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

                        INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED
                         AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2019

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                     HEARINGS

                                     BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                  SECOND 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, Betsy Bina,
                       Jaclyn Kilroy, and Kristin Richmond
                                Subcommittee Staff

                                      ____

                                      PART 6

                                                                       Page
      Department of the Interior............
                                                                          1
      Smithsonian Institution...............
                                                                        149
      Indian Health Service.................
                                                                        181
      Environmental Protection Agency.......
                                                                        243

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ___________

              Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

                                  ____________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

       30-666                  WASHINGTON : 2018

                          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)

      INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2019

                                  ----------

                                             Wednesday, April 11, 2018.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                                   WITNESSES

    HON. RYAN ZINKE, SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
    OLIVIA BARTON FERRITER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUDGET, FINANCE,
        PERFORMANCE, AND ACQUISITION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
    DENISE A. FLANAGAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE
        INTERIOR

                      Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert

        Mr. Calvert. The committee will come to order.
        Before we begin, I want to take a moment and announce that
    yesterday the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
    California voted to provide additional funds to build the Cal
    WaterFix, which I know you are aware of, Mr. Secretary. It is a
    big deal. I am happy that the project is moving forward.
    Providing consistent water supply to the people of Southern
    California has been a long-term goal of mine, and I know a lot
    of people feel the same way. So, we are making progress.
        Now on to the business of the day. This morning, I would
    like to welcome to the subcommittee the 52d Secretary of the
    Interior, Ryan Zinke. Joining the Secretary this morning is
    Olivia Ferriter, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget,
    Finance, Performance, and Acquisition, as well as Denise
    Flanagan, Director, Office of Budget.
        Our hearing today will address the fiscal year 2019 budget
    priorities for the Department of the Interior. We look forward
    to you outlining your goals for the Department and discussing a
    variety of important issues with us this morning.
        We are very pleased to have recently completed work on the
    fiscal year 2018 budget. The Interior division of the omnibus
    made tremendous strides by providing over $500 million to
    address longstanding deferred maintenance needs across the
    Department's various bureaus.
        Within Indian Country, we provided funding to increase
    school construction, law enforcement, road maintenance, and
    water settlements. We allocate an additional $255 million to
    the National Park Service, with an emphasis on park operations
    and deferred maintenance. Also, we provided $530 million to
    fully fund the Payments in Lieu of Taxes, the so-called PILT
    program.
        But, as you know, Mr. Secretary, last year's challenges
    remain this year's challenges. As we approach the fiscal year
    2019 budget, we will continue addressing the maintenance
    backlog in our national parks, across the various Interior
    bureaus, meeting our legal and moral obligations throughout
    Indian Country, funding PILT, and numerous other challenges.
    This subcommittee remains committed to working with the
    Department to seek solutions to these and many other issues.
        Overall, the President's fiscal year 2019 budget request
    provides $10.6 billion in discretionary funding for the
    Department of the Interior programs under this subcommittee's
    jurisdiction, which is $2.4 billion below the fiscal year 2018
    enacted level. In fiscal year 2018, Congress clearly had some
    priorities that were not included in your budget request, and I
    suspect that may be the case again this year.
        In bipartisan fashion under both Republican and Democratic
    Chairmen, this subcommittee has made a concerted effort to
    address the greatest needs throughout Indian Country.
    Education, healthcare, and law enforcement issues continue to
    be nonpartisan subcommittee priorities, particularly those that
    are on the GAO high-risk list. We welcome your active
    involvement working with us and our American Indian and Alaskan
    Native brothers and sisters.
        Another challenge facing the Department and the
    subcommittee is the Endangered Species Act. The ESA is a well-
    intended statute to save numerous species from extinction, but
    actually recovering and delisting species remain a challenge
    and an increasing source of frustration for States and many
    local communities. This frustration is demonstrated in many
    ways, including the number of ESA riders which we have had on
    our appropriation bills in recent years.
        The path forward is through partnerships in the field
    rather than as adversaries in courtrooms and hearing rooms. The
    subcommittee has heard from States and nongovernmental partners
    that are willing and able to take on larger roles under the ESA
    when the Federal Government treats them as equal partners.
    Flexibilities already inherent in the ESA make these
    partnerships possible, and the subcommittee is working on a
    bipartisan basis to foster more of them. We appreciate the Fish
    and Wildlife Service's willingness to change from within, but
    we also need your continued leadership. We need conservation
    without conflict.
        I am glad to see that the USGS budget includes full funding
    for Landsat 9 and proposes funding for domestic and critical
    minerals inventory. However, again, it proposes to eliminate
    the earthquake warning system despite the fact that the West
    Coast, and my home State of California, are counting on the
    survey to develop this technology. It is safe to say that this
    subcommittee won't agree to eliminate this program. Instead, I
    hope you will work with us to ensure that fiscal year 2018
    funding is spent effectively and appropriately and that you
    will provide the subcommittee with the data we need to make
    informed decisions for fiscal year 2019.
        Lastly, we look forward to hearing the latest on your
    proposal to reorganize the Department under a framework of
    common regional boundaries across the Department bureaus. I
    applaud your effort to identify efficiencies and reduce
    redundancies. I also want to stress the importance of seeking
    input from many stakeholders at the Federal, State, tribal, and
    local level and even Members of Congress who are affected by
    such changes.
        In closing, again this year I want to express my
    appreciation to your outstanding professional staff. Our
    subcommittee couldn't do its work without your budget shop, the
    various bureaus, and the talented people sitting next to you
    and behind you. Thanks to each of you for all that you do.
        And, with that, I am happy to yield to the gentlelady from
    Minnesota, Ms. McCollum, for any opening remarks she would like
    to make.

                        Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Zinke, thank you for being with us this morning.
        We are here to discuss President Trump's second budget.
        Two months ago, Congress passed a bipartisan budget
    agreement to increase nondefense discretionary spending for 2
    years. Three weeks ago, the fiscal year 2018 omnibus bill was
    enacted into law with both Democratic and Republican votes.
    This omnibus sent a clear message that Congress rejects
    President Trump's reckless proposals, which would exploit our
    natural resources, starve our Federal agencies of the funding
    they need to meet their critical missions, and jeopardize a
    legacy we would leave for future generations.
        The proposed reduction of $2.5 billion for Interior is
    staggering. To me, it indicates a deliberate disregard for that
    agreement.
        It is disappointing but not surprising that worthwhile
    investments that we made across the bureaus, including the
    highest funding levels in years to address the maintenance
    backlogs in our national parks and other Federal lands, are
    being undone. President Trump's first year in office has been
    remarkably damaging to our environment, public health, and
    natural resources, and today we will discuss some of those
    damaging policies.
        The national monuments review has proven to be a sham, with
    preconceptions that benefit the fossil fuel industry. Last
    year, you said, and I quote, ``Bears Ears really isn't about
    oil and gas.'' Investigative reporting by The New York Times
    has found gaining access to oil, natural gas, and uranium
    reserves played a central role in shrinking Bears Ears by
    nearly 85 percent.
        Your staff also developed projections on coal deposits to
    justify reducing the Grand Staircase monument by 47 percent.
        The pristine and diverse ecosystems protected in the Arctic
    National Wildlife Refuge is threatened by a relentless and
    hasty pushing for drilling. This irresponsible proposal was
    pushed through in the Republican tax scam--yet another one of
    the bill's giveaways to big corporations and billionaires. And
    even the tax bill explodes the Federal deficit by nearly $2
    trillion. The revenue claimed from drilling in ANWR is totally
    unsupported by the data.
        The reckless push to mine and drill in our public lands is
    also hitting my home State, where sulfide ore mining poses a
    critical risk to the Voyageurs National Park and the Boundary
    Waters Wilderness Canoe Area. Officials in the Interior
    Department recently renewed grants to a Chilean mining company
    as a nondiscretionary right to renew two mining leases on the
    doorsteps of the country's most visited national wilderness.
        I am not even going to get into your flawed rollout of the
    5-year offshore leasing plan and how you promised to remove
    areas before the comment period was even over.
        Although the outcry on these policies has been great, the
    harm done by the Trump administration extends beyond drilling
    and mining issues. It has impacted the integrity of science,
    access to our parks, and now threatens to disrupt the entire
    Interior Department as you propose to create a new
    organizational model with no foundational analysis.
        The Department's science programs provide data and tools to
    inform sound science in making decisions to address complex
    challenges such as drought, natural disasters, and climate
    change. Scientific integrity is essential to ensure that there
    is no bias or preconceived agenda in the information issued by
    the Department.
        And I am particularly concerned that senior leadership at
    the Department requested the U.S. Geological Survey to violate
    its policies regarding USGS data.
        Furthermore, the Center for Investigative Reporting found
    the National Park Service deleted every mention of climate
    change from drafts and the long-awaited report on sea-level
    rise and storm surge. These findings contradict your March
    testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
    Committee in which you stated there were no instances when DOI
    changed even a comma in a report. You even challenged any
    member to find an altered document, and now we have that proof.
        This clear interference of political leadership is forcing
    employees to violate their scientific integrity policies, and
    it must stop.
        I am very disappointed in the way that you rolled out your
    proposal to dramatically increase the fees at the 17 national
    parks with little analysis or consideration of public access.
    Tens of thousands of Americans voiced their opposition through
    public comment periods, and, thankfully, so far, sir, you have
    listened.
        You have stated that you want to reorganize the Department
    for the next 100 years and are proposing 13 new regions. But I
    have serious concerns, and I have asked to talk to you about
    this numerous times. You are not able to share any analysis on
    the effects of the proposal. You have had no formal public
    input. You have not solicited comments from other agencies. And
    you have not conducted meaningful tribal consultation. I have
    heard this directly from the tribes.
        Mr. Secretary, you must do better.
        The department that serves the American public, that tells
    the story of America, should reflect America's diversity and
    should never marginalize minorities. In June, when you
    reassigned 33 career senior executives, almost half of them
    were minorities, 40 percent were women, 30 percent were Native
    Americans. This apparent discrimination is wrong.
        Mr. Secretary, your task is to protect, preserve, and use
    resources wisely for the benefit of the American people today
    and for future generations, and right now I personally do not
    feel you are living up to that mission.
        For the record, I want to be clear: There is a place for
    responsible resource development on our public lands. But it
    must be balanced, and it must be sustainable. I find it
    alarming that this administration continues to prioritize
    energy dominance and profits for the fossil fuel industry over
    the protection of our national treasures, conservation of our
    natural habitat, and our responsibilities to the American
    people. This budget is unacceptable.
        But, Mr. Chairman, I am pledging to work with you to ensure
    that the Department of the Interior has the necessary funding
    so that all Americans can continue to enter into our natural
    lands and our cultural resources for today and for future
    generations.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, and I appreciate your testimony.
        And next we are joined today by our distinguished chairman
    of the full committee, Chairman Frelinghuysen, and thank him
    for taking the time to contribute to this important
    conversation.

                   Opening Remarks of Chairman Frelinghuysen

        The Chairman. Well, thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman, you are welcome.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time. I want
    to thank you and Mrs. Lowey on my behalf for your leadership of
    this important committee.
        And, of course, I also welcome our Secretary of the
    Interior, Ryan Zinke, a former Member and colleague, back. We
    welcome your testimony and hearing your frank and candid views
    on many issues.
        As I say at every meeting, the power of the purse resides
    here on the Hill. We have done, through your leadership, Mr.
    Chairman, and Ms. McCollum's, good work for the 2018 budget. As
    well, we can anticipate the same type of devotion of you and
    your staff and your committee towards the 2019 product.
        When I travel across the 11th Congressional District in New
    Jersey, the Department of the Interior's strong presence cannot
    be missed. We have two national historic parks--actually, the
    oldest in the country, established in my hometown in 1933,
    called the Morristown National Historical Park. We also have
    the Thomas Edison National Historical Park in West Orange.
    Additionally, we have the National Wildlife Refuge System's
    Great Swamp Wildlife Refuge, which--let this fact be known--was
    established by my father when he was a Member of Congress.
        There is no conflict in our neck of the woods about the job
    that the Department of the Interior is doing. There may be
    conflict in the West, but in our neck of the woods, Mr.
    Secretary, we hold the people who work for the Department of
    the Interior in high regard. I just want you to know that.
        And may I say, I am concerned that there are cuts across
    the Park Service and particularly in the area of Fish and
    Wildlife. I, personally, will be taking a very close look at
    that. Hopefully, the committee will as well.
        Lastly, I would say, apropos of some of the remarks that
    have been given, New Jersey has a shoreline of about 127 miles.
    All members of our congressional delegation have opposed,
    historically, for the last 20 or 30 years, offshore drilling. I
    understand the administration may have contrary views, but I
    hope that in the coming weeks and perhaps with the benefit of
    your testimony this morning that you recognize, obviously, the
    concerns that many of us have on the East Coast of the United
    States, that we don't want oil drilling in our neck of the
    woods.
         Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        I am also pleased to see the ranking member of the full
    committee, Mrs. Lowey, is here today. I am happy to yield the
    gentlelady her time.

