
    quality of our air and water, and wreak havoc on our economy.
        The Trump Administration's Fiscal Year 2018 budget abandons
    EPA's responsibilities to the American people by proposing a
    $2.4 billion cut, a 30 percent cut. The last time EPA
    appropriations was this low was 1990. The Administration would
    set the Agency back 30 years, ignoring the complex
    environmental challenges we face today.
        Mr. Trump campaigned last year on an agenda that included
    allowing companies to pollute our air, and our water, and our
    land. He embraced climate deniers, ridiculed science, and
    promised to surrender America's global leadership on climate
    change. Now Mr. Trump is President Trump, and he is putting his
    anti-environment agenda into action.
        Executive orders have directed the government to ignore
    significant costs of pollution and climate change to our
    economy. Republican passed legislation was signed into law that
    stops the EPA rule to keep coal mining waste out of our water,
    and that waste is toxic. The most recent and most reckless
    action, in my opinion, was the withdrawal from the Paris
    Climate Agreement, which has made the United States a
    environmental rogue Nation when it comes to working on the
    planet's climate challenge.
        This budget is the latest expression of the
    Administration's willful denial of climate science. The EPA's
    website, and I quote from it, ``The earth is currently getting
    warmer because people are adding heat trapping greenhouse gases
    to the atmosphere.'' That is the end of the quote. Yet this
    budget ignores that science and cuts funding for climate change
    programs 91 percent. This budget also includes cuts so deep
    that 47 programs are eliminated. Many are widely supported and
    relied upon by industry.
        One example is Energy Star, which has saved customers an
    estimated $430 billion on their utility bills since 1992.
    Realtors, manufacturers, builders, retailers, they all want the
    EPA to continue this program. The budget also promotes
    eliminating enormously successful geographic programs, as the
    chair mentioned, like the Great Lakes, Puget Sound, Chesapeake
    Bay, which are economic generators for local communities. For
    every $1 invested in Great Lakes restoration, there is $2
    returned in benefits. These programs give the American taxpayer
    a great deal in return, and they also protect their resources
    while creating jobs and promoting growth.
        The Trump Administration has shown its contempt for science
    both through this budget and through policy decisions. The
    budget proposes to cut the EPA's Office of Research and
    Development by $237 million, or 46 percent. This office
    provides the foundation for credible science to safeguard human
    health from environmental pollution.
        Administrator Pruitt, under your leadership, the EPA
    dismissed work done by scientists in the Office of Research and
    Development when you canceled the ban on harmful pesticides. I
    have a letter from the American Academy of Pediatrics in which
    they asked the EPA to protect vulnerable children and pregnant
    women from exposure to this pesticide because this pesticide
    damages children's brains. Yet the evidence was disregarded,
    evidence from doctors and scientists, and now this budget would
    stifle the very office that provides the scientific analysis
    within the EPA.
        The budget also cuts State agencies' funding, proposing
    that the categorical grants be cut 44 percent. That is $469
    million. These cuts will cripple States' ability to implement
    core environmental programs that protect public health.
        But I would be remiss if I did not call attention to the
    Agency's workforce. This budget proposes to cut nearly 3,800
    employees. These are frontline scientists, experts, and
    enforcement officers who protect the American people from
    toxins, carcinogens, radioactive waste, lead in water, and
    other dangerous chemicals. We tend to forget that we owe them a
    debt of gratitude. Every time we turn on the tap water which we
    drink from, it is safe.
        As we know, Mr. Chairman, President Trump can propose this
    destructive budget, and Administrator Pruitt can come here and
    defend or promote it. But it is Congress and this committee who
    will determine EPA's funding.
        On May 5th, President Trump signed into law a Fiscal Year
    2017 omnibus appropriation bill. 178 Democrats and 131
    Republicans voted together to fund the EPA at a level which
    sustains the Agency, supports a skilled Federal workforce, and
    protects public health. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
    working with Democrats to achieve that very positive outcome
    for our Nation. And as we move forward, I know we will once
    again rely on each other to have a positive working
    relationship, and I know I can count on you.
        However, I want to be clear. I will not support an interior
    environment appropriations committee that funds the EPA below
    the 2017 current level. And let me close with this example of
    why I feel so passionately about that.
        Radon is responsible for about 21,000 lung cancer deaths
    every year. Radon is the number one cause of lung cancer among
    nonsmokers. Mr. Pruitt, this budget proposes to eliminate
    funding for the EPA's radon program, which educates Americans
    and saves lives. And this committee, both Democrats and
    Republicans, have always worked together to support radon.
        As a member of Congress, I believe we cannot allow harm be
    done to American people that this budget would inflict, and I
    thank the chairman for the time. And I yield back.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Frelinghuysen is
    going to be here shortly, but in the meantime, I'm going to
    recognize Ms. Lowey. Thank you.

                          Opening Remarks of Ms. Lowey

        Ms. Lowey. Thank you thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    Ranking Member McCollum, for holding this hearing, and welcome,
    Administrator Pruitt. I have been eagerly awaiting your
    testimony before this subcommittee.
        I will get straight to it. The Fiscal Year 2018 budget
    request for EPA is a disaster. You requested $5.655 billion, a
    staggering $2.4 billion below the Fiscal Year 2017 enacted
    level, a cut of more than 30 percent. While you claim most of
    these cuts will be part of a substantial reduction in
    workforce, it would surely impact EPA's ability to fulfill its
    critical mission of protecting the air we breathe and the water
    we drink.
        Between your disturbingly close ties to the oil and gas
    industries, your past work to directly undermine the EPA, and
    skepticism that human activity plays a role in climate change,
    I suppose it is surprising you did not propose to eliminate the
    Agency all together. Let us be clear. Members of Congress from
    both sides of the aisle, scientists, business leaders, and the
    vast majority of Americans agree manmade climate change is
    real, and it poses a threat to our planet that must be
    confronted quickly and seriously.
        Here are the facts. Carbon emissions are creating holes in
    our ozone layer and contributing to changing and often
    dangerous weather patterns around the world. Climate change has
    manifested as catastrophic events that threaten our national
    security and the livelihoods of American families. Yet this
    Administration is burying its head in the sand. And according
    to a new poll conducted by Washington Post/ABC News, 59 percent
    oppose President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris
    Agreement, which has ensured a unified global response to
    combat rising carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere. A
    substantial 55 percent of people surveyed feel this decision
    has hurt U.S. leadership in the world.
        Your budget request further demonstrates a willful
    ignorance to the pressing threat that climate change poses.
    Among the most egregious reductions and eliminations are a
    reduction of over $300 million for the Hazardous Substance
    Superfund, the elimination of over a dozen regional programs,
    including the Long Island Sound Geographic Program, and a
    nearly 50 percent reduction in scientific research and
    development.
        We have a moral responsibility to safeguard our planet and
    ensure that our children and grandchildren have a healthy
    future. This budget would fall short of this objection. I do
    hope that Congress will reject in a bipartisan way this
    dangerous budget, and instead adopt spending bills that would
    invest in combatting climate change, keeping our air and our
    water clean, and creating jobs creating jobs--creating jobs--
    for the 21st century economy, especially green jobs of the
    future.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Okay. Mr. Pruitt, Administrator Pruitt, thanks
    for being here today. And please, you are recognized for your
    opening remarks.

                    Opening Remarks of Administrator Pruitt

        Mr. Pruitt. Well, good morning, Chairman Calvert, Ranking
    Member McCollum, members of the subcommittee. It is good to be
    here with you this morning, and I thank you for the opportunity
    to discuss the EPA's proposed budget. I am joined at the table,
    as you indicated, Mr. Chairman, by Holly Greaves. She serves as
    a senior advisor to me on budget and audit.
        I do want to join you, Mr. Chairman, in expressing my
    prayers for your colleagues with respect to what occurred
    yesterday. I pray for the recovery and the protection as we go
    forward, and I just wanted to share that with you and the
    members of the committee.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Mr. Pruitt. With the budget being the focus of our
    discussion today, I thought it was important to note the very
    important work we are doing at the Agency to bring it back to
    its core mission. Specifically, as part of our back to the
    basics agenda, we are focused on air attainment and improving
    air quality, clean water, and fixing our outdated
    infrastructure, cleaning up contaminated land through Superfund
    and Brownfields programs, and carrying out the very important
    updates that this Congress passed last year, the TSCA statute,
    getting rid of the chemical backlog that existed with which you
    are very familiar.
        More generally, when I began at the Agency, I set three
    core principles by which we were going to operate and make
    decisions. The first is to focus on rule of law. We are
    reversing an attitude and an approach that one can simply
    reimagine authority under statutes passed by this body.
        I firmly believe that Federal agencies exist to administer
    laws as passed by Congress. It is Congress who has the
    constitutional authority to pass statutes and give agencies the
    direction on the environmental objectives that we seek to
    achieve as a Nation. Any action by the EPA that exceeds that
    authority granted to it by Congress, by definition cannot be
    consistent with the Agency's mission.
        Along with the respect for rule of law, we are focused on
    process. Over the last several years, the Agency has engaged in
    rulemaking through consent decrees, sue and settle practices,
    guidance documents. Regulation through litigation is something
    that we will not continue at the EPA, and we will make sure
    that process is respected and implemented so that people across
    the country can have voice, due process, as we adopt
    regulations and impact the environment in a very positive way.
        And finally, we are emphasizing the importance of
    cooperative federalism, respecting the role of the States. As
    you know very, very well, a one-size-fits-all strategy to
    achieve environmental outcomes does not work. What may work in
    Arizona may not work in Tennessee. And I recognize that the
    States have unique environmental challenges and needs, and I
    will continue to engage in meaningful discussion with you about
    how shared environmental goals related to these outcomes can be
    achieved.
        With respect to the budget and these principles and
    priorities that I have outlined, I believe we can fulfill the
    mission of our Agency with a trim budget, with proper
    leadership and management. We will work with Congress, Mr.
    Chairman, Ranking Member McCollum, to help focus on national
    priorities with respect to the resources that you provide. We
    will continue to focus on our core missions and
    responsibilities, working cooperatively with the States to
    improve air, water, and land.
        As I have indicated, clean air goes to the heart of human
    health, and we are focused on increasing air attainment through
    compliance, and assistance, and enforcement. We have made
    tremendous progress as a country through significant
    investment, regulations, and industry, and citizens across this
    country working together. In fact, since 1980, total emissions
    of the six criteria pollutants that we regulate under the NAAQS
    program have dropped by almost 65 percent, and ozone levels, as
    you know, have dropped 33 percent.
        We should celebrate this progress, but we should also
    recognize that there is work to do. Presently in this country,
    about 40 percent of our citizens live in nonattainment with
    respect to ozone, roughly 120 million people. So, we do have
    much work to do, and it should be the focus of the EPA to find
    ways to help increase the number of people living and working
    in areas that meet those air quality standards.
        The President has made it clear that maintaining
    infrastructure is critical to this country. At EPA, that means
    ensuring to make investments in drinking water and wastewater
    infrastructure. We will continue to partner with the States to
    address sources of drinking water contamination. These efforts
    are integral to infrastructure because source water protection
    can reduce the need for additional water treatment and avoiding
    unnecessary cost. And like President Trump, I believe that we
    need to work with States to understand what they think is best
    on how to achieve these outcomes, and what actions they are
    already taking to do so. The EPA should only intervene when
    States demonstrate an unwillingness to comply with the law or
    do their job with regard to keeping water safe and clean.
        With regard to contaminated land, we are going to punish
    bad actors, and that means that our job is to punish those who
    violate the laws to the detriment of human health and
    environment. EPA's enforcement efforts have produced billions
    of dollars in clean up commitments from violators, and billions
    of pounds of pollution have been prevented as a result of those
    enforcement activities. As States are the primary implementers
    of the many enforcement action programs, we will work with our
    State partners to achieve compliance and enforcement goals, and
    we will focus our resources on direct responsibilities.
        When we do not stay within the law, we create inconsistency
    and uncertainty for the regulated community. Regulatory
    certainty is key to economic growth. We need to outline exactly
    what is expected across this country because when we do our job
    well, we create good environmental outcomes.
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McCollum, members of the
    committee, I appreciate the opportunity to share briefly these
    priorities, and I look forward to working with you as we move
    forward through this budget process to protect human health and
    ensure that we have clean air, land, and water. I thank you,
    and I look forward to your questions.
        [The statement of Mr. Pruitt follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you for your opening Statement.
        Before we move to questions, I would like to remind
    committee members that we have a full committee markup of the
    MilCon bill scheduled for 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. Therefore,
    in order for us to finish hearings by 1:00 and allow for a
    break between now and the MilCon markup, I encourage members to
    abide by the 5-minute rule for questions and answers today.
        With that, I know that Mr. Simpson needs to leave by noon
    to go to our friend's funeral, Bill Hecht. If it is okay with
    Mrs. McCollum and other committee members, I would like to
    recognize Mr. Simpson so he can ask his questions.
        Ms. McCollum. I think that is very appropriate, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.