                         Opening Remarks of Mrs. Lowey

        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member
    McCollum for holding this hearing. And I welcome Secretary
    Zinke before the subcommittee.
        Secretary Zinke, it has been a little over a year since you
    took your oath of office. Despite your testimony last year
    indicating a commitment to preserving America's public lands
    for generations to come, your actions have strayed from that
    promise.
        Under your leadership, the Department of the Interior has
    brushed off expressed opposition from Native Americans in order
    to reduce the size of two important national monuments, Bears
    Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante; proposed drilling in the
    Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in Atlantic waters;
    weakened protections for endangered species; proposed to
    significantly raise entrance fees at national parks, which I am
    thankful you are reconsidering; and worked to unravel
    environmental protections and important steps to combat climate
    change.
        If funding must be cut so severely that we jeopardize our
    environment, conservation efforts, and the accessibility of our
    National Parks, some of our most precious resources, then I
    expect that the same would be true of your travel arrangements
    and the accoutrements in which you surround yourself. Doors
    costing $139,000, about which you did not notify this
    committee, in contravention of section 710 of the Financial
    Services and General Government Appropriations bill, and
    extravagant trips have violated trust with this institution and
    with American taxpayers.
        I am disappointed that your budget reflects a continued
    adherence to your misguided priorities. For instance, some of
    your actions, like flying a flag when present at the Department
    or handing out commemorative coins with your name on them,
    indicate that perhaps your ego has gotten in the way of doing
    the business of the people.
        The fiscal year 2019 budget proposes a reduction of $2.5
    billion to your department, a 19-percent reduction from the
    fiscal year 2018 omnibus. This second Trump administration
    budget would eliminate several programs of importance, such as
    the National Heritage Areas in your Interior budget as well as
    the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities and the
    Woodrow Wilson Center.
        I certainly could go on to list the many aspects of your
    budget that value political agenda and mismanagement above the
    interest of the taxpayers, but my time is limited.
        With that, I look forward to your testimony.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady for her testimony.
        And, with that, Mr. Secretary, you may proceed with your
    opening statement.

                       Opening Remarks of Secretary Zinke

        Secretary Zinke. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
    Members, even though the openings were false and misleading and
    blatantly untruthful.
        Having said that, thank you for the opportunity to testify
    in support of President Trump's fiscal year 2019 budget for
    Department of the Interior.
        With your permission, I would like to make my entire
    opening statement for the record.
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
        Secretary Zinke. The President has made it clear about his
    priorities and is keeping his promises to the American people.
        This budget supports one of those promises in a big way:
    rebuilding our infrastructure. It calls for the largest
    investment in public lands infrastructure in American history.
    And I will repeat that. It calls for the largest investment in
    public lands infrastructure in American history.
        Our public lands, we agree, are our greatest treasures.
    They have suffered serious neglect over the years, and
    Interior's deferred maintenance backlog is $16 billion. And
    $11.6 billion of that belongs in the National Park Service, and
    I can give you 11.6 billion reasons why Congress has not been
    able to fix it.
        The President's budget proposes legislation for a new
    Public Lands Infrastructure Fund to address the deferred
    maintenance problem. This legislation is our top priority. The
    Fund would provide up to $18 billion over 10 years for
    maintenance and improvements in our national parks, our
    national wildlife refuges, and Bureau of Indian Education-
    funded schools.
        It would be funded from energy revenues, all energy
    revenues, on public lands, similar to the Land and Conservation
    Fund. I repeat: all energy, across the board. I believe it is a
    fair proposition to say if you are going to gain wealth from
    energy development on public lands, the public lands should in
    fact be preserved and protected from those activities.
        In 2006, 330 million visitors to our parks spent an
    estimated $18.4 billion in local regions nationwide, supporting
    about 318,000 jobs. Clearly, recreation trends are up. All
    Americans should have the opportunity to enjoy our national
    parks, but we need to invest in our infrastructure to go along
    with our record-setting numbers. Quite frankly, many of our
    parks are being loved to death.
        The Public Lands Infrastructure Fund would also support 150
    Bureau of Education schools in 23 States, where the school
    maintenance backlog is about $634 million. Some 48,000 American
    Indian students and their families rely on the Interior to
    deliver a quality education in a safe work environment, but our
    schools are notoriously in poor condition. American Indian
    children deserve a world-class education too.
        This budget also presents the opportunity to reorganize the
    Department for the next 100 years. I look forward to going into
    that in some detail. The budget includes $18 million to shift
    resources to the field and establish unified regional
    boundaries for Interior's bureaus.
        In planning for this reorganization, we continue to take
    into account feedback from Congressional Members, Governors,
    and Interior employees, conservation groups, and all
    stakeholders. We are basing these new boundaries on science, to
    include such things as watersheds, wildlife corridors,
    ecosystems, so we can better manage our public lands and waters
    in a more coordinated way based on the American conservation
    ethic of best science, best practice, greatest good, longest
    term.
        This budget also recognizes American strength relies on
    American energy. Under President Trump, we are pursuing energy
    dominance. Today, I am happy to report this country is
    producing about 10.6 million barrels a day. First time in 60
    years, we are a net exporter of liquid natural gas. We are soon
    to become the largest oil and natural gas producer in the
    world.
        This budget requests a $43 million increase for American
    energy development to continue our revenue growth from
    production. President Trump's tax cuts and smart regulation are
    helping to grow the economy and increase our energy portfolios
    so we can achieve American prosperity.
        Our total budget request for fiscal year 2019 is $11.7
    billion. This budget clearly lays out the Administration's top
    priorities of strongly supporting the American people and
    rebuilding our infrastructure, fixing our schools, achieving
    energy dominance, and being fiscally responsible. I remind you
    that the budget deficit is about $1 trillion this year.
        With that, thank you for your continued support of the
    Department. I appreciate your hard work. And I appreciate a
    cordial and fruitful discussion with all members.
        [The statement of Secretary Zinke follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 REORGANIZATION

        Mr. Calvert. Well, I thank the gentleman for coming here
    today. We have a number of things that we would like to
    discuss.
        Last September, the Department unveiled a reorganization
    proposal that you mentioned in your opening testimony. You
    contemplated establishing common regional office boundaries
    across the Department of the Interior bureaus. As I understand
    it, your goal is to improve coordination and decisionmaking
    among the Department's bureaus.
        I applaud your efforts to identify efficiencies and reduce
    redundancies within the Department. I also want to stress the
    importance of seeking input and providing feedback from those
    that are potentially affected. People would like to hear from
    you about all of this, both from the Federal, State, tribal,
    and local level, as this moves forward.
        Can you update the subcommittee on the present status of
    your efforts to reorganize the Department? And what specific
    goals or outcomes are you seeking to achieve?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, thank you.
        Imagine an Interior Department organization that hasn't
    been reorganized in 150 years. Welcome to Interior.
        Let me explain one of the problems. Let's say you have a
    trout and a salmon in the same stream. Let's say upstream you
    have a dam, downstream you have irrigation, and if that stream
    passes by a U.S. Forest Service holding.
        At present, this is how we are managing it: The salmon are
    managed by Department of Commerce through NMFS. The trout are
    managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Upstream, water
    temperature and flow is often the Army Corps of Engineers,
    although it sometimes can be Bureau of Reclamation, depending
    on the dam. Downstream, irrigation is generally Bureau of
    Reclamation. When it passes a Forest Service holding, the
    surface is Department of Agriculture through U.S. Forest
    Service. Subsurface is BLM through me.
        Same stream, same activity. You can have multiple
    biological opinions produced by different bureaus with
    different missions, independently produced, and two or three of
    them are going to be in conflict.
        The chart you have is presently how Interior is managed.
    Looking at that, I challenge you to figure out how Interior can
    get things done currently.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Secretary Zinke. So this is what we did. We asked USGS to
    strip current boundaries and go by science to look at things
    like watersheds, wildlife corridors, and holdings, based on
    science. They had about 13 different variables. Then we took
    the pure science and we brought in our senior SES, our senior
    civil career professionals, and they murder-boarded it, and
    they made recommendations.
        Even though I didn't agree with every recommendation, I
    took every recommendation, and we came with--next slide,
    please--we came up with unified boundaries. There are 13. They
    are similar in some cases to State lines, but mostly they
    follow a watershed line.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Secretary Zinke. Within those new boundaries, they are
    unified so Fish and Wildlife and National Parks and Bureau of
    Reclamation can be in the same geographical units. Then we are
    focusing on three areas: recreation, NEPA, and permitting. It
    is our intent to do those jointly.
        Recreation is an $887 billion industry. And things like
    trail systems, bike systems should connect. We should have a
    system that is supporting and in harmony with recreation,
    rather than just doing it by isolated assets. Similarly, with
    permitting, you have to have all stakeholders at the table. And
    NEPA is similar. We need all stakeholders.
        So where we are in the process is we looked at our current
    problem, we identified that we needed to be more joint in these
    decisions. Then, on the basis of science, USGS developed the 13
    regions. Then we had the SES review of that. We brought the
    Governors in. A Governors' concern was BLM. We decided we are
    going to keep the State directors for the BLM because that is
    an important relationship.
        I have talked to Simon Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot III,
    and we are having a roundtable of conservationists take a look
    at it. We want to do it right, and we want to make sure we
    coordinate with you before we go forward on it.
        This is where we sit currently. It is 13 regions. Just
    trying to unify our regions. This is not a new idea. We fight
    forest fires jointly. Certainly the United States military
    overseas conducts its operations in a joint manner. There is no
    reason why Interior can't move to this model.

                                  CONSULTATION

        Mr. Calvert. Before I move on to the ranking member, is the
    Department engaged in any substantive consultation with
    Governors, tribes, and State and local officials affected by
    this reorganization?
        Secretary Zinke. We are.
        And the tribal nations, they are sovereign. We are
    beginning consultation, and whether or not they adopt this
    model is really up to them. I have always said that I believe
    the nations are sovereign, and it is a partnership, it is a
    relationship.
        I think it is to their advantage to join, especially in
    recreation, NEPA, and permitting. But we will enter a
    consultation, and whether or not BIA--which is unique in
    Interior, because BIA is the people department, unlike some of
    our other departments that manage lands or wildlife, the people
    department. It is yet undetermined whether or not they will be
    incorporated into that.
        Mr. Calvert. I want to make sure we get feedback from the
    tribes and other constituencies, especially the tribes, because
    I have heard from a few that feel that they are not part of the
    process. So I have your assurance that they will be and that
    you are going to stay in touch with them?
        Secretary Zinke. And, again, whether or not the BIA gets
    incorporated into this model will be up to the results of the
    consultations and the nations.
        Mr. Calvert. I am looking at this map real quick. The
    Navajo Tribe, for instance, moves over to several of these
    proposed basins. Those issues will make it more complex.
        But, with that, Ms. McCollum.

                                 REORGANIZATION

        Ms. McCollum. I do have some questions on reprogramming. I
    am just going to make a point to say that when we talked in
    December, I said I would like to have someone come in and brief
    me and talk to me about this. I have been available. And I
    guess maybe we can finally do it now that I have a map in my
    hand for the first time.
        But I just want to make one comment before I go to the
    question that I want to get to. Being from one of the Great
    Lakes States, knowing how the Governors from the Great Lakes
    work together and knowing how all the water districts work
    together up there and the tribes work together under the Great
    Lakes region, I am baffled a little bit by this draft map
    breaking up the Great Lakes the way it does. But we can get
    into that in more detail later.

                                 REPROGRAMMING

        I wanted to talk about direct spending and reprogramming.
    Congress has provided significant increases to the Department
    in the fiscal year 2018 bill. A statement that accompanies the
    bill provides direction on how the Department is supposed to
    spend the money.
        So I would like you to comment on the way that you are
    going to adhere to the directives in the explanatory statement.
    Will you ensure that appropriate programs receive the funding
    levels that had been congressionally directed?
        We have also included extensive direction about
    reprogramming requirements and stated our intention to include
    the bill language in fiscal year 2019. Are you familiar as of
    today of what these requirements are? And will you commit to
    working with the committee to develop language in order to
    avoid any barriers to implementation?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, you know, I follow the law. We had a
    conversation about a grant process. I have a stack of IG
    reports on my desk about grants. The intent of Congress should
    be followed on distribution of grants. But I also have an
    obligation to make sure, when the grants are given, that we
    follow up to ensure money was actually spent delivering on
    congressional intent, and we follow up on it. In a lot of
    cases, we have not followed up on grants. As well as, the grant
    process, there were some deep and very concerning conflicts of
    interest with how grants were awarded. I will share the IG
    reports on it. So we have changed the process.
        The other thing on grants, particularly with the climate-
    change grants we talked about, is they are not asking for the
    grants until we get funded. What we needed to do--and we have
    taken the process of pre-clearing those, so when they get
    funding, those grants can be actually executed. What was
    occurring is the grants were not being submitted to the
    headquarters until we had funding, and then all of a sudden,
    you know, the process--everything was being held up. We have
    reversed that trend. If they are pre-approved and in the
    priority of the congressional intent, then we should be able to
    get them out.
        It is not my job to dismantle congressional intent. It is
    my job to execute congressional intent. And if we have any
    questions, that is where a dialogue comes back and forth.

                                   MONUMENTS

        Also, I might mention about Bears Ears. I am a geologist. I
    can assure you oil and gas in Bears Ears was not part of my
    decision matrix. A geologist will tell you there is little, if
    any, oil and gas. There is no proposal that I have seen to mine
    uranium in the former area of Bears Ears. The geology is clear
    on that.

                                     TRAVEL

        I won't go into line by line of some of the other comments,
    but--I certainly can. I am willing to discuss anything with
    you. I can assure you, I follow the law. I look at best
    practices. I make sure every time we look at things--on my
    travel schedule, by the way, you will find--and the report is
    coming up--that I followed every law, regulation, procedure,
    policy across the board. Every time I travel, it is reviewed by
    career ethics officials and approved prior. It is approved and
    looked at by legal folks.
        The previous Secretary, for instance, on travel, took 80
    trips, over $1 million. And Sally Jewell, whether she took
    commercial or charter planes to hike, you know what? She was
    approved to do that, because hiking in some of our areas is
    exactly what a Secretary should do.
        I took three trips for $17,000, and it was the only
    available transportation available--only transportation
    available to meet the schedule.
        I understand we live in a political environment, back and
    forth, but on every case I follow the exact policy, regulation,
    and procedure.
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, that was not my question. Is this
    counting against my time?
        Mr. Calvert. I will not count it against your time.
        Ms. McCollum. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        In fairness so everybody gets to ask a question, I hope we
    have a second round, because I would like to get more into a
    couple other issues. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Amodei.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, first of all, I want to thank you for kind
    of acting as a life coach during a lonely 2 hours in the Salt
    Lake airport a few months ago when I expressed some frustration
    with the general state of affairs in my life--of course, not
    yours. But anyhow. So I want to publicly say thank you for
    helping a non-Navy guy out, for a former Army JAG. I appreciate
    that.
        And having said that, I also want to say thank you for
    being responsive in terms of hooking me up with Mr. Tanner.
    Although he is from Utah, he has been a very able guy, and I
    have enjoyed the exchange we have had.
        I have enjoyed the fact that I had a chance to visit with
    Ms. Combs in your office recently to talk about the
    reorganization stuff.

                                 REORGANIZATION

        And I heard you say again today, so I won't say anything
    else about it--I am happy to hear that we are talking about the
    importance of BLM State directors. And so we will leave it at
    that.
        You know, as I listen to the chairman of the whole
    committee talk about the importance of what is going on in New
    Jersey--and that is very important--and other parts around the
    Nation, I do feel an obligation to go, well, with all due
    respect, one of your bureaus, the Bureau of Land Management,
    owns the equivalent of about 25 or 30 New Jerseys in my State.
        And I say that to say that the mission of the Bureau in my
    State is phenomenally important because the jurisdiction that
    your folks have there is about seven times that of the
    Governor, the legislature, every county commission, and every
    city council. So those people are very, very important when we
    talk about multiple use and land management for basically
    everything they do in their mission except probably timber,
    although we do have trees in Nevada, and offshore issues
    because we don't have any coastline.

                                   BLM BUDGET

        So, having said that, I would like to ask for an
    opportunity, obviously not during this hearing, to get with Ms.
    Ferriter and talk about the need for--because we have done some
    work in terms of what staffing looked like a decade ago, what
    it looks like now, most of which was not during your tenure.
    But it is like, hey, it is important that, to the extent we
    have budgeted positions, to do things on the non-fire side of
    the house. And I am not a guy who says more money is the answer
    to everything, but it is like, if we need personnel to do the
    mission, then I think that is the statement.
        So I want to get a little deeper, obviously not in this
    hearing, into how that looks in terms of regular operations of
    the Bureau in Nevada. So how that looks with what we did with
    the Omni as a starting point, and then what we are talking
    about doing with this year's--although I know when it gets to
    the Senate that that is a different planet, and I will just
    leave that at that.
        But, having said that, I really want to sit down and go,
    hey, so how do we--so, quite frankly, if there are four real
    estate positions in western Nevada, that those are filled and
    that those people are doing their job. Nobody leave the room
    and said that I expect the Bureau to give everybody a yes or
    something like that, but we do expect realistic timeframes when
    you talk about fulfilling the mission.

                  SOUTHERN NEVADA PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT ACT

        And I notice in your statement that you have a reference to
    SNPLMA and doing some stuff with some of those funds. And I
    will just join in the chairman's comments about another program
    that, while I am all for looking at everything, I am probably
    going to urge that the committee not to strip the SNPLMA funds
    out of the account because they are unobligated. And I know
    that will come as a shock to your staff and everything else.

                            OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR

        The final thing I would like to do is I would like to get
    together and speak with your appropriate folks, and maybe that
    is the Under Secretary, but, quite frankly, I have a concern
    about solicitor operations in my State. Because, quite frankly,
    the solicitor isn't in my State. And so, no offense to the
    chairman here, who lives in the Golden State, but you know
    what? Having a solicitor in Sacramento making decisions that
    affect Las Vegas, Elko, Winnemucca, that have to interpret
    Nevada water law, sometimes that kind of gets left out.
        And so, while I appreciate the value of legal advice, being
    a recovering lawyer myself, I just have a concern about, quite
    frankly, that there is a lot of district managers going, oh,
    the solicitor and whatever said this and so end of discussion.
    And then I end up calling up Mr. Steed or somebody else like
    that to say, hey, can we have somebody take a 360-degree look?
        So, with that, I will make it real hard on you. Do you have
    any objection to me borrowing Ms. Ferriter or discussing with
    your folks the solicitor stuff?
        And if you don't, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman--as a matter of fact,
    all three of you.
        Secretary Zinke. No, I don't have any objection to any
    member of this committee, both sides, you know, fully engaging
    the staff on issues. Up front, I don't know all the answers. I
    have really good people around me that work hard, and we will
    get there.
        But, as a former Member, I think it is important that we do
    have a dialogue. Even though we may agree or disagree, we
    shouldn't agree to disagree, and that we should be cordial and
    we should work for common goals. I don't think there is anyone
    on this committee that doesn't love public lands. I don't think
    there is anyone on this committee that doesn't want to see
    better management of public lands, long term, greatest good.
        With that, your comment was, just to answer real shortly,
    we are short in the field. Every time I go out, we are too
    short in the field, we are too long in the headquarters. The
    decisions, a lot of times, are made in D.C., which don't
    reflect local priorities. Asian carp, for instance, if you are
    in the Michigan watershed area, Asian carp is a big deal. So is
    zebra mussels. Not so much in D.C.

                                 REORGANIZATION

        Part of the idea about the reorganization is to go based on
    science and the watersheds as a baseline, wildlife corridors,
    and try to push those important decisions and the priority down
    within different regions so things like Asian carp can be
    addressed, as important as it is, within these new unified
    regions.
        When you had the fish and the trout scenario--and every
    bureau has different priorities and is structurally different.
    We need to get the stakeholders working jointly, I think, in
    the three areas--recreation, NEPA, and permitting--so we can
    make better positions sooner.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Ms. Pingree.

                              OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT

        Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, for being with us
    today. And in the spirit of friendliness, I think I mentioned
    to you once that my first visit to Montana was the Bob Marshall
    Wilderness. I went on a pack trip. And the thing that struck me
    was the similarities between our State, even though you have
    mountains and, where you are landlocked, we have oceans. I do
    think you bring a perspective of a rural State and some of the
    same concerns. I think we have a lot of similarities within our
    natural resource space and other issues.
        But I want to focus my question on the thing you don't have
    in Montana, which is offshore oil drilling.
        So I sent a letter, along with the Democrats on the
    committee--I am happy to give you another copy of it--and that
    was just to ask you to explain a little more about the process
    that we are going through to do this. We have had enormous
    concerns from our constituents about the possibilities of doing
    this.
        When you made the announcement, it seemed as though it was
    somewhat arbitrary, given how many States raised concerns. You
    heard the chair of Appropriations this morning on the
    Republican side talk about the concerns in New Jersey.
    Certainly we have had a decades-old ban on doing this, and
    there are good reasons for that.
        In my State, people think the science is clear, and they
    are very worried about the economic impact. Tourism is the
    largest industry in Maine, $5.6 billion, 71 percent of which
    comes from our coast. Fishing is a very important part of our
    culture, our history. Lobster fishing alone brings in $500
    million. Our fishermen are up in arms about this possible idea
    and the potential damage that could be done with offshore oil
    drilling and any danger that comes with that.
        We are concerned about the process. We did have a visit
    from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to Maine. While many
    of my constituents had planned and hoped that they could speak
    in a public hearing--these were fishermen, these were small-
    business owners who wanted to come forward and say what was on
    their mind--the format was very different. I appreciate your
    department explaining that to me, but, really, it was more of a
    one-on-one. You could visit a booth, you could talk to somebody
    about it, but you really couldn't register your public
    complaint. I think this has been very upsetting to people in
    Maine.
        So I wanted to know a little more about this decisionmaking
    process. I know you have said at times we have a Governor who
    has been favorable towards this. He won't be the Governor,
    because of term limits, after the end of this year. And our
    legislature voted very strongly to oppose this. Our entire
    congressional delegation--Republicans, Democrats, and
    independents--are opposed to this.
        We were shocked to see that you would exempt Florida. Even
    though many Mainers spend their winter in Florida and we don't
    want them to have an oil spill either, the fact is that was
    kind of an arbitrary decision and very upsetting to most of the
    other Atlantic States.
        I am happy to pass along that letter to you, give you the
    resolution that our legislature passed in opposition. But can
    you tell me a little bit more about the process?
        Secretary Zinke. Absolutely.
        Ms. Pingree. And, frankly, why did you exempt Florida and
    not us? We deserve it more.
        Secretary Zinke. Florida is not exempt, because they are
    still going through the process. Let me explain what we did.
        If you go back to 2008, Interior made about $18 billion a
    year just in oil and gas. When I came in office, we made $2.6
    billion. We dropped $15 billion in revenue a year. On scale,
    that would have covered our entire backlog of maintenance in
    the three primary areas.
        It was a decision of mine, rather than looking at 94
    percent taken off, I said, let's do a zero-based budget and
    let's put everything on, and let's have a discussion as
    Americans and about priorities and the importance of oil and
    gas.
        Now, having said that, it is interesting that, clearly on
    the East Coast, what we are seeing--and I have talked to your
    Governor and Georgia's. Both of them are either favorable or
    neutral. The rest of the Governors are opposed.
        But also the oil and gas revenues--for instance, in Maine,
    there isn't any oil and gas, really, of significance. The only
    play, really, is called the mid-Atlantic. It starts in northern
    Georgia and kind of goes up to Virginia. It is some distance
    off the coast, as far as about 70 miles. We think it is a gas
    play. We don't really have a lot of geologic definity on it.
        What is also happening is there is no doubt drilling
    offshore is more risky than onshore. What we are seeing as a
    country is investments are moving onshore to the Permian
    because it is not as risky and, also, there is no
    infrastructure offshore. Unlike the Gulf Coast, there is no
    sub-sea infrastructure. Were we to begin an offshore oil and
    gas play on the East Coast, you would have to start from
    scratch.
        The other thing, States matter. The local voice matters,
    you matter, and the Governor matters. As we go through, we are
    shaping our plan to make sure we accommodate local voices.
    Fishermen matter. And fishermen aren't very happy about wind
    either. I just was up announcing some fairly large and
    significant wind leases off the coast. We want to make sure the
    stakeholders--and when we do our wind, for instance, same
    thing, is we want to make sure we design the fields so we don't
    negatively impact our fishing fleets.
        We are going through the process. I committed in Florida--
    and Florida is different. They have a moratorium in place, a
    Federal moratorium, that prevents oil and gas activities.
    Looking at both parties, every Member and the Governor asked me
    for a meeting. I committed no new oil and gas platforms off the
    coast of Oregon. What was driving it is every Member, both
    sides, where the oil and gas resources are, asked for an
    immediate meeting. You would have thought that I would have
    been applauded by the Democrats on that side, but they--
    somehow, they agreed with the policy, they didn't agree with
    how I did it. They are still going through the process.
        Again, it is not a rule; this is a plan. We are trying to
    get the first draft out in the fall.
        Again, in the State of Maine, most of the areas, A, you
    don't have resources off the coast; B, you don't have
    infrastructure in place; and, C, most of the districts along
    the coast and communities are not in favor of oil and gas,
    while most of them are in favor of wind, as long as they don't
    see it. So wind has to be over the horizon. There is less
    opposition to gas. But, quite frankly, we don't have the data,
    in particular.
        The last thing about seismic is seismic is also required
    for wind. Seismic is also, in some cases, required for going
    out and mining for sand, for reclamation. And mining the sand
    off the coast, which we do an enormous amount of mining, is far
    more destructive than any seismic.
        We have to be careful about saying we don't want science
    and the best possible technology to look at what is there. Same
    thing with wind, you have to make sure when you augur these
    platforms in that you are on stable ground, or, if you should
    mine, making sure we look at the environmental effects.
        That is where we are. We will get you the draft as soon as
    we get done. We are taking public comment. I think I know
    exactly where everyone sits, on both coasts.
        Ms. Pingree. Well, thank you for the followup. I certainly
    will look forward to seeing the draft. I think you, in fact,
    made a lot of good arguments about why Maine should be
    exempted. Perhaps you could commit to, after this next election
    cycle, if I am lucky enough to be here--and our State will have
    a different Governor. If we are all on the same page, maybe you
    can meet with us, we will have everyone aligned, and you can
    say, ``Oh, well, Maine shouldn't have it either,'' and just get
    this off the table sooner rather than later.
        Secretary Zinke. I am sure Maine is going to be very happy
    with the draft proposal.
        Ms. Pingree. Well, thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Mr. Jenkins.
        Mr. Jenkins. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And good to see you, Mr. Secretary. Great to be part of
    your class of 2014, and you have done well. Appreciate you.
        A couple of quick questions.