         PESTICIDE REGISTRATION IMPROVEMENT ACT REAUTHORIZATION (PRIA)

        Mr. Simpson. I thank the chairman, and I thank the ranking
    member. And thank you, Administrator Pruitt, for being here
    today.
        First, I have got a couple of specific questions. One of
    them is that the EPA has jurisdiction and oversight over
    pesticide review processes through the Office of Pesticide
    Programs. Last year, Congress passed the Pesticide Registration
    Improvement Act.
        In recent years, we have seen lower levels of funding
    leading to an erosion of timely reviews, while on the positive
    side the OPP was not cut as much in this budget as other
    programs within the EPA. The President's budget proposes to cut
    well below the congressionally-mandated minimum. With a strong
    Office of Pesticide Programs, job creators in my district and
    other places in this country, such as the potato industry,
    would not have the access to essential crop protection tools.
    How can we ensure that OPP has the revenues to run effectively
    and within the PRIA timelines under your current budget
    proposal?
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, thank you, Congressman. And you are
    right, the budget does not increase fees or impose any new
    pesticide fees. It expands the scope of activities that can be
    funded with current PRIA user fees. But the reauthorization of
    PRIA, I think, is very important as we head into this budget
    discussion.
        I mentioned in my opening comments that with the update to
    TSCA last year, there are three new rules that we are obligated
    to issue this year. Those rules are on track, just to let you
    know. Secondly, there was a backlog of chemicals that existed
    when I came into this position. We are going to have the
    backlog of chemicals entirely addressed by the end of July.
    That was a priority that I set when I came into the position.
    We reassigned FTEs to really focus upon that. There were
    members of our team both at ORD as well as in the Chemical
    Office that worked very diligently. And I want to commend their
    efforts to reduce this backlog.
        But your question is very important with respect to PRIA
    and these fees that are necessary for us to carry out those
    very important functions, and I agree with your assessment
    there.

                    RURAL WATER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

        Mr. Simpson. I appreciate that. One other program that has
    been proposed to be eliminated in this budget, the Obama
    Administration proposed to eliminate it, too, and we have kept
    it funded at a level of about $12.7 million, and that is the
    Rural Water Technical Assistance Program. As you know, coming
    from Oklahoma, like Idaho, there are many rural communities
    that do not have the access to technical assistance for their
    water systems and the Rural Water Technical Assistance Program
    is very important to these communities for being able to get
    that assistance that they would not be able to afford
    otherwise.
        Mr. Pruitt. When we look at water infrastructure across the
    country, it is clear that in rural communities and in tribal
    communities that the partnership that has existed historically
    between the EPA, the U.S. government, and those communities is
    very, very important to ensure safe drinking water
    prospectively. That is something as we go through this process
    I look to work with you on that very issue.

                       STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIPS)

        Mr. Simpson. Okay. One final question, and this is the real
    question. Many western States face undue hardship from
    overreaching or duplicative Federal regulations, including the
    proposed WOTUS rule, the proposed CERCLA financial assurance
    rule for hard rock mining, the arsenic standards, which are
    below background levels in many western States, and the State
    regional haze standards implemented under the Clean Air Act.
        I am pleased that the Administration has taken steps to
    provide relief from the WOTUS and CERCLA financial assurance
    rule. It is very much appreciated in my part of the country.
    For regional haze, western States have had a very hard time
    getting the EPA to approve their State implementation plans.
    Instead, EPA would overrule them and impose a Federal
    implementation plan. How do you view the EPA's role in working
    with the States on these important issues? What can we expect,
    and what is your perspective on the arsenic standard?
        Mr. Pruitt. This is a very important question as we look at
    the statutes that Congress has enacted. Clean Water Act, Clean
    Air Act, the partnership that you have actually put into
    statute in my estimation has been disregarded the last several
    years, and it is not particular to one Administration. I think
    it has just evolved in that direction.
        You have given specific authority to States to partner with
    the EPA to achieve good air quality and good water quality. We
    have committed to making sure that those SIPs are properly
    reviewed, and their answers provided in a meaningful timeframe.
    We actually have a backlog, and this is something that I
    mentioned the chemicals to you. We have a backlog of over 700
    State implementation plans that have not been responded to at
    all by the Agency. That is unacceptable.
        We need to provide input to those States across the country
    on the SIPs that they have submitted in every category of the
    Clean Air Act or otherwise, and provide answers in that regard.
    And we will work very diligently to achieve that, Congressman.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate that, and we look
    forward to working with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Lowey.

                         ENDOCTRINE DISRUPTORS PROGRAM

        Ms. Lowey. Thank you very much. Administrator Pruitt, the
    budget proposes to eliminate the Endocrine Disruptors Program.
        Mr. Pruitt. Sorry?
        Ms. Lowey. It is called the Endocrine Disruptors Program.
    Are you aware of it?
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes, ma'am. I just didn't hear you very well. I
    apologize. Yes.
        Ms. Lowey. No problem. I am happy to discuss it. Through
    this program, EPA screens pesticides, chemicals, and
    environmental contaminants to determine their potential effect
    on human hormone systems, altered reproduction function in
    males and females, abnormal growth patterns in
    neurodevelopmental delays in children, increased incidence
    breast cancer and changes to immune function. I knew Theo
    Coburn. She has recently passed, but I would not be surprised
    if hearing cuts in this program, she comes back up to talk to
    us.
        Her work truly changed the way we consider chemical safety.
    Because of endocrine disruptor research, BPA is banned in baby
    bottles, and PCBs have been dredged out of the Hudson River in
    New York. This is the perfect example of senseless cuts that
    will cost us more in the long run with threats to public health
    and safety, that are costlier in treasure and possibly in
    lives.
        We have so much more to learn about what chemicals in the
    environment are doing to us. How do you justify eliminating
    funding for this program? Are you not alarmed by the link
    between exposure to chemicals in the environment and consumer
    products, and changes to hormones, health, and development of
    people and animals? What should EPA's role be?
        Mr. Pruitt. Congresswoman, I do share your concerns. In
    fact, as we have studied this particular proposal, our hope is
    that we can absorb the remaining functions of the EDSP, you
    know, within the office of the existing Chemical Safety and
    Pollution Office we have, using currently available tiered
    testing, battery systems and models to achieve that.
        But you raise a very, very important question, and it is
    that the program was established in 1996, as you know, and has
    had a significant impact. It is something that as we study the
    proposal and talk with Congress, this is our approach
    presently. But we look forward to your input on how maybe this
    can be restored and/or addressed in a different way.
        Ms. Lowey. That is great news, and I will not even ask my
    next question. I want to thank you for your consideration. This
    is such an important program. And I do hope that you will
    address all of our concerns today, so that we can continue----
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, I will endeavor to.
        Ms. Lowey [continuing]. To have an EPA that protects us. I
    want to tell you as a mother and grandmother of eight, I really
    worry about issues like this. And it would be so irresponsible
    if we do not continue to move forward. So, thank you so much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Pruitt. If I could, that office, as I indicated, the
    TSCA updates that Congress provided last year, the work that
    has been going on in our chemical office has really been
    extraordinary since having come into this position. There was
    the backlog that I mentioned to you on the new chemicals,
    Congresswoman, that they have worked extremely diligently to
    address.
        It is quite something that in about 120 or so days that
    backlog is going to be entirely addressed. That sends a good
    message, I think, to citizens across the country that it is a
    priority. I think it also provides certainly to industry that
    as new chemicals enter the flow of commerce, that the EPA is
    going to do its job within the timeframe set by this body, and
    provide confidence that we can get those things done in an
    efficient way.
        Ms. Lowey. I am delighted to hear about your focus on
    efficiency, but why would you recommend cutting the Endocrine
    Disruptors Program that saves lives?
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, as I have indicated, Congresswoman, our
    objective and goal is to address it in the way that I have
    shared, and I look forward to working with you in that regard.
        Ms. Lowey. I hope we can work together and make some
    changes in these recommendations. Thank you.
        Mr. Pruitt. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady. Next, the chairman of
    the full committee, Mr. Frelinghuysen.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Secretary, we have not made
    acquaintance.
        Mr. Pruitt. Good morning.

                                SUPERFUND SITES

        Mr. Frelinghuysen. But it is a pleasure to meet you, and I
    want to thank Mr. Calvert for the time. I am here just to
    remind everybody that the power of the purse is here on Capitol
    Hill. We obviously respect the proposal for your Department,
    but ultimately it will be this committee and our Senate
    counterparts that will determine the final outcome.
        May I say I share at times some of the animus that is aimed
    at your Agency by a variety of different groups. I sort of
    share some of that frustration because of the huge bureaucracy,
    but I also come from the Nation's most densely populated State,
    New Jersey. And we are home to a historical background which
    shows us to have more Superfund sites than any other State in
    the Nation. I am probably one of the few members of Congress
    that actually highlights our history.
        I visit the sites in my district. I work very closely with
    the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and you
    have a good team that comes out of Region Two in New York. I
    know there has been a proposal here to reduce substantial
    funding for this program. I think you are aware that 70 percent
    of the program, money for the program comes from the polluters,
    the polluters pay. About 30 percent comes from the American
    taxpayer.
        I would just like to say that I think it is good to sort of
    move with precaution and caution before you take too many
    dramatic steps.
        Mr. Pruitt. This area of Superfund is absolutely a priority
    for this Administration. I think there is a significant amount
    of opportunity that we can achieve for the benefit of citizens
    in cleaning up contaminated sites.
        I think as I have gotten into the Agency and evaluated the
    entire portfolio, when you look at the roughly 1,330 Superfund
    sites across the country, there are many that have been on that
    National Priority List for decades, languishing for direction,
    leadership, answers in some instances about how we are going to
    remediate sites.
        I mean, one example that I have highlighted quite
    extensively is a site just outside of St. Louis, the West Lake
    facility that was listed on the National Priority List in 1990.
    The site is very unique in the sense that it has 8,000 pounds
    of uranium commingled with about 38,000 tons--I am sorry--8,000
    tons and 38,000 tons of solid waste. And it has been
    distributed over a fairly large geographical area.
        It was listed in 1990, and here we are 27 years later, and
    there has not been a decision on whether to cap the site or to
    excavate the site and to remove the uranium. That is just poor
    leadership. That is not serving the citizens in the St. Louis
    area at all or this country. What we are doing with respect to
    the portfolio is renewing our focus to provide clear direction
    on how we are going to remediate and achieve good environmental
    outcomes.
        Funding could be an issue, and it is something that I look
    forward to talking to Congress about. But you have indicated
    that the CERCLA statute, the objective is to hold potentially
    responsible parties accountable to make sure that they fund the
    remediation effort. Our goal is going to be to get
    accountability from those PRPs, to provide certainty on the
    type of cleanup, and make sure that those timelines are met as
    we try to get sites cleaned up across the country.
        But if funding ever becomes an issue with respect to orphan
    sites, as an example, because we have orphan sites that exist
    within the portfolio, we will address those with you and make
    you aware of those concerns.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. I look forward to working with you. We
    have a lot of people in a narrow space, and we are committed to
    clean air and clean water. And this is one of the issues that
    is important to our entire delegation.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Pruitt. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Ms. McCollum.

                             PROPOSED PROGRAM CUTS

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Pruitt, I take your
    sincerity in answering Ms. Lowey's question about wanting to
    look into answering her question about how the endocrine
    disruptors are going to be funded for the research in the
    future. But I am quite baffled about how you are going to have
    any tools in the toolbox to do that.
        Once again, the EPA is reduced by $2.4 billion, 30 percent
    below 2017. Endocrine disruptors, zeroed out. Radon, zeroed
    out. Superfund slashed. Brownfields slashed. So, you can have a
    conversation with us and say you are going to look into this
    and you are going to make sure that these things are going to
    happen, but I do not see how it can happen when you are cutting
    the EPA's overall budget by $2.4 billion.
        For example, the pesticide ban, which I mentioned in my
    opening statement, and it's called chlorpyrifos. Everybody says
    it differently because nobody knows how to say it right, right?
    But it is important that we do learn how to say it right
    because this chemical is very dangerous.
        In December 2014, the EPA completed a human revised health
    risk assessment, and it was very highly sophisticated. It was
    thoroughly peer reviewed. I know you said one of your goals is
    rule of law, but I think when science is looking at what to do
    about pesticides and toxins in these chemicals, they have to do
    no harm as their first goal.
        The EPA determined that there is serious concern for long-
    term and neurodevelopment effects as a result of prenatal and
    possibly early life exposure. The Agency could not come up with
    any level that was safe on this toxin, and they do come up with
    some toxins that they find safe levels with. But on this one,
    they could not find anything.
        So, I am curious to know how it happened that you were
    there a month, and then this is reversed. How did you come to
    find yourself disavowing, going backwards, not looking at any
    of the scientific peer review on this pesticide? And with all
    the other cuts to the Agency and the cuts in research, how am I
    going to have confidence that the best science is being used,
    that we ``do no harm'' to women who are pregnant, we do no harm
    to children who are born possibly having all these toxins
    lingering in their systems?
        Mr. Pruitt. You mentioned several programs that you were
    concerned about, Superfund and others. I think there are some
    of those programs from a management perspective that will be
    easier for us to address the proposed cuts than others.
        I mean, with the Superfund program, as we were just talking
    about, 70 percent of that portfolio approximately is privately
    funded. We have collected over billions of dollars since the
    inception of the program to address cleanup. My estimation at
    this point on that kind of program, Ranking Member McCollum, is
    that it is more about decision making, leadership, and
    management than about money presently. Now, that is that
    particular program. There are others that you have cited that
    it may be more funding than management and leadership.
        With respect to the decision on chlorpyrifos, the USDA had
    a completely different perspective, and, in fact, had made the
    EPA aware of that as the process was ongoing. We based that
    decision, like we base every decision, on meaningful data and
    meaningful science. It was a decision that we felt was merited
    based upon that, and a collection of information that we
    considered.
        Ms. McCollum. Could you provide this committee with the
    peer-reviewed science from the other agency as well as the
    science from this Agency?
        Mr. Pruitt. The USDA. We will provide that, yes.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  RULE OF LAW

        Ms. McCollum. I want their peer-reviewed science by
    comparable scientists, not just someone's opinion. Okay.
        Can you go back to the cuts that I mentioned, and with the
    questions that you are being asked, how will you stand up and
    make sure peer-reviewed science is happening? With the cuts to
    over 3,000 employees, how does that happen? I mean, I can wish
    for a lot of things, but in reality, I have to figure out how I
    make those things happen with using real dollars, real
    employees.
        You told me rule of law was your first and foremost
    concern. I have to tell you rule of law is very important. I am
    a person who obeys the law. But the EPA's mission is to protect
    public health first and foremost, in my opinion. Do you
    disagree with that?
        Mr. Pruitt. Not at all, and I think with respect to the
    science at our Agency, ORD, and the program offices, it is
    important that we prioritize the mission of those respective
    offices insofar as how we are going to use the science. The
    science should be in support of rulemaking.
        The primary function of the EPA is to carry out statutory
    requirements and mandates that Congress has required, from the
    Clean Water Act, to the Clean Air Act, to TSCA, and across the
    board, and engage in rulemaking and administration of those
    statutes.