                               AML PILOT PROGRAM

        One, I just wanted to sensitize you to something that
    Chairman Calvert, Chairman Rogers, and I have been very
    involved with, and that is the AML pilot program. We, in the
    omni, re-upped for a third year of that. And I just wanted to
    share with you the positive things that are happening in West
    Virginia--I am sure Chairman Rogers could do the same from
    Kentucky--of how this program is working. This is taking
    previous AML properties, and using funds to make connections to
    economic development possibilities.
        Just the one, kind of, seed. When, at the State level,
    these AML projects are identified, approved, meet the criteria,
    they do go back up the food chain, get reviewed in Washington,
    and we still don't quite have the timeliness and turnaround
    that I think we ought to be able to achieve. So I would like to
    work with your AML folks, OSM office, to try to expedite.
    Because that was the intent, was to get these funds dispensed
    quickly and these projects out in the field.

                               KING COAL HIGHWAY

        The second I would like your assistance on, and first with
    a compliment. King Coal Highway, my philosophy: As go the
    roads, so go the jobs. And the King Coal project, which was
    taking actively mined out property, leaving the roadbed, and
    then being able to come in at a significantly reduced amount of
    cost to the taxpayers, building roads. And this project has
    been held in abeyance for almost 10 years because of regulatory
    red tape. And thanks to President Trump, thanks to this
    administration cutting through the red tape, and, in
    particular, thank you to the EPA, we have been able to clear an
    important hurdle to get this project on the road to being
    constructed.
        But we still have a Fish and Wildlife Service issue that
    has cropped up. So really just wanted to plant the seed. Once
    again, thank you for the work that has been done. I think we
    are heading in the right direction. But we still have some
    bumps in the road, and we would like to work with you, your
    appropriate staff, to address these hurdles that still need to
    be cleared.
        I am really excited, the people of West Virginia are
    excited about the administration's very clear directive. We are
    going to cut through red tape, we are going to cut down
    burdensome regulations, we are going to get projects moving
    forward. And we have seen that already, but we just want to
    keep the foot on the pedal.
        And there are still some opportunities, I think, whether it
    be OSM and the AML pilot program or Fish and Wildlife relating
    to King Coal, and would like to work with your folks on that.
        Secretary Zinke. I am absolutely committed. I have some
    good news. Fish and Wildlife recently did finish a consulting
    on a segment in 2 days. That was light speed for government.
        But on the----
        Mr. Jenkins. So we could have this by Thursday or Friday of
    this week? This is great.
        Secretary Zinke. But, some of it is structural, you know,
    on the fish and salmon, about a regulatory framework. The goal
    is to make sure we maintain accountability and oversight but
    make the decisions sooner, one way or another, yes or no, on
    projects.
        When you have multiple agencies and independently produced
    biological opinions, sequentially, that is why we are seeing a
    simple replacement of a bridge and sometimes it is 17 years.
        Mr. Jenkins. Yeah.
        Secretary Zinke. If we work together, we can do it better.
        Then we have to figure out a way to incorporate innovation
    into our regulatory framework. Because, a lot of times I think
    everyone's goal is to improve safety, reliability,
    accountability, environmental stewardship, but sometimes the
    government regulatory framework doesn't work, when new
    techniques, new science, new innovation will save time, cost.
    We have to look at being flexible enough on our regulatory
    framework to allow innovation into that framework so we can
    move smartly in a responsible manner.

                                 SUE AND SETTLE

        Mr. Jenkins. Just one final comment. When you mention the
    OIG, you referenced a stack of reports on your desk. Your staff
    shared a three-ring binder.
        A year ago before this committee and then subsequent
    discussions--and I just wanted to give you a quick minute, to
    the extent you are publicly willing, to address it. I wanted to
    thank you publicly, because I do believe we have,
    unfortunately, a past practice under Interior and the EPA, in
    particular, sue and settle; third-party groups that had maybe
    nudging from EPA and others to do certain things; taxpayer
    dollars being misused to drive an ideological agenda.
        And to the extent you are able to discuss today--and I am
    looking forward to looking at the OIG reports. With this year
    under your belt, I know you were committed to fettering out
    some of the abuses and the mistrust of the taxpayer dollars
    that has occurred in the prior administration. What has the OIG
    been able to find, and what are you able to share?
        Secretary Zinke. I would say there were three areas. There
    was sue and settle, which a regulation will be put in place. It
    would invite a lawsuit; the lawsuit would be settled, both
    monetary and then a regulatory fix, without going through the
    process of regulation. Compensatory mitigation, where, in order
    to get a permit, you would have to in some cases almost be
    extorted to do it.
        There is a case right down the road here about a power
    company that wanted to put a power line in. The Park Service
    opposed it. In order to get the permit, they had to deliver $90
    million to a few 501(c)(3)s for the idea that somehow this
    power line, which--I did an aerial survey, I looked at it. The
    power line itself, yes, could be seen if you walked off the
    path and you went in a far little area. The power line crossed
    the Captain Smith Trail, which is on the James River. But, of
    course, the power line could be seen for a little bit of an
    area, but, then, so could the power plant itself and Busch
    Gardens and the Navy derelict fleet. In order to get the
    permit, they had to pay about $90 million. And no question that
    it upset people.

                                     GRANTS

        Then some of the grants. Grants has not just been the
    problem of the previous administration. It is a long-going
    problem that we didn't have proper procedures to make sure that
    conflict of interest wouldn't happen, that if your wife is a
    grantee, that there is a process. With the conservation
    community, there are lot of husbands and wives that work in
    that area. And that is fine. But if you do have a conflict of
    interest, like in the Congress, you should identify it and make
    sure you are not part of making that decision.
        We put processes in place to make sure that didn't happen,
    and I am confident we are going to get better. But we also need
    to make sure we exercise funds upon congressional intent. I
    don't want to hold funds. It is your decision as a Congress to
    fund. It is my decision to execute those funding lines.
        Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Mr. Kilmer.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman.
        And thanks, Mr. Secretary, for being with us. I have got
    three topics I am going to try to cover super fast.

                              OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT

        First, along the lines of what Ms. Pingree was asking
    about, I had a bunch of townhalls last week in my district. The
    issue of offshore drilling came up a bunch.
        I know you testified in front of Senator Cantwell's
    committee and you are keenly aware of the broad opposition to
    Washington State's inclusion in the plan. You know, obviously,
    we have got fisheries and shellfish growing and marine tourism
    and shipping, all of which are really fundamental to our
    economy and are largely incompatible with oil and gas
    development.
        We have a letter that is actually both bicameral and
    bipartisan outlining the concerns from our region. I have got a
    copy of it. And with the chair's and the ranking member's
    permission, I would love to submit it for the record.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Kilmer. I know that you told Senator Cantwell you were
    going to mark Washington State down as opposed to drilling. So
    I am hoping I can ask you today if you are prepared to announce
    that you will withdraw our State from consideration, as you
    have done with Florida.
        And, if not, given the near universal opposition to
    drilling off Washington's coast, what is preventing the
    Department from making that determination? Has anybody
    expressed an interest in drilling off of our coast?
        Secretary Zinke. Putting everything on, and if I would have
    left Florida off in the beginning it would have been arbitrary
    and capricious. Again, this is the plan and not the rule.
    Everyone is in the process.
        Washington. There are little or no resources of oil and gas
    off the coast of Oregon or Washington. There is no
    infrastructure to support an oil and gas industry off the coast
    of Oregon or Washington. There is, I would say, passionate
    opposition to do so.
        In the case of Washington with the coal terminals,
    Washington itself has enormous leverage as a State. I have
    talked to your Governor. But because Washington has the first,
    I think, 3 or 4 miles is State waters, Washington can restrict
    the Federal activity.
        If you were to drill off the coast of Washington, and if
    there were resources, which as a geologist I haven't seen any
    interest or resources there, you would somehow have to bring it
    to shore. Well, you would have to go through the State waters.
        Similarly, Massachusetts strenuously objected to a wind
    farm that was pretty close to the coastline. What they did is
    they revoked the ability for that wind farm's energy to get to
    shore through State waters.
        We will continue with the process. Our team went out there.
    I have talked to your Governor. I have talked to, I think,
    almost every Congressional Member, including your two Senators.
    I think I have a pretty good idea where Washington sits.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.

                             ELWHA WATER FACILITIES

        I want to ask you about an issue I brought up when you were
    here last year, and that is the settlement negotiations between
    the Park Service and the City of Port Angeles regarding the
    operation and maintenance of the Elwha Water Facilities.
        I know we have engaged with you a lot over the past year,
    and I am grateful for your attention to this issue and your
    staff's attention, particularly given the substantial economic
    consequences for the city if an agreement can't be reached.
        As you know, the committee included language in the fiscal
    year 2018 omnibus that directs the Park Service to report to
    the committee on how it intends to meet its obligations under
    the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act prior
    to transferring any of those water facilities and basically
    urging the Park Service to work it out with the city by this
    June.
        This June is right around the corner. And so I would just
    like to ask for your continued partnership to ensure that the
    Park Service has the resources it needs to carry out this
    committee's direction and hopefully to resolve this issue in a
    way that works for the city.
        Secretary Zinke. My understanding is there are
    negotiations, although the two sides remain apart. You have my
    assurance I am going to get personally involved in it because I
    just want it settled.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. We do, too.

                                   FISHERIES

        Secretary Zinke. Also in the State of Washington, fisheries
    are an enormous concern of mine. I think our fisheries have
    been allowed to deteriorate. I have talked to many of the
    tribes and they are concerned. We have to work together to make
    sure we rekindle our fisheries, particularly with salmon.
        There are some environmentalists we are going to have to
    work through, but it is hurting the economy of Washington and
    it is hurting the tribes. A lot of our fisheries have atrophied
    and we need to reinvest in them, in my opinion.
        Mr. Kilmer. The Elwha dam removal I think was a real
    success story, but it won't be if it ends up with a giant
    burden on the local community.
        Do I have time for one quick one?
        Mr. Calvert. OK.

                              MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

        Mr. Kilmer. Finally, I just want to thank you for the
    attention to the maintenance backlog within the Park Service.
    We have got a bipartisan bill called the National Park Service
    Legacy Act that would establish a permanent fund dedicated to
    paying down the maintenance backlog. I know that my good friend
    on the committee, Mike Simpson, who is ironically down for
    maintenance himself on his knee, has also introduced another
    bipartisan solution on this.
        This is a big deal because there is a lot of concern about
    substantially jacking up the entrance fees and how that could
    affect some of the gateway communities. I know that there is
    difference in some of the specifics on these bills, but I know
    we want to see something cross the finish line that actually
    addresses this maintenance backlog. So I just want to ask for
    your continued attention and partnership as we work to
    hopefully establish a dedicated fund to address in the
    maintenance backlog.
        Secretary Zinke. What I am hoping is that there are
    multiple bills that approach it somewhat differently. We need
    to address the backlog in maintenance. There are several
    Senators that looked at our bill and said, well, if it should
    pass and you get the backlog in maintenance caught up, what
    then? Are we going to be in the same box the next 10 years?
    They are moving to make it more permanent, structured.
        With energy, this is what I thought. I thought at the end
    of the day, if you are going to make--all of the above. We are
    seeing a trend on the East Coast to go more wind up the coast,
    similar to oil and gas in the Gulf that funds LWCF. And the
    approach was net dollars going into Treasury.
        So it didn't affect LWCF. It didn't affect GOMESA. The
    proposal we had didn't affect any program. It was just whatever
    was left from congressional intent going into Treasury net,
    half of it would go back into an infrastructure account.
        Now, that was our proposal. Senator Alexander, has a
    bipartisan proposal too. We are very supportive of any
    mechanism that is responsible in order to address a backlog,
    and it is not getting any better.
        Mr. Kilmer. Yeah.

                                  MAINTENANCE

        Secretary Zinke. And, lastly, if I can take 1 minute.
        The doors. I read it like you that the doors were $139,000.
    I didn't even know they were my doors. But it is part of a
    long-term maintenance program with the building.
        Why are they $139,000? Well, we brought it down to $55,000.
    We had this little thing called the National Historic
    Preservation Act, and when you have a building or a facility
    that sits on the historic register, you are bound to go through
    SHPO and consultation and the whole works.
        It would be helpful if we worked together in this to make
    sure common sense can be applied. There are some buildings we
    absolutely need to make sure they are restored to original,
    Independence Hall among many of them.
        But some of our holdings we don't need to. If a roof is
    sugar pine shake, we don't need to replace it to sugar pine
    shake, we can find alternates shakes. That is a lot cheaper,
    more cost effective, that also saves our maintenance dollars,
    and we make sure we can get more done for little or less
    expense.
        I hope that this is a bipartisan issue on the National
    Historic Preservation Act, particularly, I think it is section
    106. If we work together, and we are going through what
    legislative fixes would be, what do I have the power to do as
    the Secretary, and what legislative fixes would allow a little
    more flexibility and common sense to be applied on some of
    these products as we go through the maintenance. Otherwise, we
    are going run out of money.
        Mr. Calvert. Common sense is also an endangered species
    around here.
        Mr. Joyce.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, Mr. Secretary. The burning issue of the day,
    obviously, in this building is, are you on Facebook? I am just
    kidding.
        Secretary Zinke. I am not on Facebook.
        Mr. Joyce. Well, maybe if we talk about Facebook we would
    have more cameras here so they could see the great job that you
    are doing here.

                                  GREAT LAKES

        I am going to bring you to something I bug you about every
    time I see you, much to your chagrin, I am sure. The Great
    Lakes and the idea that the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
    has helped protect and restore the habitats of the Great Lakes
    and the species that are native to the Great Lakes and keep
    harmful invasive species out of the Great Lakes, which I have
    found that previous editions of this, when we had problems with
    the zebra mussels and quagga mussels, actually affect you in
    Montana. I don't know how they got out there, but they managed
    to.
        You have been very important to help us restore and protect
    the Great Lakes, which I refer to not just as a lake or series
    of lakes, but a national treasure, of which there are a few of
    us Members who are all in cahoots about bugging you on.
        We received $271 million to undertake 82 GLRI projects from
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as of February of 2018.
    Yet, to no one's surprise on this committee, the administration
    has once again proposed to virtually eliminate all funding for
    the GLRI in fiscal year 2019.
        I know this is an important issue, and we talked about it
    last year, but I was hoping that we might be able to get a
    commitment from you that you could visit the Great Lakes. I am
    sure Ms. Kaptur, who is not here today, would be glad and proud
    also to take you out on Lake Erie. I am sure Ms. McCollum would
    be glad to entertain you on the Great Lakes so you could see
    firsthand the tremendous work that is being done. It is, I
    would say, the high water mark on how government should
    operate, and I am glad that you are a party to it.
        Secondly, I would like to understand what you are doing to
    make sure the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S.
    Geological Survey, and other agencies can maintain, protect,
    and continue to restore the Great Lakes. If cuts were going to
    be made, I understand that, sir, but if there are going to be
    any cuts, could you provide examples of what initial projects
    would be significantly curtailed?
        Secretary Zinke. On the Great Lakes, we receive about $64
    million from the EPA, so our budgets from the EPA are impacted,
    as they get cuts, we do. We receive about $64 million. Our
    budget request adds about, $13 million for Asian carp.
        Some of it is structural. You know, how do we get to
    resolution, and how do we address a problem?
        Again, on the trout and the salmon, same thing that happens
    in the Great Lakes.
        Mr. Joyce. Certainly.
        Secretary Zinke. Is that you can put significant more
    funding in place, but if it doesn't result in actually moving
    the needle or doing something on the ground, that is part of
    the issue, and I think structurally we have to change. The
    reorganization looks at how to do it better, to make sure we
    emphasize things that matter in the Great Lakes and those
    regions, rather than from Washington, D.C. That would be
    helpful.
        And, a budget request from the Executive is just that, it
    is a budget request. We have the dialog back and forth. We do
    this every year.
        What areas are priority for me? The priority in Interior
    was infrastructure and reorganization, so we can make the
    decisions that affect the Great Lakes quicker, better, and then
    focus on a solution. Then make sure the money spent on that
    solution actually goes towards a solution and not more studies.
        As you know, we give about $5.5 billion worth of grants a
    year--billion--and a lot of those grants go to studies that
    don't lead to any action. It is great to study it, love
    studying. But some of the studies--less studying and more
    action would be helpful in a lot of these areas, including the
    Great Lakes.
        Mr. Joyce. I certainly appreciate that and I appreciate
    that you are focusing on it. People who are working on the
    Great Lakes Restoration Initiative have to share the
    information so you don't have studies upon studies, but an
    actually using those studies and implementing them in the
    different agencies.

                                   ASIAN CARP

        One of the things that we have been dealing with is the
    Army Corps of Engineers, which had this study going about how
    we are going to prevent Asian carp from getting into the Great
    Lakes. They came up with what they said was seven different
    options--one being do nothing, so that is really not an option.
    We are still waiting for some finality to what it is that they
    are going to do.
        But, obviously, the Fish and Wildlife Service is the most
    important component of making sure, in the interim, that we
    don't have this issue, because as I have said time and time
    again, once Asian carp get into the Great Lakes, especially
    Lake Erie, being the shallowest of the lakes, it is game, set,
    match. They are such voracious eaters, they will ruin the
    habitat there.
        So I was wondering if you could foresee what cuts, if any--
    hopefully none--but what cuts might be in line or staff
    reductions in 2019 that would scale back Fish and Wildlife
    Service Asian carp operations?
        Secretary Zinke. I would say, given the importance of the
    Asian carp, we have about $13 million there. How successful
    have we been? We moved about 48,000 carp on some fish herding
    exercises. It is not enough. But we got better at it. I think
    we are going to continue and probably accelerate that.
        The U.S. Geological Survey and the Fish and Wildlife are
    also looking at some technologies that will help us on that. I
    am personally aware of the issue. Previously this wasn't an
    issue for Montana so much, and now the issue of the Asian carp
    and the zebra mussels both are a concern there. Those are a
    problem on irrigation.
        And there are some, I would say, some encouraging
    developments on zebra mussel from the USGS, as well as there
    are some encouraging developments on Asian carp and how to
    manage it. We will continue to make sure the resources are
    there to go forward.
        Mr. Joyce. If I may be so rude as to invite myself if you
    would ever go to see these Asian carp operations where they are
    doing herding and other things, so we could understand what it
    is you are doing to address this threat. We would like to find
    a solution to the problem that we hope will never come about in
    the Great Lakes.
        Secretary Zinke. Ohio is on my schedule in August, as I
    understand it.
        Mr. Joyce. A lovely time of year to be out on the Great
    Lakes, and our chairman can attest to it as he was out there.
        Mr. Calvert. I once was invited to go walleye fishing in
    August, but somebody lost the invitation.
        Mr. Joyce. They found out that you weren't coming so they
    bumped me. That is what you don't understand on that
    expedition.
        Thank you very much for your time, and I yield back.
        Secretary Zinke. We did increase, by the way, work on zebra
    mussels about $3 million in those summits. There is some
    promising USGS technology that we think has----
        Mr. Calvert. That is a big problem in California, too.
        Ms. McCollum.

                                   MONUMENTS

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Before I ask my question, I want to go back. I had
    mentioned in my opening statement, I spoke about Bears Ears and
    the Grand Staircase Monument. I am just going to focus on the
    Grand Staircase Monument here.
        I cited why I said what I did based on a New York Times
    article. And you came back and said, no, that coal was coal and
    mining was not part of the decision on how the rescission of
    the monument went.
        But I base my statements on memos from the Interior
    Department, which talks about one of the plateaus located in
    the monument that contains one of the largest coal deposits in
    the United States. The Interior Department memo issued in
    spring of 2017 said about 11.62 billion tons are
    technologically recoverable.
        The story goes on to cite Interior staff preparing a report
    on each national monument with a yellow highlighter on the
    document, emphasizing the need to examine and detail the annual
    production of coal, gas, and renewables, if any, onsite. The
    article goes on to talk about how there were many, many
    meetings with people from the mining industries.
        So I wanted to be clear, Mr. Secretary, I didn't pull that
    out of the air. I took it from a New York Times article which
    cited Department memos.
        Secretary Zinke. And your opening statement was on Bears
    Ears.
        Ms. McCollum. No, I also had Grand Staircase.
        Mr. Secretary, we can talk about this later. But there were
    maps that both The New York Times had looked at and yellow
    highlighter used in the Department reports on this.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, I don't take The New York Times as a
    credible source on such things. But we will take it at that.
        Ms. McCollum. I think when you turn over public documents
    that actually have Interior memos that are cited in a news
    source that that would be rather credible, if they are citing
    the Department.

                                  TWIN METALS

        Mr. Secretary, you and I have talked about this before.
    There is a 20-year withdrawal mineral lease currently under
    consideration for the watershed that contains the Boundary
    Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park. You
    have been vocal in your support for a similar 20-year mining
    ban in Paradise Valley in Montana. You clearly understand that
    there are some places that are just too precious to mine.
        In December, your solicitor's office overturned the right
    of the Forest Service to deny consent for two mining leases on
    the doorsteps of the Boundary Waters. The principal deputy
    solicitor's schedule shows that he repeatedly met with
    lobbyists from the foreign-owned mining company, but does not
    appear that he consulted with any of the stakeholders who
    oppose the automatic renewals.
        Secretary Zinke, to the best of your knowledge, did your
    solicitor meet with stakeholders other than representatives of
    Twin Metals Mining Company before issuing their opinion? Were
    there any meetings with stakeholders presenting the strong
    legal case against nondiscretionary interpretation of the
    leases?
        Did your solicitor's office seek input from either the
    Department of Agriculture's general counsel, or from the
    Department of Justice, who was actively defending the Forest
    Service's consent denials against the lawsuit from Twin Metals?
        Did you have an opportunity to personally look at the
    solicitor's opinion before it was issued?
        And the reason why I am bringing this up is I am concerned
    and I am confused about the criteria that are being used by you
    to determine which public lands need to be protected from
    mining. If the Forest Service finds that there is no
    significant impact of withdrawal on the Superior National
    Forest, will that be enough for you to move forward on the 20-
    year ban on mining in this unique, precious, and vulnerable
    watershed?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, first, I agree, there are some areas
    that are too precious to mine.
        In regards to the previous administration's removal for
    preferred leasing, our solicitor teams viewed that as unlawful
    and undefendable in court, and they did confer with the
    Department of Justice, which also had the same view. Losing in
    court would cost the Interior as much as hundreds of millions
    of dollars.
        So the correct path, in our opinion, was to do a process
    called NEPA. That is what is going on. In order to remove and
    do a taking, it has to be on the basis of science. And the NEPA
    process is----
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Secretary, my question is--and thank you
    for saying that you did consult with the Department of
    Justice--but one of my questions was, did the solicitor's
    office meet with anyone else besides representatives of Twin
    Metals before issuing this opinion?
        Secretary Zinke. I will have to look at the records on who
    exactly we met with, but it is a matter of public record. But
    we did coordinate with Agriculture on it. But again, the
    solicitors from--are talented lawyers, career lawyers,--viewed
    that withdrawing preferred leasing was unlawful. The right path
    to look at it was continue that and then initiate a NEPA so we
    can make a decision based on science.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. I look forward to finding about
    who was met with. As you and I both know and we see on TV every
    night, there are talented attorneys that can come up with two
    different opinions. So I respect that your solicitors come up
    with one opinion. The solicitors of the previous administration
    came up with another.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Mr. Stewart.
        Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I beg your
    indulgence and your understanding. I thank you, appreciating
    that we had three hearings this morning and an Intel hearing as
    well, so a total of four, and thank you for letting me come
    late.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I am going to
    thank you for three things and then ask you a question, if I
    could.

                                   LEADERSHIP

        The first thing is, and I really mean this, thanks for your
    leadership. We live in tumultuous times when everything that
    was partisan anyway has become hyperpartisan, and many times it
    becomes too personal.
        I believe you are trying to thread a needle. I really do. I
    believe you are listening and trying to understand people's
    objections, and we appreciate that.