                                   RULEMAKING

        Ms. McCollum. So, does this go to the change that has
    happened on EPA's website before January 30th, 2018. Standards
    were science-based, peer-reviewed science, safe levels of
    pollutants. That language has disappeared from the mission
    statement, and now it states, ``What is economically and
    technology available standards.'' So, that is a significant
    change for me. Is that what you are talking about with new
    rulemaking?
        Mr. Pruitt. No, what we have a responsibility to do in
    rulemaking is build a record and base a decision on informed
    decisions from science to those across the country that engage
    in the APA process to make us aware of how rules are going to
    impact them. That is going to continue in each of our
    respective program offices, from clean water to clean air, the
    Air Office, across the board.
        I mean, science is going to be key to what we do. It is
    going to be key to informed rulemaking. Each of the program
    offices, Congresswoman, actually have scientists embedded in
    those program offices as well. So, with the proposed cuts to
    ORD, we are going to be able to carry out our core mission of
    supporting rulemaking that is based in sound science, that is
    transparent and peer-reviewed, and is based upon real data that
    is not monitored, but actually collected--excuse me--is
    monitored and collected.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know that there are
    others that have questions. I have two other questions I need
    to get to later, but at this point, I will yield back my time.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady. Next, Mr. Rogers.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Mr. Administrator, and welcome to
    the hearing. Most people do not know that the administrator is
    a native Kentuckian, a native of Danville, Kentucky, and a
    graduate of Georgetown College in Georgetown, Kentucky. He then
    ran off to Oklahoma, where he was educated in Tulsa law school.
    But welcome, and we are proud of you, Mr. Pruitt.
        Mr. Pruitt. Thank you.

                                  RULE OF LAW

        Mr. Rogers. I want to talk to you about the culture of
    overreach in that Agency. Time and again over the last 2 years,
    Federal courts have held that the Agency was overreaching its
    legal authority, engaging in activities that are not authorized
    by the United States Congress. And that became a practice that
    repeated itself time and again. It had devastating impacts on
    certain parts of the country, including mine, in the coal
    fields where the war on coal, led by the EPA, resulted in some
    12,000 miners losing their jobs and their homes in my region
    alone. So, we do not take kindly to that type of thing.
        What will you be doing to change the culture of overreach
    in that Agency, where the employees, both career and political,
    engaged in overstepping their authority time and time again?
    What can we expect?
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, the ranking member made reference to this
    as well, and I think that when I mention rule of law, it is not
    intended to be something that is academic at all. When you
    disrespect rule of law, and that fundamentally is when you take
    statutes passed by Congress and act in a way that is not
    authorized, it creates uncertainty.
        You mentioned the litigation that resulted from many
    previous actions over the last several years. We can go from
    the Clean Power Plan to others, the WOTUS Rule as an example,
    subject to stays by the U.S. Supreme Court and the 6th,
    respectively. What that creates in the marketplace, again, is
    uncertainty to know what is expected of citizens and industry
    to achieve good environmental outcomes.
        So, when we talk about rule of law, it is not intended to
    be, again, academic. It is intended to be practical because
    when the Agency carries out its functions consistent with the
    authority that you have provided, those types of lawsuits go
    away, and you can actually provide the kind of certainty to
    citizens in working together and partnering to achieve good
    environmental outcomes.
        So, when I mention that, we are going to stay within our
    lane. We are going to stay within the authorities provided by
    Congress. If you have not spoken to an issue, if you have not
    given authority to the Agency, we are not going to reimagine
    it. We are not going to create it. We are going to let you know
    when those deficiencies arise.
        We have talked about Superfund a couple of times here
    today. If there are concerns that we have as far as being able
    to carry out our responsibilities under the CERCLA program and
    the Superfund program, and we think that there is a legislative
    response that is necessary, we will advise you because we need
    the help of Congress to achieve these good environmental
    outcomes as well.

                              PERSONNEL REDUCTIONS

        Mr. Rogers. What about your staffing size? In your budget
    request, you indicate quite clearly about the reduction in
    personnel. Can you elaborate on that?
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, I think with respect to the proposed cuts
    on personnel, that is something that we plan to achieve through
    attrition, continuation of the hiring freeze, and the
    initiation of voluntary buyouts. About 20 percent of the Agency
    is eligible for retirement today. That is going to increase
    over the next several years. As you know, we have talked about
    this budget having up to $25,000 per employee that seeks to
    retire, and so that is how we are going to address the proposed
    cuts to personnel.
        About half our employees are in the regions across the
    country, half the employees approximately are in Washington,
    D.C. The regional concept is very important because you want
    offices dispersed across the country partnering with States,
    and those across the country to ensure that we are working
    together in a partnership format, so this regional concept is
    very important. But as far as the personnel reductions, those
    are the steps we are taking to address the proposed budget.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the chairman. Mr. Kilmer.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Chairman, and thanks for being with us.
        Mr. Pruitt. Good morning.
        Mr. Kilmer. Good morning. I actually appreciate the
    chairman's comments and the ranking member's comments at the
    opening of this hearing raising concerns about some of those
    proposals and how it affects your Agency's mission to protect
    the environment and human health. I could spend 500 minutes
    talking through some of the concerns I have in that regard, but
    I only have 5. [Laughter.]

                                  PUGET SOUND

        My hope and my expectation is that this committee will do
    better, and we will do that in a bipartisan way.
        I am not going to ask you to defend what I consider to be
    indefensible proposals. Rather, I want to talk about a specific
    issue. My colleagues on this committee often talk about the
    role that EPA plays in affecting local economies. In my region,
    we actually want the EPA to be engaged both from an economic
    and an environmental perspective. We cannot afford to let the
    EPA check out on Puget Sound recovery.
        Our region has 3,200 people whose livelihoods are tied to
    shellfish growing along the Puget Sound. Those are jobs that
    generate over $180 million in revenue in our State. They depend
    on clean water. They depend on Puget Sound. You talked about
    going back to basics, and part of that is a focus on clean
    water. They depend on that, and this budget jeopardizes that.
        Our marine industry, which includes the fishing fleets and
    our seafood processors, generates billions of dollars of
    revenue and over 57,000 direct jobs in our region, not to
    mention tourism and recreation dollars. People come to our area
    to fish. They come to see orcas. They depend on clean water and
    a healthy Puget Sound. And I would also add, money spent on
    Puget Sound recovery has a direct impact on jobs and the
    economy in my State. Democrats and Republicans, business
    leaders, the conservation leaders, all agree on that.
        Every dollar the EPA invests on Puget Sound leverages $24
    in State, and tribal, and local funding. So, if the
    Administration is committed to growing the economy and
    bolstering jobs in rural areas, what I would say is that is not
    reflected in this budget.
        You have said this is a back to basics approach intended to
    return responsibility to the States. And I want to remind you
    of the obligations of the Federal government in this regard.
    There are 19 tribes with treaty reserved rights to fish in
    Puget Sound. Do you acknowledge that obligation?
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes.
        Mr. Kilmer. There are multiple federally protected species,
    including orcas and chinook salmon, that call Puget Sound their
    home. Do you acknowledge the presence of those protected
    species in Puget Sound?
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes, and as you know, there was an application
    for a no discharge zone for the entire Puget Sound. I actually
    am very sympathetic and sensitive to that application because
    of the things you are describing.
        Mr. Kilmer. The EPA also has obligations under the Clean
    Water Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and
    multiple other statutes. Do you acknowledge that those are
    statutory obligations of your Agency?
        Mr. Pruitt. Absolutely.

                          STATES AND RURAL COMMUNITIES

        Mr. Kilmer. So, listen, I am all for partnership with the
    States, and I agree with the fact that there is not a one-size-
    fits-all approach. But my question is this. Why should States
    and rural communities be stuck holding the bag for the Federal
    government?
        Mr. Pruitt. They should not, and that is something, as we
    have seen over the last several years. This cooperative model
    goes back decades, as you know, to achieve good environmental
    outcomes. We need to rely upon the expertise, the information,
    the resources of those at the local level and the State level
    to partner with the EPA. But the EPA has a very important role,
    a very important role.
        There are air quality issues that cross State lines. There
    are water quality issues that cross State lines. There are
    responsibilities that you have identified that are statutory.
    We are going to carry out those responsibilities along with the
    States and ensure that there is a partnership.
        You know, literally my first weekend, after I had been
    sworn in, we had 18 to 20 governors, Democrats and Republicans,
    in my office on a Sunday. We talked about these very issues
    from Superfund, to air attainment, to remediation. How do we
    achieve those things together? And from Democrats and
    Republicans, they said to me, thank you for listening so we
    could have a voice in the process. It has not happened for a
    number of years. We can learn, but we should not abdicate
    responsibility, to your point, and we will not abdicate
    responsibility.

                              PUGET SOUND--FUNDING

        Mr. Kilmer. The budget you have produced zeros out funding
    to support this effort.
        Mr. Pruitt. More specifically, which effort?
        Mr. Kilmer. Puget Sound recovery.
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, as I indicated, the Puget Sound
    application for no discharge is something I am very, very
    interested and concerned about, but also the grant program is
    similar to others. The Great Lakes Initiative, the Long Island
    Initiative that was mentioned earlier, those are important.
    Those are important partnerships that have existed for a number
    of years. As we go through this process together, I want to
    work with you to achieve good outcomes in each of those areas.

                       STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIPS)

        Mr. Kilmer. So, I would just emphasize I think it is
    important the Federal government not leave States holding the
    bag. Between a quarter and a third of State environmental
    agency's budgets depend on Federal support. I do not know how
    we can expect States to take on more of your Agency's
    obligations with less money.
        Mr. Pruitt. Let me say, too, we need to also recognize that
    with respect to SIPs. We were talking about this earlier. A
    backlog of over 700 where States have done their job, where
    they have actually submitted to the Agency a plan to achieve
    better air quality, and the Agency simply has not responded.
    So, we can do better in many areas to improve that partnership.
    You mentioned some, but I think that is important as well.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Joyce.

                             FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome again,
    Administrator Pruitt and Ms. Greaves.
        I want to tell you that I am concerned also about the
    impact of the Mulvaney budget on the efforts to clean up the
    Great Lakes and leverage them as an economic asset for our
    region. I say that in jest for Mr. Mulvaney having been a
    former member. [Laughter.]
        For example, in my home State of Ohio, 3 million people
    receive their drinking water from Lake Erie, and tourism along
    the lake generates more than $14 billion in spending annually
    and nearly 125,000 jobs. Forty million tons of cargo are
    shipped annually through Ohio's eight federally authorized
    ports on Lake Erie.
        We see these types of benefits in other States that border
    on the Great Lakes, and for this reason, our Great Lakes
    delegation has strongly supported the Great Lakes Restoration
    Initiative. This program has been highly successful. It is
    facilitating collaboration among our States and the Federal
    government, local communities, and industry, and is making real
    progress in solving some of the most serious problems facing
    our lakes.
        It is also helping communities revitalize degraded
    waterfront areas, creating jobs and new economic development.
    For example, in my district, cleaning up the contaminated
    sediments in the Ashtabula River allowed for the return of
    normal commercial shipping and recreational boating, and
    sustained the economic viability of the city's port. For us,
    cleaning up the Great Lakes is not just about correcting
    mistakes from the past, but creating new opportunities and a
    brighter future for our shoreline communities.
        The President's budget--sorry, I misspoke there--the
    Mulvaney budget, if enacted, would cripple our collective
    efforts, halt the progress we are making, and undermine the
    investments we have made to date. Funding under the GLRI has
    been instrumental in implementing costly cleanup projects, such
    as in the Ashtabula River. Simply put, this work would not
    happen without Federal support, which has leveraged financial
    contributions from States, industries, and communities.
        For example, more than 40 percent of the costs of the
    contaminated sediment cleanups has been provided by non-Federal
    partners. This money will be left on the table and many cleanup
    projects will not move forward if the GLRI is eliminated. In
    addition, the bulk of our efforts to prevent the introduction
    of Asian carp would cease, and targeted nutrient reduction
    actions would not be possible, likely resulting in millions of
    pounds of phosphorous entering the Great Lakes and contributing
    to harmful algal blooms.
        It is clear that funding is vital to sustain an effective
    Federal, State, and local partnership to restore the Great
    Lakes. However, equally important is the EPA's role as the
    coordinator of the overall restoration program. Federal
    leadership is indispensable in addressing problems that cut
    across State and national borders; coordinating work among
    multiple Federal, State, and tribal agencies; providing
    technical support; establishing science-based goals; and
    managing binational efforts with Canada. EPA has played this
    role over the past several years and it has been key to the
    success of the GLRI.
        Can you explain to us how these functions will be
    maintained if the GLRI is eliminated?
        Mr. Pruitt. You have said it well, and thank you for your
    comments and your summary. This body for a number of years has
    recognized the importance of the initiative, and we at the
    Agency have recognized that as well. As we start and continue
    this process, we look forward to working with you to address
    the objectives, the water quality objectives, and you mentioned
    invasive species as well. We want to make sure that the States
    affected, the commerce that is a part of the Great Lakes is
    preserved, and we address that going forward in this budget.
        Mr. Joyce. Will the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force and
    Great Lakes Advisory Board be maintained?
        Mr. Pruitt. I think, Congressman, as we go through this, I
    think what is important is to recognize the priority of the
    initiatives that have been historically prioritized by this
    body. We are going to work with you to ensure that those
    priorities are addressed in whatever form it takes.