                                   MONUMENTS

        The second thing is, thank you for Grand Staircase
    Escalante and for Bears Ears. Representing one of those
    monuments, I can tell you that was the right thing for Utah, it
    was the right thing for the local communities, and more than
    that, it was the right thing for the America people, because we
    have protected those areas that deserve the protections that we
    have afforded them at the same time we have opened up some
    economic opportunities for communities that are desperately in
    need of it.
        And, again, I think we threaded the needle there where we
    had conflicting priorities, and I think we found a nice
    compromise on that. I am grateful this President did that. I
    don't think any other person who was running for office would
    have had the courage to do what he did, and speaking for the
    people in Utah, we are grateful for that.

                                 REORGANIZATION

        And the third thing I will thank you for is for this. I
    know that this is not without controversy as well, and there
    are some objections that some people had, and we had some
    concerns, one of them being the State directors and the fact
    that they would still remain State directors and a few other
    things. But once again I think that it is a bit of a shake-up,
    but in an organization that needs a shake-up every hundred
    years or so. And we are excited to see what we hope will be a
    better outcome.

                                   MONUMENTS

        Now, if I could ask a question, and I know the committee is
    going to look at me and just go--and, by the way, before I go
    on, Ms. McCollum, if I could, you know, you are someone I have
    tremendous respect for, and I really mean that. I would be
    happy to talk with you a little bit about Grand Staircase
    Escalante and how the impacts that that has had on the
    communities there, and give you my perspective on that. I think
    it might be helpful if we were to have a conversation regarding
    that. I don't know that I will necessarily change your mind on
    anything, but it might be helpful for us to have our own
    private conversation regarding that.

                             WILD HORSES AND BURROS

        Again, I hate to beat--I will use an old joke--I hate to
    beat a dead horse, but I want talk about horses. We didn't get
    what we were hoping, and I know the chairman here did
    everything he could to advocate for this issue of mine. But if
    you care about these animals, we have got to do better. We have
    got to make situations better for them. I am wondering if you
    could give some indications of where you think you can go with
    your own authorities.
        Secretary Zinke. No one loves a horse more than I do, up
    front. I love horses and horses are iconic. But this is where
    the numbers are. The ground will hold about 27,000 healthy
    horses. We have 108,000 horses; 45,000 are in captivity. We are
    spending $81 million on the horse program.
        The current practice has been this, when a horse population
    gets larger, we go out, we round up, and we take the excess
    off, and then the excess goes off into either corrals, which is
    inhumane for wild horses to be in captivity. We really haven't
    been able to address the growth.
        Every time we get to this period, Congress will put a rider
    in, either the House or the Senate, it is a fight to get the
    rider in or out, and then we don't address the growth.
        What we are looking at doing is either birth control,
    spaying, neutering, but looking at rounding up the horses in a
    humane way and focus on the growth.
        It is unsustainable to continue doing what we are doing.
    And, quite frankly, the most inhumane thing we can do is no
    action.
        I accept that, we are working with the Humane Society. I
    have had the first meeting ever with stakeholders that are
    passionate horse advocates. We are trying to say, all right,
    this is what we have got to do.
        I am an advocate, quite frankly, of rounding the horses up
    and going on a spaying, neutering, birth control, because that
    is really the only option we have on the table to focus on
    growth and focus on making sure we have healthy herds, and
    striving to that number.
        We are also working with some Indian tribes. Some of our
    reservations have a lot of land that are open spaces. We are
    working with some of our Indian nations to accommodate some of
    the horses. As we round up and neuter and spay, rather than
    they spend the rest of their existence in a cubicle, it
    probably would be better, I think more humane, to have them on
    open range. We are working on that.
        Mr. Stewart. Well, I will conclude just again thanking you.
    And if you look at these horses in captivity, there are
    thousands of them sitting in enough space where they have a few
    feet to move and they just sit there in the dust all day, and
    it is very unfortunate for them.
        And I think we have got to do something permanent, the
    spaying and the neutering, the inoculations, I think we know
    now, just aren't effective and nearly impossible to administer
    effectively. So we appreciate you taking a more aggressive
    stand.
        And, again, I take you at your word, having observed you
    ride your horse to work the first day, that you are sincere
    when you say you care about these animals. I am as well. And
    hopefully we can have a better outcome for them.
        Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        Ms. Kaptur, do you have a quick question you would like to
    ask? I have a question I am going to ask. Do you want me to ask
    my question?
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. We will ask you first.
        Ms. Pingree, do you have a quick question?
        Ms. Pingree. Do you want me to go first?
        Mr. Calvert. OK. Sure.
        Ms. Pingree. I know you are going to run out of time.

                              OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT

        A couple of thoughts that I had after you and I discussed
    oil drilling, and I will not beat this dead topic, because it
    is not dead.
        You started out by saying that the Department needs to
    raise money and you talked about reducing oil revenues. I think
    we all appreciate that you are looking for ways to help balance
    the budget and raise money, but as you said on an earlier
    question, some areas are too precious to mine. Coastal waters
    are too precious to drill for oil. So just another thought to
    keep in your mind.

                                 CLIMATE CHANGE

        I want to just briefly talk about this whole issue around
    science, denial of science, climate change, it is kind of a
    recurring theme with this Administration. I think many of us
    are always on guard looking for places where this topic will be
    purged or not discussed. Again, coming from a coastal State
    where we are already worried about sea level rising, changes in
    our fisheries, sea level temperature changing, ocean
    acidification, it has already had a huge impact on my State and
    there is a lot of fear around it, again, because of some of our
    biggest industries.
        My understanding is that there is a pending report about
    the national parks and the impact of climate change on the
    national parks, and there has been reporting to say that there
    has been some said editing of taking climate change out of the
    document and removing any references to things about human-made
    climate change and greenhouse gases.
        I am not in the debate anymore. Humans have an impact on
    climate change. I am done with that. And you have said that you
    are not editing it, that is not going to happen.
        So I would just like to hear your reassurance that these
    reports are either something that happened in the past and you
    are going to change, or it is really not going on. And when
    that report comes out, I personally don't want to see it edited
    to remove any reference to that. We have a coastal national
    park in our State. I think it is extremely important that
    departments like yours are paying attention.

             ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY--FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PARKS

        The second thing that is somewhat related I just want to
    put in there is some controversy around Susan Combs becoming
    the acting secretary for Fish and Wildlife. Excuse me, because
    I don't think I know her, and so I don't have any personal
    issues here, but because she has been frequently noted as
    someone who opposes the Endangered Species Act.
        I know this committee in particular, we have differing
    points of view on it and when it is well-used and when it is
    not. But, again, coming from a State where the bald eagle has
    made an amazing comeback in a community like mine, you can see
    one virtually every single day fishing, and that is the result
    of the changes from the Endangered Species Act.
        I know it is a complicated issue, but it plays a really
    important role, and to have someone in that position who comes
    at it with an opposition to that, I just want to know how you
    think she can perform that job with so much bias.

                                 CLIMATE CHANGE

        Secretary Zinke. First, on the national park document. I
    never change even a comma on scientific things. So how did that
    report get to you? Because it didn't get to us. Nobody in
    Interior in Washington ever saw that document. It is a draft
    document, as far as I understand. It was forwarded from a
    university and it was still in a deliberative process.
        So nobody, no political has ever seen that document. And I
    haven't seen the document. So I want an investigation how that
    document got around to the press before even we had a chance to
    look at it. I think that is fair.
        Ms. Pingree. Fair question.
        Secretary Zinke. The other report was a USGS document that
    I wanted to see before they released it. It had to do with
    ANWR. Because I wanted to know why the USGS report was so
    radically different--it is an assessment on national
    resources--was so radically different than a same assessment
    just conducted a few years before. And they were significantly
    different in the assessment of resources given the data set was
    very similar. I want to know what techniques that we are using.
        Ms. Pingree. I agree, you should have the ability to have a
    draft document and people state their opinions. But can you
    assure me that you are not going to deny any references to
    climate change and that you will allow for the inclusion in
    documents from the Department of Interior that have a human
    impact on climate change?
        Secretary Zinke. If it is a scientific report, all right, I
    am not going to change a comma of it, because I think that is
    the integrity.
        And my director of USGS, he is an astronaut. It has taken a
    year to get an astronaut with a Ph.D. In science that has had a
    Top Secret/SCI security clearance, he is probably arguably the
    best director, most qualified director we have had in the
    history of the USGS. That is saying something because we had
    John Wesley Powell and some icons, it has taken over a year.

             ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY--FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PARKS

        With Susan Combs, that is not her permanent place. She has
    been nominated to be number three, not in Fish and Wildlife,
    but there are holds on her from a few named Senators, that I
    would like to have her confirmed.
        Ms. Pingree. We all have our issues with the Senate now and
    then.
        So, again, will you confirm that while she is in that role
    she will not be actively working to undermine the Endangered
    Species Act?

                             ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

        Secretary Zinke. She will not be actively working to
    undermine any of our environment protections as reasonable.
    Although we both agree with the Endangered Species Act, it is
    very difficult when a species has recovered to either down-list
    or remove a species. Quite frankly, when a species has
    recovered, I would rather spend the money and effort looking at
    species that are in challenge, because we have lot of species
    that are in trouble.
        We have to look at the processes. When we put a species on
    and a species is recovered, we should all celebrate that the
    Endangered Species Act has been positive. It was a Dick Nixon
    bill. So great, we should celebrate in our victories, and then
    we should focus our efforts on the species that really need
    help.
        But we need to look at off-ramps, too. We are looking at
    that as part of a structure without deteriorating in any way my
    responsibility of being the steward of your public lands.
        Ms. Pingree. Thanks.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        A couple of quick points. You mentioned the recovery of
    endangered species. I don't need to comment. Obviously, we are
    having a discussion here about the gray wolf and the Great
    Lakes and Wyoming, and we have some disagreements, but a lot of
    people believe that that is a recovered species. So I will
    leave that until next year, but I just bring it up.

                              OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT

        Oil. There is one State that does have oil. There is no
    doubt about it. You have a house in Santa Barbara, you can gaze
    across and----
        Secretary Zinke. My wife does.
        Mr. Calvert. Your wife has a house in Santa Barbara?
        Secretary Zinke. She is lucky.
        Mr. Calvert. There is a lot of oil in California. I think
    we are the fourth largest oil-producing State in the Union.
    Some people believe the largest off-coast supply outside of
    Alaska in the United States is in California, is in the Santa
    Barbara gulch.
        As you look at that, there are technologies that are
    available today to slant drill without using coastal rigs,
    especially off Vandenberg and others that have been studied. So
    I hope you look at all technologies that are available as you
    look at California.
        Also, California has the largest depository in Monterey
    Shale, in various counties in the interior part of the State of
    California.

                        EARTHQUAKE EARLY WARNING SYSTEM

        And while we are talking about California, I want to
    mention the Earthquake Early Warning System. Which doesn't
    apply to California, it applies to the State of Oregon, the
    State of Washington. It is not a matter of if we are going to
    have a significant earthquake in the future, it is just matter
    of when.
        The USGS has been very involved in this issue, and we have
    put a substantial amount of money in this appropriation bill,
    about $13 million to increase the program, another $10 million
    for the infrastructure cost, which will be hopefully online
    here shortly, despite the fiscal year 2019 budget request that
    obviously would zero out the program.
        Will you work with USGS to make sure that the congressional
    intent is fully carried out and the program is prioritized in
    light of the public safety it will provide? We hope to have
    this online, working with Caltech and USGS, soon to provide a
    warning system that could save thousands and thousands of
    lives.
        Secretary Zinke. I will commit. And it is the power of your
    leadership that it remains strong in the budget, as well as the
    University of Oregon is working on it as well, my alma mater.
    So I am aware of the importance.
        Mr. Calvert. And the State of Washington. We have that
    whole zone area up there.

                              OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT

        Secretary Zinke. And if I can add real quickly on the oil
    and gas. The Coastal Commission and the State of California
    also have a say on oil and gas, even if you were to do a slant
    rig. And I believe there are companies that looked at it at
    Vandenberg, that there were oil deposits, particularly a gas
    play off the coast that was reachable by horizontal drilling.
    And the Coastal Commission and the State regulatory framework
    has a big, big say whether or not they are going to go forward.
        Mr. Calvert. We are a difficult State.
        We have time for a real quick question from Ms. Kaptur.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome back, Mr. Secretary. Glad to have you.
        Mr. Calvert. The Secretary has a hard exit in 5 minutes. He
    has to go to an important meeting.
        Ms. Kaptur. I hear you.
        Secretary Zinke. But I do offer this. I said in the very
    beginning when I came in that I will meet with this committee
    outside of a hearing in a working group, and I would do that. I
    offer that.

                                   ASIAN CARP

        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Also, earlier I know Mr. Joyce asked
    questions about the Asian carp, and, Mr. Secretary, you
    mentioned it as a priority. Thank you very much. We don't want
    them in the Great Lakes.