                 GREAT LAKES LEGACY ACT--CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS

        Mr. Joyce. Will the cost-share approach to cleaning up
    contaminated sediments under the Great Lakes Legacy Act
    continue?
        Mr. Pruitt. You know, I think that from a State
    perspective, you know, we have talked to many of the governors
    that are impacted by these issues. We are engaged in
    discussions with them on how we can have a shared and more
    vibrant approach. But as far as the funding that has been
    proposed to be reduced and/or eliminated under this budget, I
    will just echo what I have already shared with you,
    Congressman. We recognize the importance of the Great Lakes, we
    recognize the importance to the citizens in that region, and we
    are going to work with Congress to ensure that those objectives
    are obtained.
        Mr. Joyce. We can appreciate the fact that your Agency has
    provided leadership in what I think is the way government
    should work: agencies all working together on a common goal,
    sharing information, and getting to an end result. The money
    that we have there was needed over a period of years. Last year
    in the water bill, we managed to pass $300 million for 5 years
    so that the agencies will not have to worry about the stop/
    start approach of having to, you know, not know what money is
    coming in next year, so why start the research this year.
        That has moved us backwards. From the 70s to where we are
    now, the Great Lakes has made a tremendous difference, and your
    leadership or your Agency's leadership in that is tantamount to
    making it happen.
        Mr. Pruitt. I think you said it well in your summary and
    your comments. It is the money, but it is also the
    facilitation. It is the coordination that the Agency has
    provided historically to each of those interested parties and
    stakeholders, both private as well as States. It is important
    that we recognize that and continue it.

                                  GREAT LAKES

        Mr. Joyce. Simply put, the Mulvaney budget appears to
    largely remove the Federal government as a partner in our work
    to restore and manage the Great Lakes. Is that fair?
        Mr. Pruitt. I think there are functions that the Agency can
    perform outside of, again, the funding and appropriations. We
    have cited some of those. As an example, the Chesapeake Bay
    TMDL, you know, that is an example of States coming together to
    address non-point source, and the Agency provided leadership,
    and management, and facilitation in that area. I think that is
    similarly true to the Great Lakes area as well. Obviously,
    money is important, but I think this leadership role is
    important as well, and that is going to continue.
        Mr. Joyce. It is not just Lake Erie, of which we are proud.
    Congresswoman Kaptur, I am sure, will be following up with
    questions regarding this. But the Great Lakes, I do not view it
    as just a lake or a series of lakes. I view it as a national
    treasure. And so, given the national significance of the Great
    Lakes, is it fair to expect the States and local communities to
    shoulder the burden of caring for them?
        Mr. Pruitt. We view those States as partners and
    stakeholders, and we will continue to view them in that fashion
    as we go forward. And it is important that we facilitate and
    show leadership, but work with each of those stakeholders to
    achieve good outcomes.
        Mr. Joyce. I appreciate you moving me up in line, Mr.
    Chairman. I know I have exceeded my time. Thank you very much
    for your time.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Next, Ms. Pingree.

                     FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST: PROPOSED CUTS

        Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you,
    Administrator Pruitt, for being with us here today. It is my
    first chance to get to know you a little bit, and I hope we can
    find ways to work together, although you have heard a lot of us
    on the Committee have deep concerns with the President's
    budget. So, I hope we can coerce you into making some changes
    in this budget as we move along.
        I need to say, like some of my colleagues have before me,
    we certainly disagree with the Administration's stand on the
    Paris Accord. I come from the State of Maine where people have
    a lot of concerns about climate change, and it has an effect on
    our lives every day.
        I also want to just mention I was with a bipartisan group
    of my colleagues in Germany a couple of weeks ago when the
    announcement was made, and a lot of our colleagues in the
    Bundestag and the government over there were just so shocked
    that we would make this decision, and also worried that they
    could not trust the United States anymore to keep with an
    agreement. I want to echo those sentiments.
        But I want to get into a little more specifics because
    sometimes I think we put these environmental issues and talk
    about them as sort of the idea of it is environmental
    extremists against businesses. As someone who comes from the
    State of Maine and understands the importance of the
    environment and the economy working together, and how much I
    hear about it from my constituents, climate change to us is
    very real. It is not an environmental platitude.
        I live in a lobster fishing area. In fact, I would say
    probably that the highest lobster landings in the world are in
    Penobscot Bay where I live. So, I see lots of fishermen every
    day, and they look at me with this fear in their eyes of
    saying, what are we going to do. The ocean is warming around
    us. We are watching the migration of lobsters up into the
    coast, and once they get to Canada, they are going to belong to
    them, not us. We do not get them back. We have seen the
    disappearance in the shrimping industry.
        And as my colleague, Mr. Kilmer, said, between the fishing
    industry and tourism, these are important to our identity. They
    are important economically. And I cannot go home and say to
    people this is not really happening. I cannot go home and say
    to the people in the shellfish industry ocean acidification
    does not exist. ``You know, do not worry about it, it is going
    to go away.'' And we may sometimes disagree on this Committee
    about the causes of climate change, but doing something about
    it is critical, and we cannot back out of these agreements.
        I also represent a huge coast line, and with sea level
    rising, we may not see it every day just the way they do in
    Miami Beach, but we see it when people try to get a mortgage,
    or sell their home, or get insurance. These are economic
    issues. When you talk about uncertainty in the marketplace,
    whether it is fishermen, or farmers, or people who live in
    coastal communities, these are the people I deal with every
    day, and they are looking at this with fear and concern. And
    they are saying to me, and I am saying to myself, what am I
    going to tell my grandchildren if we do not do something about
    it. So, that is my first concern.
        The second one, and I feel a little bit like Mr. Kilmer. I
    could go on for 500 minutes, and I feel confident the chair
    will not let me do that, kind as he is. But there is the
    economic question for tourism States, for fishing States, for
    natural resources States. And maybe you say one size does not
    fit all, and it is the not the same in Oklahoma, and I
    understand. It is different when the fossil fuel industry is in
    your backyard. But I represent one of those States that is in
    the tailpipe of the fossil fuel industry, and I want to talk a
    little bit about clean air.
        We have deep concerns about the cuts in this budget and
    your approach to this. I am looking for any way I possibly can
    to work with you, but people in my area have deep concerns. You
    were an attorney general that sued the Environmental Protection
    Agency, that disagreed with these ideas, that was the head of
    the Republican Attorney Generals Association that got a lot of
    money from the Fossil Fuel Association. And I know we all get
    criticized at times for who supports the work that we do, and I
    want to take you at your word.
        So, I want you to hear in my State, this does not work so
    well. We are the most oil dependent State in the Nation, so we
    know how hard it is to get over our fossil fuel dependence. We
    are deeply concerned about cuts potentially to energy
    independence, because if we cannot have more solar and more
    wind, we cannot have a healthy balance. We are deeply concerned
    about the rollback of clean air rules and the cuts in this
    Administration.
        We have one of the highest rates of childhood asthma, and
    that is just a tragedy, the fact that so many people in our
    State have to deal with the impacts of being at the end of the
    tailpipe about coal-fired power plants and the dirty air coming
    to our State. What do you think it is like to see the highest
    rate of emergency room admissions because of asthma, or to have
    ozone alerts in the middle of our tourism season? We just
    cannot say to people do not come visit our State because the
    air is going to be dirty right now. Again, you talk about, you
    said uncertainty in the marketplace. This creates a lot of
    uncertainty.
        You have heard a lot of our concerns. You said we should
    celebrate the downturn in CO2 levels. Well, those
    are because we have had higher fuel efficiency standards and
    because we have invested more in clean energy, but your budget
    does all the opposite. It also cuts your commitment to our
    States, and we cannot leave States holding the bag. About a
    hundred employees at our Department of Environmental Protection
    are funded through the Federal government. We do not get that
    money back if you take it all away.
        So, obviously I have piled on you with a million concerns,
    and it is only a few, but I think I represent what I am hearing
    every day. I do not see how more cooperation or more efficiency
    replaces those 4,000 employees you are about to cut or put some
    of the money back into these programs we care about.
        Mr. Pruitt. Let me say first that I look forward to us, as
    you indicated, working together. I appreciate you saying that,
    and it is something that I endeavor to do as well with respect
    to attainment issues. It actually is a priority of our
    Administration to focus on achieving better attainment
    outcomes.
        As you know, when you look at asthma, you mentioned asthma,
    the two criteria pollutants that we regulate under the NAAQS
    program, there are six, but two of them predominantly impact
    asthma, particulate matter and ozone. The PM2.5 standard is
    better than any that are in Europe, and we are making, I
    believe, tremendous progress toward achieving good health
    outcomes for our citizens.
        But, Congresswoman, I really believe that we can do more.
    When I say ``celebrate progress,'' I just think we have to
    recognize that we have prioritized it as a country, that we
    should recognize the success that we have achieved, but it does
    not mean that we stop. It means that we work with the States to
    get better data, not model better, but monitored data, real-
    time data, and then focus on compliance and assistance with
    those States to achieve better outcomes in the attainment
    program.
        With respect to CO2, you know, I want to say to
    you, the President when he announced withdrawal from the Paris
    Accord, said something else as well. He said that he wanted to
    continue engagement on this issue. I just left the G7. I spent
    four days in Bologna with my counterparts, and we started
    bilateral discussions. I started bilateral discussions with
    them with respect to our continued leadership with respect to
    CO2 reduction. That is another area that we need to
    recognize that progress has been made.
        You mentioned the progress we have made through government
    regulations, predominantly in the mobile source area. But
    innovation and technology have brought about a tremendous
    amount of CO2 reductions, particularly hydraulic
    fracturing and horizontal drilling, a conversion of natural gas
    that powers our power grid. What we should be focused upon as a
    Nation as we generate electricity using various forms of
    energy, from coal, to natural gas, to oil, to hydro, to
    renewables, we need to focus on using the latest technology
    that reduces emissions in a very meaningful way, and focus on
    leading an international discussion and exporting that type of
    innovation and technology.
        This is not a sign of disengagement. The President made
    that clear. It is a sign of saying that we are going to
    approach it from a way of demonstrating real action to reducing
    CO2 through the implementation of what we have done
    in the past several years.

                        CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2)

        Ms. Pingree. I appreciate your thoughts, and I hope it is
    not a sign of disengagement, and that we are going to continue
    to be focused on CO2. I am not at all clear how we
    do that if we reduce funding for all these areas, and I hope
    you can continue talking to me about that because----
        Mr. Pruitt. If I may, I mean, in this regard. I mean, it is
    very important that Congress does not address this from a
    stationary source perspective. I mean, we have tremendous
    regulation in the mobile source category. The auto sector has
    taken significant steps to reduce GHG emissions, and has done
    an extraordinary job. But as far as stationary sources, when
    you look at the Clean Air Act, I do not know how many of you
    were here in 1990 when the Clean Air Act was amended. But if
    you ask members that amended that act in 1990, including
    Congressman Dingell, he described regulation of CO2
    and GHG under the Clean Air amendments of 1990 as being a
    glorious mess. That is how, you know, that framework is used.
        We have to ask the question at the EPA, and this is the
    reason I mentioned this in my opening comments. We cannot just
    make up our authority. We cannot just make up processes to
    address whatever objectives that have been identified. We have
    to receive authority, and direction, and process from this
    body.
        So, as we evaluate steps that we are going to take at the
    Agency, it will be focused upon what are the tools in the
    toolbox that we have, and if there is a deficiency of those
    tools, we will let you know and advise you accordingly because
    I think it is very important that we recognize that.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
        Ms. Pingree. I just hope that we can discuss the Clean
    Power Plan again because that was about stationary clean air.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                 CLEAN AIR ACT

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady. I am going to
    recognize Mr. Cole, but since we brought up clean air, I am
    going to briefly say that the Clean Air Act is very important
    to me, and certainly my State, and certainly my area. In fact,
    as you know, Mr. Administrator, California was the first State
    to start cleaning up its own air. Before 1963, before the Clean
    Air Act was even envisioned, California had already started
    stepping forward to clean up its air and to step up with
    pollution rules.
        As a matter of fact, there is a history of bipartisan
    cooperation. It was Jerry Lewis, who is a former chairman of
    this committee, who helped create the South Coast Air Quality
    Basin. Certainly there are a lot of concerns about clean air.
    These concerns were shared by Governor Reagan back when he was
    governor in 1966. One thing that is important to California is
    our waiver. We have had these waivers for over 50 years.
        I want to ask the question, do you plan to continue the
    Clean Air Act preemption waiver that the Agency granted to
    California?
        Mr. Pruitt. Currently the waiver is not under review. You
    are right, this has been something that has been granted going
    back to the beginning of the Clean Air Act because of the
    leadership that California demonstrated. It was actually
    preserved, as you know, in the original writing of the Clean
    Air Act. So, it is important we recognize the role of the
    States in achieving good air quality standards, and that is
    something that we are committed to in the Agency. The waiver is
    not currently being reviewed by the EPA.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Cole.
        Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am going to
    start with a point of personal privilege, if I may, because I
    think I have probably known the administrator longer than
    anybody on this panel for well over 20 years. I was secretary
    of state when he was elected to the State Senate in 1996, if I
    remember correctly, and then, frankly, was one of many people
    that urged him to run for attorney general in Oklahoma in 2009.
    He won that campaign, and he did the job so well that nobody
    filed against him for reelection as either a Republican or
    Democrat. So, I can just assure my colleagues on the panel, we
    may have disagreements over budgets or policies or what have
    you, but you will find the administrator is unfailingly
    professional, is unfailingly courteous, will look for ways to
    work with you, not against you, and will handle himself in an
    absolutely above board and ethical manner.
        And he has got some pretty good people around him, too. I
    see his chief of staff back there. I have known Ryan for a lot
    of years, too. He worked for Senator Inhofe and was his chief
    of staff. He has got a good team. He will do a tremendous,
    tremendous job. It is a privilege to see you in this position,
    my friend.
        Speaker. [Off audio.]
        Mr. Cole. No, I am not actually. Everybody on this table
    knows I am not kind, and I will show you in a minute how unkind
    I can be. [Laughter.]
        But I want to begin by also congratulating you on the Paris
    Accord. You know, we had Secretary Zinke in here not too long
    ago testifying about his budget, and he made the point I
    thought very succinctly. It was a bad deal for the United
    States. It just simply was, with all due respect to my friends
    that have a different opinion. If it was a good deal, they
    would have put it in front of the United States Senate and
    actually turned it into law rather than run the risk of having
    it overturned, which, again, President Obama chose to do that,
    and that was his choice. But when he had a successor with
    different views, that evaporated pretty rapidly.
        And I want to commend the President for making it crystal
    clear, as you did in your testimony, that he is ready to
    engage, ready to sit down, but we are going to have to have a
    deal that is better for the United States, the American people,
    than the one we had. So, I know you have caught a lot of flack
    for it. I know you played a big role in it. I am proud of the
    role you played. I am proud of the advice that you gave the
    President, and, frankly, I am very proud of how ably you have
    defended that decision. I have seen you on television and in
    print. You clearly know your stuff, as you always did as a
    legislator and as attorney general in our home State. So, very,
    very proud of you.
        Now, that is enough praise for a minute. I actually want to
    congratulate you on one other thing. I can assure you, you are
    going to be the first EPA administrator that has come before
    this committee in 8 years that actually gets more money than
    they ask for. [Laughter.]

                           TRIBAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

        And that does not mean you will get as much as you have
    had, but you will do better than you have asked for.
        Look, my friend, Mr. Joyce, alluded to it, and my friend,
    the chairman, and I were upstairs a minute ago talking to
    Secretary Mattis about the defense budget, and we understand
    budget wars and budget games. And the decision was made,
    appropriate in my view, to plus up defense, and a decision was
    made to take all of that out of nondefense. I think was an
    appropriate decision.
        You know, President Obama used to have a linkage of
    spending one-to-one. Any increase in defense, we had to
    increase domestic. That is a false narrative, you know. I
    actually think defense has the priority, but there is no such
    relationship. That is just as false as every one we do, we are
    going to cut one. You look at each individual function, and you
    try to make the right decision.
        Now, your job is to do exactly what you are doing. You work
    for the President of the United States. I would expect you to
    defend the budget of the President of the United States. I
    suspect your private counsel to the Office of Management and
    Budget may have been a little bit different. I know some of
    your colleagues in the Cabinet. I can tell you they did not
    agree with every decision, but when the decision is made, it is
    your job to go defend it.
        But the final decision rests here. The Constitution is
    pretty clear, and I would never advise you about the
    Constitution of the United States. You know it better than I
    do. But in the end, we have the spending authority, so we will
    look at this. And it is important that we have the President's
    priorities, but at the end of the day, Congress will make the
    decision, and I think you are going to do better than you asked
    for. So, that might be a good thing.
        I will tell you I am concerned. I will give you three
    areas. My colleagues, we all have our particular areas of
    concern, but you will find one of the great common themes on
    this subcommittee is the bipartisan cooperation on Native
    American affairs. So, when I see the Indian Environmental
    General Assistance Program cut by $19.6 million, and I see
    State and tribal assistance grants cut by $678 million, and I
    see a $69 million cut in the Pollution Control Grant Program of
    the Clean Water Act, which, you know, has a section on tribal
    guidance, that worries me. And I want to ask you this in a
    serious way because we have talked about burden sharing, and
    that is, you know, that is fine, and I think that is
    appropriate, frankly. And I know that you will approach that
    seriously because I know who you are.
        But there is a big difference between States and localities
    that have taxing powers and Indian tribes that do not. You
    know, they may or may not have revenue, but they cannot tax. We
    do not give them that power. So, when you make these cuts, how
    will they make up that money, particularly given the biggest
    recipients tend to be the poorest tribes, and the most isolated
    land masses and areas with the most limited economic tools
    available, and with citizens that by any measure in terms of
    their economic opportunities, their educational opportunity,
    their employment prospects, are at the very bottom of the heap
    as we measure those sorts of things.
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, first, thank you for your kind comments,
    and I have known the Congressman for a number of years, and he
    is a friend. He is someone I have partnered with on many
    endeavors, and he, too, is serving the State of Oklahoma and
    his country in a very, very wonderful fashion, and I appreciate
    your leadership.
        With respect to the issues that you have raised, I think it
    is particularly important with respect to rural communities
    across the country in addition to tribal communities, as you
    have indicated, the tribal nations, Congressman, that we
    recognize the very important role the EPA plays in water
    infrastructure, air attainment, facilitation around those, and
    also the technical assistance. As we go through this budgeting
    process, I look forward to working with you, the chairman, and
    the ranking member to address those concerns.

                                   GLYPHOSATE

        Mr. Cole. We will, and, again, I know you will be open to
    that. We have worked on Native American issues before in our
    home State. But I will also remind you that, as one of my
    colleagues referred, these are treaty obligations. They are not
    generous grants. We have made certain commitments, so
    maintaining those commitments and advancing them, as this
    committee has, is something we are awful serious about.
        I will ask you one last question because I have taken a lot
    of time, if I may, and it is not a question I know a great deal
    about, I want to preface it. It is something that was brought
    up to me by constituents actually in light of this hearing. But
    it is my understanding you are currently doing a review of
    glyphosate, but I understand it is a pesticide or herbicide,
    sold as something called Round Up, and in the past, it, I
    think, had a label that it might have carcinogens in it. But I
    understand there is a new study that has not yet been released
    called the Agricultural Health Study. It is over at Health and
    Human Services. But for some reason, it has been held for 2
    years, and it comes to a very different conclusion.
        So, I am just curious, as you do your review, could you
    look into that and could you see if that study is there, and
    just make sure that your people as they make their
    determination have access to that data?
        Mr. Pruitt. I will, and I will say that I have had
    interagency discussions with Secretary Perdue at the Department
    of Agriculture, Secretary Price, as you mentioned, at HHS. It
    is important that we collaborate and work together around these
    issues, and we will do that and report back.
        Mr. Cole. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Mr. Cole. I look forward to working with you.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Stewart.

                                PARIS AGREEMENT

        Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, sir, we look
    forward to working with you. I know that people who know you
    have tremendous respect for you, and we think that we are lucky
    to have you in the position you are.
        I have to mimic what Mr. Cole said, if I could, and I will
    do so quickly, and that was in regards to the Paris Agreement,
    and it was exactly the right decision. And I say if someone is
    serious about climate change, if they really feel that it is an
    existential threat that faces our country, you cannot defend
    the Paris Agreement because it was not a serious effort. It was
    not a serious document. It had no compliance. It cost trillions
    of dollars to every country except for China. There was no
    enforcement mechanism. And as I am going to get to in a minute
    when I get to my question, the negative impacts of it actually
    had impacts on us here in the U.S., which I will show you in a
    moment.
        I did a media interview earlier in the day, and I said I
    felt like the EPA had their boot on the throat of America. If
    not their boot on the throat, please at least just be on our
    chest, and that is all we are hoping for here is a little bit
    of a relief from what we believe, as the chairman said, the
    sense of regulatory overreach.
        One more premise, if I could, and that is I think many
    times when people start a conversation with me, they say you
    are a Republican, therefore, you do not care about the
    environment. I think that is just a nutty premise. I mean,
    there is a reason I live out West, because I love to rock climb
    and ski. I love to sit in my backyard and look out at the
    mountains. I do not want to look through ozone. I do not want
    to look through haze. I think all of us are committed to try to
    protect this beautiful place that God has given us. The
    question is how to best to do that and what cost.
        Now, to my question, if I could. Administrator, you know
    that while the country has made significant progress in
    reducing pollution, especially ozone levels, those of us in the
    West are kind of hosed by this whole thing. I represent
    downtown Salt Lake City, but I also represent very rural parts
    of Utah, Zion National Park, Bryce National Park, for example.
    These are very remote places, and yet they are out of
    compliance with ozone, and there is not a thing in the world
    they can do about it. It is not like there are factories
    spewing or a lot of cars that are driving through there and
    creating the pollution and the particulate matter. It is
    naturally occurring.
        And the second thing, coming back to the Paris Agreement
    now if I could, Princeton and NOAA have said that 65 percent of
    the particulate matter is coming from overseas, which is why it
    was nuts to allow China to continue to spew until 2030 while we
    pay the price for that.
        So now, here we are, we have these rural communities who
    are not compliant with ozone and cannot get compliant. There is
    not a thing in the world they can do. The Native Americans
    living there 500 years ago would not have been in compliance
    with the rules that have been proposed by the previous
    Administration.
        My question to you is, will you work with us on that? You
    cannot punish us for something that we cannot control.
        Mr. Pruitt. You know, it is a very, very important question
    because when you look at background ozone levels, as an
    example, our ability to measure with precision background ozone
    is very important because what we ought to be focused upon with
    respect to our NAAQS program, around ozone as an example, is
    the margin above the background. As you have indicated, there
    are certain communities across the country that if you took out
    all activity, all economic activity, it still would be in
    noncompliance and nonattainment under the Clean Air Act. That
    is something that we are reviewing administratively.
        But I will say to you that we may need the help of Congress
    to address that, and we will advise you accordingly on the
    ability to baseline ozone or background ozone, and then focus
    on areas above that that I think are important to address
    attainment issues.
        And one other thing. The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and
    the ability to make sure that States are sharing, you do not
    want one State contributing to the nonattainment of another
    State. You want to make sure that there is accountability, and
    that steps are being taken in one State to address it downwind.
    So, that is a very important objective and role that we have as
    an Agency.
        The Agency has endeavored to do that in the past, and that
    Cross-State Air Pollution Rule was actually stricken by the
    courts, and so we are trying to make sure that that does not
    happen again. But you mentioned that as a very important
    priority, and it is because we do not want the process of one
    State contributing to the nonattainment of the other. We want a
    shared responsibility there.
        Mr. Stewart. I will just conclude by saying, A, we do not
    want one State contributing to another, nor do we want one
    nation contributing to another, which is clearly happening.
    Then the second thing is if you say you may need the help of
    Congress, well, all hope is lost then----
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Stewart [continuing]. Because I am pessimistic about
    being able to, convince some of my colleagues that, because the
    narrative will be, Republicans want to weaken clean air
    standards, and that is not true. We are just simply trying to
    reflect the reality that there is nothing these communities can
    do.
        Mr. Pruitt. You know, it is interesting. It is not just
    air. You mentioned trans-boundaries with other nations. It is
    not just air that we have those challenges, but it is also
    mercury in our fish. There are many issues around our
    environmental standards that we need more cooperation and more
    partnership from our neighbors to the south and our neighbors
    to the north.
        Mr. Stewart. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Kaptur.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also Madam Ranking
    Member. I apologize for being late. We had a concurrent hearing
    which I also had to be at. So, Administrator Pruitt, welcome.
        Mr. Pruitt. Good morning.

                               LAKE ERIE: HEALTH

        Ms. Kaptur. My first question, I want to follow on
    Congressman Joyce's excellent remarks, and say would you accept
    an invitation to travel east of the Mississippi to the Great
    Lakes, and join Congressman Joyce and myself with a bipartisan
    group of elected officials to discuss the compromised health of
    Lake Erie?
        Mr. Pruitt. It would be a pleasure to join you and a
    bipartisan effort to do that. In fact, I have spent some time
    in Region 5 already around other issues, the Superfund issue
    there in East Chicago. But we talked about the Great Lakes
    Initiative and the importance of that while I was in Region 5,
    and look forward to the continued discussion with you and
    others on the committee.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. We will make it
    convenient, and we will make it easy. We will not serve you
    Asian carp. We will serve you perch or pickerel.
        Mr. Pruitt. Thank you.
        Ms. Kaptur. Let me just say that----
        Mr. Calvert. Walleye is better. [Laughter.]

                   GREAT LAKES RESTORATION INITIATIVE (GLRI)

        Ms. Kaptur. America really cannot afford to shortchange our
    environment and human health. I would assume you share that
    belief. The budget submission, however, that is before us is
    simply unacceptable, and it cuts environmental protection by,
    if one adjusts for inflation, by over a third, and it is the
    lowest budget request we have had in 40 years.
        And our part of the country is experiencing threats to the
    Great Lakes, the largest body of fresh water on earth. Lake
    Erie is the shallowest, so it is experiencing these threats
    first. It drains the largest watershed in the Great Lakes. And
    we have an increasing population in our country now. We are 326
    million. The world is 7.5 billion. They are not making any more
    fresh water. But we understand what environmental stress is all
    about and why the Environmental Protection Agency is so
    important to the future of this country. So, we thank you for
    your service.
        In your confirmation, you committed to support the Great
    Lakes Restoration Initiative, so the following questions you
    can answer ``yes'' ' or ``no.'' We can make it easy. Can you
    please clarify, when you sent EPA's 2018 budget submission to
    the White House and OMB, did your budget leave EPA with the
    $300 million in funding for the Great Lakes Restoration
    Initiative whole or zeroed out?
        Mr. Pruitt. You know, that process, Congresswoman, as far
    as the submission to the Agency and the pass back, that is
    something that it has been a little while since I looked at
    those numbers. But we in our discussions with OMB talked about
    the importance of the Great Lakes Initiative.
        Ms. Kaptur. I had a hunch. Okay. Your budget submission
    recommends also taking out $50 million of the GLRI's current
    Fiscal Year funding for 2017 that we just passed, and giving
    that back to Treasury. $50 million. Does that mean you will not
    be able to complete work, and you probably cannot answer this,
    to complete the cleanup of the area of concern at Lorraine,
    Ohio on the Black River, because I am quite concerned if the
    Administration is going to zero out GLRI and then take $50
    million away from this year's budget, that really could stop
    work on the adjoining river that flows into the Great Lakes
    that was terribly damaged.
        Mr. Pruitt. Yeah. So, we will look at the ongoing work and
    the particular focus on that area, Congresswoman, and get
    information to you.
        [The information follows:]

                          Black River Area of Concern

        The Black River Area of Concern currently has six remaining
    management actions that must be completed in order to delist it. Grant
    funding has already been awarded in an amount expected to be sufficient
    to fund two of those management actions. EPA is in the process of
    awarding $7,975,000 from unobligated FY2017 funding this year in order
    to fund remaining work related to the other four management actions. If
    this funding is provided in FY2017, all remaining actions items for the
    Black River AOC will have been fully funded by the end of FY2017.
    Ultimately, in order to delist the AOC, additional funding and
    technical support will be required in future fiscal years to evaluate
    the status of the remaining Beneficial Use Impairment after completion
    of the planned management actions.
        EPA is working expeditiously to make these awards before September
    30; however, if awards have not been made by then, this funding could
    be subject to rescission and progress in removing beneficial uses at
    this Area of Concern will be slowed.