                                 OFFSHORE WIND

        You also had a conference recently with a large group of
    energy developers about the potential for offshore wind. I want
    to let you know this Member supports that. In fact, we know the
    Great Lakes have about a minimum of 700 gigawatts of power that
    are uncaptured at this point, and the first offshore project is
    being proposed near Cleveland, Ohio, LEEDCo.
        I wanted to draw your attention to that, but I also wanted
    to state, for the record, that I do not support the request to
    cut renewable energy at the Department of Interior by half, and
    we are going to try to fix that as this bill moves along. But,
    we very much welcome your comments to that offshore wind
    organization.

                                  GREAT LAKES

        My question relates to USGS. Because of the condition of
    Lake Erie right now, I wanted to reiterate Mr. Joyce's warm
    invitation to you to come to our area, Lake Erie, the
    shallowest of the Great Lakes. We are facing a very, very
    serious crisis there dealing with the largest watershed in the
    Great Lakes, which empties into Lake Erie.

                                  USGS BUDGET

        Your budget proposes to cut the USGS. Again, I am hoping we
    can fix that here, because a quarter cut to the budget doesn't
    help us, and especially because the cuts include the
    contaminant biology and toxic substance hydrology accounts,
    which are so important to us because it is toxic microsystem
    that is causing all the difficulty in our water system.
        I am troubled by the fact that you are cutting programs
    that are the most important to science as we try to shepherd
    the fresh water resource that is so precious in our country.
    Could you comment on the fact that our water quality issues and
    fresh water are getting worse, but you are cutting the budget
    to fix it?

                                 OFFSHORE WIND

        Secretary Zinke. Real quickly on renewables, is that our
    budget reflects the demand. There is a greater demand going
    offshore, but there is a lesser demand on onshore right now. So
    our budget looked at the USGS forecast and BOEM's forecast of
    renewables, and our budget request is aligned to that. We will
    share the same data we have. We just want to make sure.
        Renewables is important. The President's policy is all-of-
    the-above.
        Ms. Kaptur. Good.
        Secretary Zinke. And so at the end of the day if we need to
    move things around, we can do it by a reprogramming letter,
    too. If the demand is up or down, we want to make sure we have
    an appropriate amount to accommodate our energy policy, which
    is all-the-above.
        And so we will share the same data that you have that we
    have. So if we are short in that, we would adjust it because we
    are all-of-the-above.
        Ms. Kaptur. All right.
        Secretary Zinke. Your second question, I am sorry, was?
    U.S. Geological Survey?
        Ms. Kaptur. Yes.

                                    LANDSAT

        Secretary Zinke. Well, we also have some expensive
    programs. We have the Landsat 9. We think we can do much better
    with Landsat 10 by opening up for competitive bidding. It would
    save us some money.

                                INVASIVE SPECIES

        I will admit, our water is at risk. Our invasive species we
    need to get a handle on and control. Some of it is looking at
    better technology, particularly with the Asian carp. And there
    is some promising technology for zebra mussels, which is a big
    issue. But I will work with you on it, because I understand how
    important it is.

                                  GREAT LAKES

        And the Great Lakes matter, too. They matter politically,
    economically, they matter morally to this country, and I will
    work with you on it. We think the reorganization, which I will
    be glad to talk in detail with you on it, we think it is best
    on the reorganization to put more authority in the front line
    to address some of these regional problems because they get
    lost at the Federal level.

                               TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP

        Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Secretary, could I ask you, before you come
    out to Ohio, could you identify a person within USGS that could
    work with us on a topographical map of the watershed that must
    be managed in a much more thoughtful way so that we aren't
    polluting the lake?
        Secretary Zinke. I have the best map on watersheds. It is
    broken down to every basin. It is magnificent.
        Ms. Kaptur. Good, we need that. We need people to
    understand that it isn't flat, that it actually rolls somewhere
    when a drop of water falls off. I would really appreciate if
    you could, if we could have that attendant to your visit, that
    would be marvelous. It would be really.
        Mr. Chairman, I just have to state, Rotary International
    has selected Lake Erie because of its condition and has made it
    as high a priority as their priority to eliminate polio, which
    they were successful in doing globally. It is that important.
        So, we have stakeholders that want to help, but we need the
    technology, science, and resources to fix the problem.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you for coming out to this
    hearing today.
        Ms. McCollum asked a question of me, and I think it is a
    good idea, hopefully that we can get together at some point in
    a nonhearing setting to talk about reorganization and get a
    better understanding of this. So we can do that in the near
    future. We will set up a time to do that.
        I appreciate your coming out. And we are adjourned.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                              Thursday, April 12, 2018.

                            SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

                                    WITNESS

    DAVID SKORTON, M.D., SECRETARY, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, DC

                      Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert

        Mr. Calvert. [presiding]. The committee will come to order.
    Dr. Skorton, I would like to welcome you to today's hearing. We
    appreciate you joining us to share your vision of the future of
    Smithsonian and to discuss your budget priorities for fiscal
    year 2019. The members and staff are also grateful you brought
    some interesting historical items for show and tell. It is
    always one of the highlights of the hearing season. I said this
    before and it bears repeating, you clearly have one of the most
    interesting jobs in town.
        As the Secretary of the Smithsonian, you are entrusted with
    the challenging responsibility of operating and managing one of
    the country's most revered institutions. The Smithsonian is
    often referred to as ``America's attic'' because you are the
    steward of more than 155 million objects, and the national
    collection reflects America's artistic, cultural, and
    scientific heritage.
        The Smithsonian provides education, outreach programs in
    science, history, art, culture for visitors and scholars
    worldwide. It is governed by a board of regents consisting of
    the Chief Justice of the United States, the Vice President,
    nine private citizens, six Members of Congress, including our
    good friend here, Tom Cole, who serves on the subcommittee. I
    understand you guys had a meeting yesterday.
        Mr. Cole. We did.
        Mr. Calvert. Overall, the proposed funding level in the
    Smithsonian fiscal year 2019 budget is $957 million. The budget
    request supports salaries, expenses, essentials of facilities
    maintenance. It also continues the National Air and Space
    Museum's renovation project and supports other critical
    priority construction and deferred maintenance projects. Like
    most large organizations, the Smithsonian faces some enormous
    challenges which we will be discussing at some length today. At
    the top of the list, of course, is the multiyear renovation of
    the National Air and Space Museum, the most visited museum in
    the world.
        As a result of the budget agreement earlier this year, the
    Interior Subcommittee was provided additional funding in its
    fiscal year 2018 allocation that enabled us to provide more
    than double the amount requested for this critical
    revitalization project. We look forward to hearing the detail
    on how the $198 million provided in the omnibus will be
    invested, and what additional funds in fiscal year 2019 and
    future years will be required to complete this revitalization
    project.
        The recent construction of the Museum of African-American
    History and Culture and the proposed renovation of the National
    Air and Space Museum illustrate the very real challenges this
    subcommittee faces. There continues to be increasing demand for
    Federal dollars to address many important and legitimate
    priorities. For this reason, it is essential that the
    Smithsonian clearly outline and communicate its highest and
    greatest priorities throughout the appropriations process.
        Secretary Skorton, I pledged to you the last time we met
    this subcommittee will do its very best to address this
    subcommittee's most urgent priorities. We support your
    outstanding efforts, and we look forward to your testimony and
    continuing our work together.
        Now, I am happy to yield to my good friend on our
    subcommittee the Ranking Member, Mrs. McCollum, for any opening
    remarks she would like to make.

                        Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning. Good
    morning, Secretary. Welcome to the subcommittee. It has been 2
    years since you last testified before us, and I am pleased to
    see you here. I am very excited to hear about the treasures
    that you brought, and to also hear about the progress you have
    made and your accomplishments at the Smithsonian. I think from
    the chair's statement, and you will hear from my statement,
    there is something that we 100 percent agree on, and that is
    the Smithsonian has a special place on the Mall and in our
    Nation.
        So, 2 months ago, Congress passed a bipartisan budget
    agreement to increase non-defense discretionary spending for 2
    years, and 3 weeks ago in an admirable show of bipartisanship,
    the fiscal year 2018 omnibus was enacted into law. Within that
    omnibus, Congress made significant adjustments in the
    Smithsonian by providing, as the chair pointed out, $198
    million for the restoration of the Air and Space Museum, which
    fully funded your 2018 request for the museum's restoration and
    most of what you are requesting for the fiscal year 2019
    budget.
        But as we all know, more work remains to be done, and the
    total Federal share of the National Air and Space Museum is
    going to reach $650 million, and to date, $250 million of that
    has been appropriated. Furthermore, the Smithsonian's overall
    facilities condition index rating from the National Research
    Council is considered poor, and the Smithsonian's backlog of
    deferred maintenance and repair is estimated at $890 million.
    The Smithsonian must continue to address this backlog in order
    to improve the facilities' indication index score to ensure a
    healthy, safe environment for visitors, staff, and one special
    place where you even care for animals. We have to be working
    with you constantly to make sure that there is responsible
    stewardship for your vast collections.
        In addition to the cost of maintaining bricks and mortar,
    you have a responsibility to the Federal staff inside of these
    buildings. Mr. Chair, there was a report. I am going to see if
    we can get a full copy of it because we do oversee salaries of
    how far behind Federal employees have become in salaries and
    wages here for many of our institutions.
        The fiscal year 2019 budget for salaries and expenses is
    $738 million, which is $7 million above the enacted level, and
    I want to see how we are fitting in, especially in the
    Smithsonian, addressing what the reports were about employees'
    wages.
        The Smithsonian was created for the increase and diffusion
    of knowledge. It has the ability to capture the imagination and
    curiosity of both children and adults, and it has something for
    everyone. I want to commend you, specifically, for your recent
    launch of the American Women's History Initiative. I am pleased
    that Congress has provided $2 million in the recent omnibus
    towards that effort. While the focus is on the history of
    American women, I believe this is far reaching, beyond what it
    even will accomplish in the United States. I believe you will
    inspire women and girls with this initiative all over the
    world.
        The Smithsonian Institution is beloved by millions and is
    one of the most visited museums in the world. You have had over
    3 million--3 million--visitors to your newest museum, the
    National Museum of African-American History and Culture. What a
    wonderful resource for people to learn about the rich cultural
    experience and history, and the vibrant African-American
    community here. And those of African-American descent can take
    great pride in their history as we also tell the history with
    great accuracy and sadness at times.
        I am pleased that you completed a $1.5 billion fundraising
    campaign last year. That success is an indication of the value
    you place in communicating its importance to the public. The
    public support for your mission shows your attempts to explore
    new and innovative activities is one that is supported not only
    by Congress, but by the American people.
        So, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate the work that you do, the
    work that all the employees at the Smithsonian do to advance
    the civic, educational, scientific, and artistic life of this
    Nation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Calvert. OK. With that, Dr. Skorton, I am happy to
    yield to you time for an opening statement.