        Mr. Pruitt. But the rescission that you are referring to, I
    think, is around $369 million, which includes the $50 million.
    That carryover typically is there, and that is not intended to
    be punitive towards the Great Lakes. It is just an overall pass
    back or rescission of the entire amount. But we will look at
    that particular area that you have identified, and make sure
    that the ongoing work as far as contracts that have been let,
    that work can continue during the pendency of the budget
    discussions.

                      REGION 5--GREAT LAKES OFFICE CLOSURE

        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. We were guaranteed that that would
    happen, so that really scared us. We have heard it is your
    intention to permanently shut down the Great Lakes Region 5
    office in Chicago, and move it out of the Great Lakes to west
    of the Mississippi River to Kansas. Could you confirm for me
    whether EPA intends to do that?
        Mr. Pruitt. That is pure legend as far as the discussion
    about moving. There is no consideration presently with respect
    to any regional offices about moving them, one location or
    another. I am not sure where that came from.
        Ms. Kaptur. Right.
        Mr. Pruitt. I actually was visiting Region 5, the East
    Chicago Superfund site, and when I went into Region 5, there
    were media reports that somehow Region 5 was going to be moved.
    That has not been something we had discussed up until that
    point, and it is not something that is currently under
    discussion presently.

                     PROPOSED CUTS TO CINCINNATI, OHIO LAB

        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. EPA's second largest research lab is
    located in Cincinnati, Ohio and employs 1,700 scientists. Since
    you are proposing a 33 percent cut in your science budget, does
    this mean you will pink slip over 500 EPA scientists located in
    Cincinnati, Ohio serving our country?
        Mr. Pruitt. You know, we will not. In fact, as I indicated
    to the chairman earlier, the proposed cuts to personnel in this
    budget will be achieved through attrition, through voluntary
    buyouts, and through the hiring freeze that currently is in
    place. We have, as I indicated, 20 percent of our workforce
    that are retirement age today, and that number increases
    substantially over the next 3 to 5 years.

                       LAKE ERIE--TRI-STATE BODY OF WATER

        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. I want to ask your help in a very
    specific situation that is why we want you to come to Ohio. 2
    years ago, Toledo, Ohio's freshwater supply was shut down over
    an entire weekend due to toxic algal blooms from Lake Erie that
    crept into the water treatment facility. The amount of money
    required to fix this tristate binational environmental threat
    was enormous, and the responsibility for purifying the water
    should not simply rest with the City of Toledo, a community of
    250,000 people that sits inside the largest watershed in the
    Great Lakes of over 2 million people and about 11 million
    animals.
        Further, Michigan has declared Lake Erie is impaired, but
    Ohio has not declared that Lake Erie is impaired. Indiana has
    said nothing, and Canada sits out there on the other side of
    the lake. EPA has incomprehensibly accepted both of the State-
    level determinations, Ohio saying nothing, Michigan saying Lake
    Erie is impaired, and Indiana saying nothing. In your
    federalist view of EPA's role, is a tristate binational and
    disputed body of water not precisely where EPA is statutorily
    mandated to take action?
        Mr. Pruitt. You know, Congresswoman, it is my understanding
    that the Ohio EPA has not assessed the open waters of Lake Erie
    just yet. But this is an area that we are committed to working
    with the State, all States, in that region to ensure water
    quality standards are advanced and protected.
        With respect to algal blooms, EPA currently serves as the
    co-chair of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and
    Control Act Interagency Working Group, and we understand the
    importance of non-point source discharge into our waters.
    States have the primary responsibility, as you know, with
    respect to non-point source regulation. It is important we
    provide facilitation and technical assistance as we work with
    them, but it is very important that we work together in that
    regard.

                                   GLRI CUTS

        Ms. Kaptur. Well, I will tell you this, and I will end with
    this, Mr. Chairman. The cuts that you have recommended to GLRI,
    whether it is OMB or some of your advisors there, on top of the
    cuts to the State Implementation grants, means that Ohio EPA
    will have a 30 percent cut to its budget, and with the cuts in
    GLRI and so forth and the lack of clarity on what we can do to
    handle this massive water threat. This is why we want you to
    come to Ohio.
        Mr. Pruitt. I look forward to visiting with you.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Jenkins.

                                 ENERGY POLICY

        Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Pruitt,
    thank you for being here. Thank you for your leadership in your
    new role. A lot of very nice things have been said about the
    leadership from you and this Administration, from the Paris
    agreement to right-sizing the Agency, and I want to associate
    myself with those accolades and compliments.
        A couple of quick things. I think you have heard very
    clearly around this table, and I know you feel it as well, we
    all appreciate, we want, we love clean air and clean water. In
    West Virginia, our mountains and forests are second to none.
    But we are also an energy State in West Virginia. We have coal,
    natural gas, oil. We are also a human resource State with the
    hardest-working people I would put up against anybody in this
    country.
        And your predecessor, candidly, and the prior entire
    Administration did everything it could to put West Virginia out
    of business and put West Virginians out of work. I respect my
    colleague from across the aisle from Washington worrying about
    his 3,200 employees from Puget Sound at risk of losing their
    jobs. In West Virginia, as a result of the prior
    Administration, we did lose over 10,000 direct jobs of coal
    mining, good jobs. We put so many people on the unemployment
    line because of the actions of the prior Administration and the
    prior EPA administrator.
        So, as Chairman Frelinghuysen mentioned a moment ago, it is
    about the power of the purse. I have been working here in this
    committee to try to use the power of the purse to influence the
    direction and the work of the EPA and it's policies. I simply
    want to say thank you for creating signs of hope and
    opportunity for the hardworking people of West Virginia. We do
    have coal mines that are opening up. We have got people going
    back to work to create a sense of hope and opportunity in their
    lives. So, I want to thank you for that.
        A couple of questions. Number one, I just want to make sure
    it is clear for all to hear and see and listen, does this
    Administration make it a priority of having an all-of-the-above
    energy policy?
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Congressman. I think what is important as
    you look at how we generate electricity in this country, we
    need to truly have fuel diversity because as we have 1 percent
    growth in our GDP, there is not as much concern about grid
    stability and grid security. But as we see 3 to 4 percent
    growth, it is important that utility companies across this
    country actually have diverse portfolios in which to generate
    electricity. And that includes the solid hydrocarbon of coal.
        Because you can actually store, and this is important with
    respect to energy security. You can store solid hydrocarbons on
    site. There is only so much natural gas you can get through a
    pipe, and if there is an attack on the transportation system,
    it puts your ability to generate electricity at risk if you
    have a heavy reliance on any particular fuel source in
    generating electricity.
        It may be like a business, Congressman, having one client
    or two clients, and then if you lose that client, your business
    goes away. It is important that the American citizens know that
    our price per kilowatt compared to Europe, compared to other
    nations, is very, very competitive. In fact, it provides us the
    ability to grow a manufacturing base, and the stability of our
    grid is important.
        And so, our focus should be on using innovation and
    technology as decisions are made, whether it is hydro, or
    nuclear, or coal, or natural gas, or oil in the generation of
    electricity, that we use innovation and technology to achieve
    the lowest emission standards possible in each of the areas
    that we regulate under our NAAQS program or otherwise.

                                 FUTURE OF COAL

        Mr. Jenkins. So, this Administration and you in your
    leadership role the EPA do see a future for coal.
        Mr. Pruitt. I believe it is absolutely essential that,
    again, we have a very robust fuel diversity in how we generate
    electricity in this country, and we already see the optimism
    across the country. You cite that. And so, it is absolutely an
    all-of-the-above strategy.

                      CLEAN POWER PLANT WOTUS, 2015 OZONE

        Mr. Jenkins. Thank you. Three quick areas: Clean Power
    Plant, WOTUS, 2015 Ozone. Thanks to the leadership of this
    subcommittee, we put riders in the funding bills to make sure
    CPP did not continue to be further implemented under the prior
    Administration. We helped halt funding for implementation of
    WOTUS using that power of the purse. I proudly sponsored an
    amendment adressing ozone standards and the funding mechanisms
    through this process to bar the EPA from moving the goalpost.
        Does the work we have done in this committee resonate
    moving forward with this Administration and the EPA,
    understanding that we are matching up in priorities on those
    issues and others?
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes, and let me say because there have been a
    couple of questions and discussion points about Clean Power
    Plant specifically. I think it is important to recognize that
    with respect to WOTUS and CPP, that the U.S. Supreme Court in
    the latter issued a stay against the actual implementation of
    the rule. You do not get a stay, as you know, from the U.S.
    Supreme Court or any court unless there is a likelihood of
    success on the merits.
        So, the uncertainty that was created with respect to the
    steps taken by the EPA to regulate under the Clean Power Plan
    and also under WOTUS, the environmental objectives were not
    achieved. We are in the process of withdrawing each of those
    rules, both the 2015 WOTUS rule in addition to the CPP that was
    issued as well, and we will take steps on WOTUS. We will have a
    final rule that will provide a definition for waters of the
    United States by the 4th quarter of this year, no later than
    the 1st quarter of next year because that is the job of the
    Agency.
        And so, Congressman, I would just say to you that that goes
    to the heart of my comments in my opening statement, that when
    an Agency acts in excess or inconsistent with the statutory
    framework, lawsuits occur, it creates uncertainty in the
    marketplace, and the environmental objectives that are focused
    upon are not achieved.

                               NEW SOURCE REVIEW

        Mr. Jenkins. One very brief. New source review. We have a
    number of coal-fired power plants across the country that would
    like to invest in their plants for improved efficiency, keep
    that baseload available, enhance grid security. I am working
    with Congressman Griffith to develop legislation to bring some
    predictability for those power plants that continue to operate
    that we can improve efficiency. I welcome the opportunity to
    work with you and your office. Do you have any thoughts about
    reforming new source review to encourage investment to give the
    predictability our power generators need to make investments
    today, knowing that the rules will not be changed on them in
    the future?
        Mr. Pruitt. It is a very important area because you have
    businesses and industry across the country that literally want
    to invest, in some instances, hundreds of millions of dollars
    in existing facilities to produce better outcomes on emissions.
    But as they do so, it triggers new Source Performance Standards
    requirements that actually disincentivizes that. So, we should
    work together to provide clarity to encourage that kind of
    investment because it is good for the environment, and it is
    good to provide that certainty to those that want to invest to
    achieve those outcomes.
        Mr. Jenkins. I look forward to working with you on that
    legislation we are drafting. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Mr. Amodei.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator, it
    is good to see you again. I had not planned on this, but I do
    want to straighten something out that my colleague from the
    Buckeye State had talked about. Actually Region 5 is not going
    to move to Kansas. It is going to move to Winnemucca, Nevada.
    [Laughter.]
        But the water from Lake Erie when it is drained is going to
    be treated in Kansas before it is delivered to Nevada to
    facilitate the cleanup of the lake bed of Lake Erie.
    [Laughter.]
        Mr. Pruitt. We have not had this discussion. [Laughter.]
        Ms. Kaptur. Will you clean up all the arsenic at the bottom
    of Lake Erie? Will you take care of that?
        Mr. Amodei. I think that is Yucca Mountain, and we are
    going to help you on that, too, so it is all good. Thank you
    very much. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Administrator, I want to echo the comments of my
    colleague from the Sooner State in terms of there has been a
    lot of discussion about the budget. And as a history guy, I
    think it is important to note that the Congress has cut the
    Agency quite a bit before you got there, and quite a bit
    recently in relative terms. And so, speaking only for myself, I
    would expect to take those cuts into account and echo my
    colleague's sentiments about how you may be the first person to
    get more than you asked for because, quite frankly, as many
    people have made the point, nobody is standing on the rooftops
    begging for dirty water, and dirty air, and dirty soil, and
    those sorts of things.
        So, and I cannot help but give a shout out to, and I hate
    to do this publicly, but referring to the budget by the name of
    the director of OMB I think is beautiful and appropriate and,
    if anything, kind compared to what he probably deserves.
    [Laughter.]

                         ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT

        So, I like that in terms of giving you a pass on that.
    Beyond that, I will tell you this. I have got some issues that
    I want to talk, but we have had some success dealing with your
    Agency through your liaison folks and with the folks out in
    Region 9 actually. And so, we will look forward to getting on
    the calendar of the appropriate folks in the Agency and dealing
    with those specifically in the coming days.
        So, thank you very much. I appreciate the fact that on
    several occasions you have made the point that you are a
    process person. And so, when these things go forward, whether
    it is the Paris Accords or a rule that is supposed to go
    through there, that public opportunity is important stuff. And
    when that has gone through, things tend to take care of
    themselves.
        So, thank you very much. I appreciate your help working
    with us on water from Ohio, and we will talk with you offline.
        Mr. Pruitt. If I might, I really appreciate the reference
    to process. There is a reason why Congress has said the
    Administrative Procedures Act sets forth very strict guidelines
    on how we do rulemaking, that we introduce a rule, we propose a
    rule, we take comment from citizens, and States, and industry
    across the country. Our job as an Agency is to take those
    comments and respond to them on the record, and make an
    informed decision as we finalize a rule.
        The reason that process matters is how you reach consensus.
    I mean, that is how you reach an informed decision that
    actually takes into consideration all the various regions
    across the country, the impact of a rule economically, the
    impact of the rule on the environment. When that process is not
    respected, it actually contributes to bad outcomes. And so, I
    mentioned that to you in my opening comment because it matters
    to, I think, the success of working together. We are going to
    do that and refocus our attention there. We should not regulate
    the litigation.
        You know, one of the things that was a very, very, and
    still remains, a very difficult challenge, is we inherited a
    host of consent decrees. Those consent decrees actually
    sometimes changed the very statutes that you have passed,
    timelines that you have established, substantive obligations
    that you have put into statute, and that just should not be.
    You should not have a court process, litigation, yield to a
    change in statute that Congress has passed.
        And so, this process focus is something that I think will
    yield good outcomes along with a partnership that I have
    mentioned with the States, but also that really key focus on
    what is our authority in meeting the timelines that Congress
    has set. That is the reason the TSCA update, that you passed
    last year, is so important that we meet those deadlines, those
    rules being out, put out, the RFS issue, you know, the RVOs
    that are supposed to come out every November that provides
    certainty to those in the marketplace. That has not been met in
    many years, and so we are going to meet that deadline in
    November.
        So, I appreciate your comments about the process component,
    and it is something that we take seriously.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Ms. McCollum.

                          TIMELY RESPONSES TO LETTERS

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to restate
    something that was touched on by several members here, that the
    budget cut to the categorical grants to States and tribes of 40
    percent is just going to be a nonstarter here. States rely
    heavily on these grants. So do tribes. Even a report from the
    Environmental Council of the States says that Federal funding
    accounts on average for 27 percent of State environmental
    budgets. That is over a quarter of State budgets. And I think
    it is really important to remember that States have the ability
    to return this responsibility back to the EPA, so we have to
    keep this partnership moving forward.
        You mentioned working together. One of the things that I
    asked Secretary Zinke about is the response to Members.
    Sometimes there are things out there happening, and I heard
    people talking about this, that no one is responding back to my
    letter. So, if you could please tell me, is there a policy or a
    guidance you could share with the chairman and I on what we can
    expect for timely responses to both the chairman and I and
    other members of Congress when we submit letters?
        We are hearing that some committees are only going to
    respond to chairmen, and some are not going to respond to rank
    and file members. Do you have such a policy, and if so, could
    you share it with us?
        Mr. Pruitt. You know, I appreciate the question because as
    I went through the confirmation process, I met with roughly 40
    to 45 senators, both Democrat and Republican, many of whom were
    not on the actual EPW Committee, because I wanted to spend time
    with them and hear their concerns. Since having been sworn in,
    I have actually been on Capitol Hill multiple times meeting
    with both Democrat and Republican members.
        It is my belief that it is my job to respond and serve all
    members of Congress, and I look forward to doing so. I
    mentioned I actually was in East Chicago, as I indicated
    earlier, with Senator Donnelly on that very important Superfund
    site that needs new leadership. So, that is something that
    there is not a policy that recognizes majority versus non-
    majority.

                           ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS

        Ms. McCollum. Well, I will call you if I do not think I am
    getting a timely response. Another thing that has just been in
    the news, and I know you saw it, is that there were reports
    that you failed to disclose an email account that you had while
    you were attorney general, the one that is ESP@oklahomaAG.gov.
    This is distressing because at your hearing you said you only
    had two email addresses, and now this third one came forward,
    so you were not completely accurate at the time.
        Senator Whitehouse said that you have had several
    opportunities to correct the record on your emails. In fact, he
    has a letter, which I am going to submit for the record, that
    goes on to say that it has been in a public disclosure of your
    emails that Congress has learned of your relationships with
    energy companies that now regulate the EPA.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. McCollum. So, for the record, can you get back to us,
    regarding what you are using for email addresses as EPA
    administrator, and what other forms of electronic communication
    that you are using, because I want to build a level of trust
    between all of us.
        Mr. Pruitt. If I may, both in my oral testimony as well
    there is a letter actually that I submitted to the EPW
    Committee in May that recognized multiple State email accounts,
    so there has been a consistency there. The representations that
    you are citing are not accurate, so we have informed the
    committee. That was consistent with my oral testimony, and we
    will provide you information about current activities as well.
        [The information follows:]

        The Agency maintains a primary email account to contact the
    Administrator, pruittscott@epa.gov. EPA staff has also
    established secondary accounts in the Agency's Outlook email
    system that are used for calendaring, scheduling, and internal
    communications.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        DEVON ENERGY

        Ms. McCollum. Great. One of the things that has come
    forward and that I have been following is, that when you were
    attorney general, you had a different job than you have now.
    You had a lot of correspondence with Devon Energy, who was
    aggressively challenging rules proposed by the EPA. You sent a
    letter to the EPA while you were AG in Oklahoma urging that the
    EPA overestimated air pollution from natural gas wells, and the
    letter very closely reflected lawyers from Devon Energy. This
    is also something that has been in the public.
        The New York Times is now reporting that Devon Energy is
    reevaluating their settlement posture for illegally emitting 80
    tons per years of hazardous chemicals, like benzene, which is a
    known carcinogen. The company, from reports, is now backing
    away from an agreement to install a system to detect and reduce
    leaks of dangerous gas. Additionally, the company now, after
    agreeing and admitting that it violated the law, is backing
    away from a proposed settlement, which has a 6-figure penalty
    claim back to the taxpayers down to $25,000.
        Based on your relationship with Devon Energy when you were
    attorney general, how do you plan on handling this issue? Are
    you going to recuse yourself because now you are at the EPA? Is
    someone else going to be looking at it? Because as you said, we
    want to work together, and so I bring these articles up not to
    play gotcha politics, but to create an honest and open dialogue
    about how the EPA is going to be conducted so that we can work
    together.
        Mr. Pruitt. I appreciate you not making presumptions,
    Ranking Member McCollum. I would say to you that as far as
    enforcement is concerned, I talked about that in my opening
    comments. Enforcement matters to me. You mentioned my time as
    attorney general. We had a grand jury that I led. We had
    significant enforcement activities.
        I understand that there are bad actors in the marketplace.
    There are individuals and companies that discharge toxics and
    pollutants into our water, and they need to be prosecuted.
    There are people that engage in fraud under our RIN system with
    respect to RFS. There are folks that violate permits that we
    have established with respect to air attainment.
        So, all those things--but I am trying to respond to your
    question here.

                              LAWSUITS AGAINST EPA

        Ms. McCollum. I know you are, but at the same time you are
    painting one side of it. You also filed multiple lawsuits
    against the EPA.
        Mr. Pruitt. The lawsuits, it is interesting that the
    lawsuits actually are a topic of discussion. We won those
    lawsuits because the Agency was not acting within the authority
    of this body. The reason lawsuits were filed, 31 States filed a
    lawsuit against the EPA for the WOTUS rule, is because they
    acted outside of their authority. The reason 27 States sued the
    EPA under the Clean Power Plan is the same thing. This body
    ought to be very jealous of any agency of the executive branch
    flaunting the framework that you have established under any
    statute.

                                  DERA PROGRAM

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady. Real quick. One thing
    I wanted to bring up, and I mentioned this in my opening
    statement, the DERA program. The Agency noted that 10.3 million
    legacy diesel fleet engines are still in use. Also in the
    report, the EPA estimated over 1 million of the oldest and
    dirtiest diesel engines will still remain in use until 2030.
        The Inland Empire in California where I live was part of
    the South Coast Air Quality District, which has been in
    nonattainment for ozone for about as long as a Federal standard
    for ozone has existed, but it is not for a lack of trying. As I
    mentioned, we have been regulating air quality longer than any
    other area on the planet, and implementing some of the most
    stringent air pollution control measures.
        We have done all we can do pretty much to reduce emissions
    from stationary sources. Our issue is the amount of cars and
    trucks, and you mentioned mobile sources. That is the problem.
    And we also have two of the largest port facilities in the
    United States, the Port of L.A. and the Port of Long Beach,
    which are responsible for 40 percent of all U.S. container
    cargo in the United States. These containers are loaded onto
    trucks, which then travel through my district to the rest of
    the country.
        Mobile sources contribute to about 80 percent of the air
    quality in the South Coast region. I think there is about 20-
    some, 26, 27 million people who live in the Los Angeles Basin.
        We have made significant progress in improving air quality.
    However, largely due to the topography, a large volume of
    transportation occurs in and around the Inland Empire. We need
    some additional resources to make those improvements. That is
    why we fund the Targeted Air Shed Grant Program, provide
    additional resources to areas across the Nation that need help
    to meet air quality standards. The same is true for DERA
    grants. And as I mentioned in my opening statement, I
    appreciated the announcement with flexibility for
    implementation of the 2015 ozone standard because communities
    are just starting to work to meet the 2008 standards.
        The Fiscal Year 2017 omnibus directed EPA to send a report
    to Congress regarding administrative options for regulatory
    relief as States and communities attempt to comply with both
    the 2008 and 2015 standards. In response, EPA has convened a
    task force, as you mentioned, to examine what options may be
    available.
        So, my question is, in your opinion, how can we accelerate
    the process for some of these communities to reach their
    attainment goals?
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, I do want to address DERA for a second. I
    think it is a very important program. The GAO has found a
    duplication across Federal agencies, and the mission behind
    DERA is right, and we believe it should be funded. I think this
    committee should give direction on how it should be funded,
    that we are committed to that DERA Program and believe it is
    important, however you choose to achieve that.
        With respect to how do we improve attainment, I mean, I
    think a lot of it, Mr. Chairman, is restoring that joint
    cooperation through compliance and assistance, equipping those
    at the local level to achieve better outcomes, but I do think
    some of it may be legislative. I do really believe that
    addressing some of the issues we talked about earlier with
    ozone is something that this body ought to consider.
        But air attainment in our NAAQS program is some of the best
    work we can do as a Nation to impact health outcomes. And it
    should be an absolute priority of our Agency working with
    Congress to achieve those outcomes.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. As I mentioned when we started the
    meeting, we were trying to finish this by 1:00 because we have
    a meeting for the full committee I have to attend. So, if any
    real quick comments because we are going to wrap this up. [No
    response.]
        I see none. I appreciate you being here, Administrator
    Pruitt. Very quickly, Mr. Kilmer.

                          GENERATIONAL BURDEN OF DEBT

        Mr. Kilmer. I appreciate it, Chairman. I will keep it
    quick. My colleague from Oklahoma in our last hearing made a
    very thoughtful comment about the generational burden of debt.
    There are a lot of moms in this room who are concerned about
    the generational burden of climate change on the next
    generation, and the inability of our government to do something
    about it.
        I understand that there is going to be a difference of
    opinion on the Paris Climate Accord. What I do not get is the
    complete elimination of some of the programs that are not even
    mandatory, things like the Energy Star Program. You know, there
    is a whole list of them in your budget. The Natural Gas Star
    Program, which is a voluntary program to reduce methane leaks.
    Things like the Combined Heat and Power Partnership to promote
    use of wasted heat, saving both energy and water and reducing
    pollution.
        If you can just take a quick minute to help explain why all
    of those programs are wiped.
        Mr. Calvert. Well, I can answer. I am going to work with
    you to make sure that we address those issues. I suspect he has
    to defend his budget, but I am going to work with you to make
    sure that we work with that.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Any other comments? [No response.]
        I appreciate your attendance. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Pruitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    McCollum.
        Mr. Calvert. We are adjourned.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               W I T N E S S E S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Buchanan, Rear Admiral Chris.....................................     1
    Church, Ann......................................................     1
    Embrey-Arras, Melissa............................................    51
    Ferriter, Olivia.................................................   189
    Flanagan, Denise.................................................   189
    Greaves, Holly...................................................   385
    Hartz, Gary......................................................     1
    King, Kathleen...................................................    51
    Perdue, Hon. Sonny...............................................   117
    Pruitt, Scott....................................................   385
    Rusco, Frank.....................................................    51
    Tidwell, Tom.....................................................   117
    Toedt, Captain Michael...........................................     1
    Zinke, Hon. Ryan.................................................   189

                                   I N D E X

                                  ----------

                             Indian Health Service
                         2018 Budget Oversight Hearing
                                  May 24, 2017

                                                                       Page

    Biography--Ann Church............................................    13

    Biography--CAPT Michael Toedt, M.D...............................    12

    Biography--Gary J. Hartz.........................................    14

    Biography--Acting Director RADM Chris Buchanan...................    11

    Budget Formulary.................................................    50

    Centralized Credentialing........................................    38

    Construction Backlog.............................................    34

    Current Services.................................................    34

    Department of Veterans Affairs: Memorandum of Understanding......    47

    Facility Needs Assessment Report to Congress--2016...............    17

    Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request

    Government Accountability Office (GAO) High Risk Report

    Great Plains

    Maintaining Current Services.....................................    15

    Maintenance Backlog

    Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert..............................     1

    Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum..................................     2

    Opening Remarks of Acting Director RADM Chris Buchanan...........     4

    Opioid Epidemic..................................................    30

    Overview--Indian Health Service..................................    40

    Patient Wait Times

    Purchased and Referred Care: Allocation Methodology..............    43

    Quality Framework and Office of Quality Healthcare...............    43

    Questions for the Record from Chairman Calvert...................    33

    Questions for the Record from Mr. Kilmer.........................    49

    Questions for the Record from Mr. Simpson........................    38

    Questions for the Record from Ms. McCollum.......................    40

    Recruitment and Retention

    Sanitation Facilities: Backlog...................................    31

    Sanitation Facilities: Funding for Construction..................    49

    Special Diabetes Program for Indians

    Staffing.........................................................    17

    Statement of RADM Chris Buchanan.................................     6

    Third Party Payments and Medicare Coverage.......................    44

    Urban Indian Health Program......................................    46

              High Risk American Indian and Alaska Native Programs
                        (Education, Health Care, Energy)
         U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Oversight Hearing
                                  May 24, 2017

    Agency Cooperation...............................................   110

    Assistance to Agencies...........................................    98

    Biography--Frank Rusco...........................................    92

    Biography--Kathleen King.........................................    93

    Biography--Melissa Emrey-Arras...................................    91

    Bureau of Indian Education: Construction.........................   104

    Bureau of Indian Education: Construction Delays..................   105

    Bureau of Indian Education: Safety Concerns

    Congressional Action

    Energy...........................................................   113

    GAO High Risk Report.............................................   108

    GAO High Risk Report: Tribal Programs............................    97

    Health Care......................................................   114

    Indian Loan Guarantee Program....................................   103

    Leadership.......................................................   102

    Medicare Rates...................................................   104

    Offshore Accounts................................................    99

    Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert..............................    51

    Opening Remarks of Ms. Emrey-Arras...............................    53

    Opening Remarks of Mr. Frank Rusco...............................    94

    Opening Remarks of Ms. Kathleen King.............................    96

    Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum..................................    52

    Questions for the Record from Chairman Calvert...................   108

    Recovery of Funds................................................    99

    Staffing and Training............................................    99

    Staffing: Turnover...............................................   102

    Statement of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).....    55

                              U.S. Forest Service
                   Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Oversight Hearing
                                  May 25, 2017

    2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act Directives..................   131

    Aviation Assets

    Bark Beetle......................................................   154

    Biography--Chief Thomas L. Tidwell...............................   130

    Biography--Secretary Sonny Perdue................................   129

    Budget: Accountability...........................................   120

    California Forests

    Capital Improvement and Maintenance..............................   174

    Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program

    Community and Urban Forestry Program.............................   169

    Deferred Maintenance, OIG Report.................................   177

    Department of Labor: Overtime and Minimum Wage...................   147

    Drinking Water...................................................   179

    Ecosystem Services...............................................   180

    Emerald Ash Borer................................................   150

    Fire Funding

    Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request

    Forest Legacy

    Forest Products Lab

    Forest Restoration...............................................   186

    Forest Service Museum............................................   168

    Forest Stewardship Program.......................................   139

    Grazing..........................................................   145

    Groundwater Directive............................................   165

    Invasive Species.................................................   153

    K-V Authority....................................................   184

    Land Management..................................................   135

    Legacy Roads and Trails

    Litigation

    Mining Withdrawal................................................   133

    Monongahela National Forest: Flood Recovery

    Monongahela National Forest: Timber Sales and Species Habitat

    Olympic National Forest..........................................   185

    Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert..............................   117

    Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum..................................   118

    Opening Remarks of Secretary Sonny Perdue........................   120

    Outfitters and Guides: Permitting System.........................   178

    Proactive Forest Management......................................   182

    Program Management...............................................   122

    Questions for the Record from Chairman Calvert...................   156

    Questions for the Record from Mr. Amodei.........................   169

    Questions for the Record from Mr. Jenkins........................   170

    Questions for the Record from Mr. Kilmer.........................   182

    Questions for the Record from Mr. Simpson........................   166

    Questions for the Record from Ms. McCollum.......................   173

    Questions for the Record from Ms. Pingree........................   181

    Recreational Access

    Reorganization of USDA

    Roads............................................................   122

    Staffing.........................................................   164

    State and Private Forestry Program

    Statement of Chief Tom Tidwell...................................   126

    Statement of Secretary Sonny Perdue..............................   123

    Terrestrial Condition Assessment (TCA)...........................   156

    Urban and Community Forestry

    USDA Mission Areas...............................................   150

    Volunteers.......................................................   178

    Watersheds

                           Department of the Interior
                   Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Oversight Hearing
                                  June 8, 2017

    Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Economic Grants........................   215

    Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Fund...................................   329

    Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Pilot Program

    Accessibility to Data and Data Acquisition.......................   336

    Algal Blooms.....................................................   234

    American Battlefield Protection Program..........................   332

    Antiquities Act

    Aquatic Drug Approval Program Cuts...............................   376

    Arctic National Wildlife Refuge..................................   348

    Asian Carp

    Bears Ears National Monument

    Biography--Denise A. Flanagan....................................   214

    Biography--Olivia Barton Ferriter................................   213

    Biography--Secretary Ryan Zinke..................................   211

    Budget Reductions: Economic Impacts..............................   334

    Bureau of Indian Education (BIE): Construction

    Bureau of Land Management (BLM): National Conservation Lands.....   340

    Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Pilot Office Program............   319

    Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Realty Staffing and Specialists.

    Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM): Management and Planning   377

    BWCA Mining......................................................   277

    Chesapeake Bay...................................................   357

    Climate Change

    Coal.............................................................   356

    Colorado River Basin.............................................   321

    Congressional Inquiries..........................................   372

    Earthquakes

    Elwha Water Facilities...........................................   379

    Employment.......................................................   264

    Endangered Species Act

    Endangered Species Recovery......................................   368

    Energy

    Energy: Offshore Workforce Safety................................   345

    Energy: Regulation...............................................   228

    Facilities.......................................................   224

    Federal Register Publishing

    Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request

    GAO High Risk Indian Programs: Education

    GAO High Risk Indian Programs: Indian Energy.....................   309

    Grand Canyon Uranium Mining......................................   277

    Grants and Cooperative Agreements

    Great Lakes

    Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI)

    Indian Affairs

    Infrastructure...................................................   196

    Katahdin Woods and Waters........................................   237

    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)

    Land Transfers and Sales

    Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and Science Support..........   368

    Law Enforcement

    Lead Ammunition..................................................   353

    Letters of Inquiry

    Maintenance Backlog

    Mill Springs Battlefield: Special Resources Study................   332

    Minimum Wage and Overtime Rules..................................   241

    National Heritage Areas..........................................   224

    National Monuments...............................................   317

    National Park Foundation.........................................   317

    National Park Service (NPS): Centennial

    National Park Service (NPS): Operations..........................   282

    National Park Service (NPS): Outsourcing.........................   371

    Native American Programs

    Native Plants and National Seed Strategy.........................   297

    Oil and Gas Development..........................................   301

    Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert..............................   189

    Opening Remarks of Chairman Frelinghuysen........................   193

    Opening Remarks of Mrs. Lowey....................................   194

    Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum..................................   191

    Opening Remarks of Secretary Zinke...............................   195

    Paris Agreement..................................................   191

    Partnerships

    Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT)

    Permitting and Permit Process

    Public Lands.....................................................   358

    Public Lands in Utah.............................................   240

    Questions for the Record from Chairman Calvert...................   280

    Questions for the Record from Mr. Amodei.........................   324

    Questions for the Record from Mr. Jenkins........................   328

    Questions for the Record from Mr. Kilmer.........................   379

    Questions for the Record from Mr. Rogers.........................   332

    Questions for the Record from Mr. Simpson........................   316

    Questions for the Record from Mr. Stewart........................   319

    Questions for the Record from Ms. Kaptur.........................   382

    Questions for the Record from Ms. McCollum.......................   334

    Questions for the Record from Ms. Pingree........................   374

    RECLAIM Act......................................................   216

    Recreation.......................................................   364

    Regulation Review................................................   352

    Renewable Energy

    Reorganization

    Revenues.........................................................   369

    Right-of-Way.....................................................   270

    Sage Grouse

    Science..........................................................   192

    Scientific Advisory Boards and Scientific Integrity..............   340

    Scotty's Castle..................................................   283

    Sexual Assault...................................................   342

    Staffing and Employment

    Staffing: Offshore

    Statement of Secretary Ryan Zinke................................   199

    Superior National Forest & Boundary Waters: Mining Withdrawal....   373

    Trust Responsibility.............................................   350

    Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles: USGS/BLM Habitat Mapping...........   326

    USGS: Earthquake Early Warning System

    USGS: Geomagnetism Program

    USGS: Whooping Crane Program.....................................   368

    Well Control Rule................................................   303

    White Sulphur Springs National Fish Hatchery

    Wild Horses and Burros

    Wilderness.......................................................   364

    Wildland Fire....................................................   190

    Wildlife Refuges.................................................   375

    World War II Memorial

                        Environmental Protection Agency
                   Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Oversight Hearing
                                 June 15, 2017

    Accessibility to Data and Data Acquisition.......................   503

    Administrative Procedures Act....................................   429

    Air Pollution....................................................   502

    Alternative Dispute Resolution: Elimination......................   534

    American Energy Jobs.............................................   553

    Biography--Administrator Scott Pruitt............................   399

    Biography--Holly Greaves.........................................   400

    Black River Area of Concern......................................   424

    Brownfields......................................................   540

    Carbon Dioxide (CO2)..................................   417

    Categorical Grants for States and Tribes.........................   510

    Chesapeake Bay...................................................   518

    Children's Health: Environmental Impact..........................   537

    Chlorpyrifos

    Clean Air Act....................................................   410

    Clean Power Plan.................................................   534

    Clean Power Plant, WOTUS, 2015 Ozone.............................   427

    Clean Water Act (CWA): Impaired Water of Lake Erie...............   546

    Climate Change...................................................   552

    Climate Change: GAO High Risk Area...............................   534

    Combined Heat and Power Partnership..............................   533

    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
      Act (CERCLA)...................................................   485

    Congressional Inquiries

    Devon Energy.....................................................   470

    Diesel Emissions Reductions (DERA) Grants........................   471

    Drinking Water...................................................   526

    Ecolabels

    Electric Communications..........................................   431

    Endocrine Disruptors Program.....................................   403

    Energy Policy

    ENERGY Star Program

    Enforcement

    Environmental Justice

    Environmental Monitoring.........................................   533

    Fiscal Year 2017 Enacted Budget: Implementation..................   492

    Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request

    Funding to States................................................   548

    Generational Burden of Debt......................................   472

    Glyphosate.......................................................   421

    Great Lakes

    Great Lakes Legacy Act: Contaminated Sediments...................   413

    Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI): Proposed Cuts.........   426

    Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GRLI)........................   423

    Hazardous Substance: Superfund Account...........................   522

    Hydrofluorocarbons...............................................   500

    Lake Erie: Health................................................   423

    Lake Erie: Tri-State Body of Water...............................   425

    Lawsuits.........................................................   470

    Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST).........................   525

    Long Island Sound................................................   557

    Marine Pollution.................................................   526

    Merging Regional Offices.........................................   532

    National Estuary Program.........................................   540

    National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences..............   554

    National Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory...................   529

    New Source Review................................................   428

    Office of Water..................................................   502

    Opening Remarks of Administrator Pruitt..........................   389

    Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert..............................   385

    Opening Remarks of Ms. Lowey.....................................   388

    Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum..................................   387

    Ozone

    Paris Agreement

    Personnel Reductions.............................................   410

    Pesticide Registration Improvement Act Reauthorization (PRIA)....   401

    Pollution Prevention.............................................   525

    Proposed Cuts to Cincinnati, OH Lab..............................   425

    Proposed Program Cuts............................................   405

    Puget Sound

    Questions for the Record from Chairman Calvert...................   473

    Questions for the Record from Mr. Amodei.........................   485

    Questions for the Record from Mr. Jenkins........................   490

    Questions for the Record from Mr. Kilmer.........................   542

    Questions for the Record from Mr. Simpson........................   476

    Questions for the Record from Mr. Stewart........................   484

    Questions for the Record from Ms. Kaptur.........................   546

    Questions for the Record from Ms. Lowey..........................   552

    Questions for the Record from Ms. McCollum.......................   492

    Questions for the Record from Ms. Pingree........................   540

    Region 5: Great Lakes Office Closure.............................   425

    Regulation Review................................................   513

    Renewable Fuel Standards.........................................   486

    Renewable Fuel Standards: Blend Wall.............................   487

    Research and Development.........................................   529

    Rewriting Executive Orders.......................................   473

    Rule of Law

    Rulemaking.......................................................   408

    Rural Water Technical Assistance Program.........................   401

    Schedule and Travel Budget.......................................   499

    Science Advisory Board...........................................   504

    Science and Research Funding.....................................   550

    Serious Non-Attainment Areas.....................................   484

    Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP)

    Staff Reductions.................................................   512

    Staffing and Employee Morale.....................................   511

    State Implementation Plans (SIPs)

    State Obligation.................................................   485

    Statement of Administrator Scott Pruitt..........................   392

    States and Rural Communities.....................................   411

    Superfund and Brownfields: Budget Request vs. Needs..............   474

    Superfund Program: Hudson River PCBs.............................   554

    Superfund Sites..................................................   404

    Superfund Special Accounts.......................................   475

    TMDL.............................................................   476

    Toxics and Peer Review...........................................   521

    Toxics Funding...................................................   541

    Tribal Assistance Programs

    Tribal Treaty Rights and Tribal Consultation.....................   537

    U.S. Global Change Research Program..............................   501

    Undisclosed Email Accounts.......................................   493

    Voluntary Programs...............................................   500

    Water Infrastructure.............................................   547

    Water Pollution..................................................   501

    Water Sense Program..............................................   541

    Waters of the United States (WOTUS)..............................   486

    Wood Heater Standards............................................   540