                      Opening Remarks of Secretary Skorton

        Dr. Skorton. Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member McCollum, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for this
    opportunity. And on behalf of the entire Smithsonian
    Institution, our 6,700 employees and our 17,000 volunteers, we
    appreciate the continued and very generous support of Congress
    which allows us to make important contributions to the American
    people through history, art, culture, science, and education.
        And today with our numerous museums, and distinguished
    scholars and in-depth research, iconic treasures, excellent
    education programs, and a vast array of information made
    accessible through digital media, the Smithsonian remains a
    trusted source of information and inspiration for the people of
    America and the world. The Smithsonian will continue to strive
    to be an effective steward of our past and prove to be a wise
    investment in the future.
        Since I last testified before this subcommittee, we have
    unveiled a new strategic plan that will guide us through the
    year 2022. My written statement goes into more detail about the
    plan, but I would like to briefly focus on a few key points
    that illustrate how it will make us a stronger and more
    responsive Institution.
        One of the goals of the strategic plan is to reach new
    audiences both beyond the National Mall and here in the
    Nation's capital. From the National Air and Space Museum's two-
    week STEM Camp for Girls to the National Museum of Natural
    History's intensive Youth Engagement Through Science Internship
    Program, Smithsonian education programs make a difference in
    and around the District of Columbia. We plan to increase our
    local impact by reaching all DC Public School students with our
    rich educational content.
        We are currently in discussion with the DC Public School
    System about providing them material that aligns with their
    curricula, helps support students' needs, and improves equity
    and access to educational material. Doing so would allow us to
    forge stronger bonds with the local community and provide a
    template to take more of our scholarly content to schools
    nationwide.
        Much of what we do already reaches Americans in their own
    homes and classrooms. For instance, our Smithsonian Science
    Education Center has developed a tested STEM curriculum for K
    through 8 students, and this curriculum is currently used in
    1,500 school districts in every State and more than 20 other
    countries. The Museum on Main Street Program from our
    Smithsonian Traveling Exhibition Service allows us to reach
    rural America through museum exhibitions, research, educational
    resources, and programming.
        And thank you for bringing up the American Women's History
    Initiative. It will take to the road with stories of pioneers
    like Harriet Tubman, Amelia Earhart, and Sandra Day O'Connor.
    It will leverage existing museum collections and expertise with
    new programmatic funds. The initiative will help the
    Smithsonian show young women and men alike that we only reach
    our full economic and moral potential as a Nation when we
    include everyone.
        We are also expanding our international footprint, and one
    big step forward in that respect is our work with the Victoria
    and Albert Museum to open a combined exhibition space in London
    and a separate space for Smithsonian self-curated exhibitions.
    This will be the first international exhibition spaces in our
    history. We look forward to the expected opening in 2023 and
    the tremendous capacity to help us reach new audiences.
        One fascinating and futuristic project underway is at the
    Smithsonian Astrophysical observatory in Cambridge,
    Massachusetts where we are working with American and
    international partners to build one of the world's most
    powerful telescopes. The Giant Magellan Telescope, or GMT, will
    use an array of seven huge mirrors working in tandem to produce
    images 10 times sharper than those from the Hubble Telescope.
    The GMT will help our scientists explore the distant reaches of
    the universe in our search for life beyond this planet.
        And more on the down-to-earth side, the National Museum of
    African Art recently hosted its first Morning at the Museum.
    This program, hosted by many of our museums, allows those with
    cognitive and sensory processing disabilities to take part in
    creative workshops in a supportive environment in a quieter
    setting before crowds enter the museum.
        As always, and as was mentioned, the safety of visitors,
    and staff, and volunteers is my first priority. I have spoken
    to this committee about the urgent need to renovate the
    National Air and Space Museum due to the risks posed by its
    crumbling marble facade. The project's share of our budget
    request underscores the importance and priority for the
    Smithsonian. Our focus today is also on another type of safety.
    Our staff must be free to work without harassment and a safe
    environment in which all may succeed. The quality of our
    training and policies to address workplace harassment is
    impressive. However, I am committed to self-reflection and
    refining all we do by reemphasizing training compliance and
    examining all of our harassment policies. Ultimately, better
    policies will make us a better institution.
        For fiscal year 2019, the Smithsonian budget request is
    $957 million. Within this amount is $738 million for salaries
    and expenses. Following guidance from the Office of Management
    and Budget, we have included an increase of $13.4 million for
    facilities maintenance needs, for fixed cost increases, and for
    restoration of a rescission in the fiscal year 2018 continuing
    resolution. We are also requesting $219 for facilities capital,
    and most of that, or $127 million, will be used to continue
    work on the National Air and Space Museum project.
        We greatly appreciate the investment in this critical
    project in the recently-enacted fiscal year 2018 omnibus bill
    and look forward to updating the committee as the project
    progresses. I am also pleased to report that just last week, I
    named Dr. Ellen Stofan as the new John and Adrienne Mars
    director of the National Air and Space Museum. Ellen is so
    excited. She is going to begin her tenure at the museum April
    30.
        The future is brighter than ever for this beloved
    institution that I am privileged to serve. I am confident that
    the Smithsonian is primed to take advantage of our
    opportunities in the years and decades ahead and to serve the
    American people even more effectively. Thank you.

                INTRODUCTION OF SMITHSONIAN CURATORS AND OBJECTS

        And I want to just very quickly tell you about our experts
    and some of these terrific objects you see in front of you. As
    was mentioned, our total collection is 155 million objects and
    specimens, and we have some of these treasures here today. I
    want to introduce Lisa Kathleen Graddy, curator at the National
    Museum of American History. She has brought the rosewood and
    ivory gavel used by Susan B. Anthony to chair women's suffrage
    conventions. You will notice the white gloves. Those are meant
    to remind me that I cannot touch the gavel. [Laughter.]
        Peter Jakab, chief curator at the--there he is--at the
    National Air and Space Museum, brought two things: the
    stopwatch used by Wilbur Wright to time the historic flight by
    his brother, Orville, in the Wright Flyer on December 17, 1903,
    and a sample of the wood and fabric from the Wright Flyer that
    the Apollo 11 crew carried to the moon in 1969. And Ryan
    Lintelman and Theo Gonsalves--there is Ryan in the second, Theo
    Gonsalves--curators at the American History Museum have brought
    the custom-made silver-flared trumpet of jazz great Dizzy
    Gillespie. And I must comment that we named our male dog
    ``Dizzy'' after that gentleman. [Laughter.]
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Secretary Skorton follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                          Opening Remarks of Mr. Cole

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, and if there is no objection, Mr.
    Cole needs to go to a hearing on his own committee. He would
    like to make a brief statement.
        Mr. Cole. I just, again, want to thank Dr. Skorton for the
    privilege of serving as one of the regents of the Smithsonian.
    I assure everybody here it is in good hands. The only important
    thing I have done since I have been there was be part of the
    group that interviewed and selected Mr. Skorton to be the head.
    And you have got his bio, so you know what a distinguished
    record he has as an academic leader and as president of one of
    our leading institutions, and having been president of another
    one before that.
        It is just a genuine pleasure to have you here. It is a
    genuine pleasure. This committee does take this responsibility
    very seriously and, frankly, in a very bipartisan way and with
    a great deal of pride in what the men and women you lead at the
    Smithsonian have accomplished. So, again, I can just assure my
    colleagues the Institution has been well led throughout its
    tenure, but I really believe you have in front of you the most
    distinguished of the secretaries that we have had. And we are
    very fortunate to have him in charge of what is really a
    national treasure and a national jewel at a critical point in
    its development.
        So, I am going to excuse myself, but, again, I just wanted
    to be here and say hi to you, and thank you again personally
    for all you do.
        Dr. Skorton. Thank you, Dr. Cole, for all you do and all
    the regents do. And thank you for getting down to candidate 27
    or whatever it was when you hired me. I really appreciate it.
    [Laughter.]

                  NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM REVITALIZATION

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. And thanks, Mr. Cole. Doctor
    Skorton, as you mentioned in your opening statement the
    revitalization of the National Air and Space Museum, which we
    all have worked on and we have visited the museum and seen for
    ourselves the problems that are there. As I mentioned in my
    opening statement, it is the most visited museum in the world,
    I guess, even more than the Louvre? Is that----
        Dr. Skorton. It is always neck and neck, Mr. Chairman, with
    the Louvre. And we squeaked by them last year, and so we are
    using those bragging rights.
        Mr. Calvert. So, we are number one.
        Dr. Skorton. Number one.
        Mr. Calvert. OK. On that subject, what is the present
    status of the work on the Air and Space Museum? What specific
    work will be done with $198 million provided in the recent
    omnibus, and specifically what does the additional $108 million
    above the fiscal year 2018 budget request allow you to do in
    terms of advancing the project schedule?
        Dr. Skorton. Well, in our all of our behalf, again, I want
    to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member McCollum, and
    the entire subcommittee, for the confidence you have shown in
    us. You have very materially changed the way we looked at this
    project with this additional funding.
        This additional funding is allowing us in a very confident
    way to push ahead with the project. We are able to purchase
    materials--steel, glass, marble--and we are able to confidently
    begin to let subcontracts and to push ahead. We hope to do that
    in a way that will be efficient, that will minimize
    disruptions, and allow us to do this in as a quick a job as
    possible. The work is well under way on the project.
        One of the very things we have to do is prepare the
    specimens. As I mentioned in our past discussions, we are going
    to do this in two phases starting with the west part of the
    building, and move the objects or protect the objects, work on
    the reconstruction there, and then swap over to the east part
    of the building. In order to do that, we have to remove some of
    the artifacts. They are precious, irreplaceable artifacts. Some
    will be moved out to the Udvar-Hazy area near Dulles. Others
    will be protected in place in the Institution. So, that is well
    under way.
        And contractors are developing what we are calling a mock-
    up component to test performance of the exterior facade before
    it is put in place to last hopefully for a very, very, very
    long time. And it has also enabled contractors to begin to let
    subcontracts and lock in costs now against the possibility of
    inflation.
        So, again, I thank you. You have allowed us to take a
    different approach to this project and do it confidently, and
    do everything we can to make sure it does not get out of bounds
    on either schedule or cost. So, thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. You might want to fix your costs on steel. It
    may be going up. [Laughter.]
        Dr. Skorton. I am just a student of what is going on in our
    world, but we have terrific people watching it, and we have
    confidence in the bid process to keep us on budget.
        Mr. Calvert. And just a point on this. As you know, the
    building was completed in 1976. The development and the
    construction of that project are probably no longer with us
    today. I am hoping 42 years from now, that there is a better
    outcome than what we had in 1976.
        Dr. Skorton. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, nothing
    would make me happier than if you and I were both here 42 years
    from now. [Laughter.]
        I think that would be fabulous. You know, our terrific
    undersecretary, Mr. Al Horvath, who is sitting just behind me,
    he has guaranteed me that this will last a very long time and
    much, much longer than the original construction, and he is an
    enormously trustworthy man. And the reason that----
        Mr. Calvert. I will hold him accountable----
        Dr. Skorton. I will certainly hold him accountable, sir.
    [Laughter.]
        And the reason that I believe this will go better is
    twofold. One, very important, and I know I have mentioned this
    before, so please bear with me if I mention it again. The
    original project was done with the expectation that in
    equilibrium we would have about 2 million visitors a year.
    Seven months into the first year, we had already 5 million
    visitors, and we have over 7 million visitors a year, so the
    systems themselves quickly got worn out.
        And we have known for some years that we had to replace the
    systems, the HVAC, everything around them. But it got to the
    point now where since we are going to do the project in total,
    we would also replace the systems. So, we will do the work on
    the systems expecting and anticipating the very large
    visitorship that we now realize as part of our everyday life at
    that museum.
        And secondly, we have learned our lesson in terms of the
    facade, the marble facade, the cladding, and we will avoid any
    ways that were thought of, with all good intentions in the
    past, to maintain the overall envelope of costs for the
    project. We will spend the extra funds with your support to
    make sure that it is done in a way that it will last a very,
    very long time. So, we are very cognizant of that, and, again,
    I hope we are here 42 years from now to confirm that.
        Mr. Calvert. Great, I would hope we are. Ms. McCollum.
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I will be 105. I might be there,
    but I will not be serving in Congress, I can guarantee that.

                                    PARKING

        Voice. The Senate. [Laughter.]
        Ms. McCollum. No, I have turned that down a couple of
    times. I love the House.
        I am going to ask you to get back to us on some questions
    that have come up about parking. Parking is at a premium, and
    you are having to do things down in the garage. In fact, Mr.
    Chair, we even toured the garage when we were there. So I'd
    like an update on how that is going or if there is anything we
    have to do working with Capitol Police or with the Architect of
    the Capitol to make sure that parking is working for everyone
    down there as you move forward.
        But what I wanted to talk on are two things. One is the
    deferred maintenance backlog, and if you could tell us how the
    fiscal year 2018 funding has helped you or not helped you with
    your 2019 project list. Give me a little update on the Zoo, and
    how you are going about prioritizing all this work with such a
    huge project that you are undertaking at the National Air and
    Space Museum.

                          ARTS AND INDUSTRIES BUILDING

        I wanted to go back to something else that had been
    deferred maintenance that is not totally open yet and find out
    where we are, and that is the Arts and Industries Building. The
    building was closed for renovations for almost a decade before
    it was reopened in 2016. Part of the announcement that the
    Smithsonian had was that it was going to be a building for
    short-term exhibitions, and Rachel Goslins is the director that
    has been working on that.
        When you did the announcement and appointed her, you said
    that the building ``would be a place for educating and
    inspiring Americans about the impact of creativity and the
    innovation in our society, and will become a laboratory to try
    new things, new technologies, new approaches to better engage
    the millions of Americans visiting the National Mall and
    Smithsonian each year.'' And that is what you said, and I know
    that you did something very innovative with the building when
    we had the FolkLife Festival on the Circus Arts. Circus
    Juventas from St. Paul, Minnesota was performing in the space.
        And I will tell you, when people walked into that space,
    including myself and other Minnesotans that we directed down
    there, they had lots of questions about the history of that
    building, and how it was going to be used. The circus added a
    lot of energy in the building. [Laughter.]
        The energy in that building, the light and the colors and
    everything, is so different from anything else you experience
    on our Nation's Mall. But I am concerned because we have not
    heard about that much lately. You have got to your deferred
    maintenance backlog. You have got to the Air and Space Museum
    you are working on.
        So, could you fill us in, because my constituents are
    asking, including Circus Juventas at times when I see them,
    what are the next steps for the Arts and Industries Building,
    and are you having fundraising campaigns? What can we do to
    lend our voice and support as you build enthusiasm for this
    very special museum to make sure it is not forgotten on the
    Mall?
        Dr. Skorton. Thank you very, very much, Ms. McCollum. First
    of all, on the parking issue, I must say in every organization
    I have worked in and had the privilege to lead, parking has
    been a main issue, and it is certainly a big issue for us. And
    the change in parking availability related to the National Air
    and Space Museum project is a huge challenge. I do not have a
    complete answer for you today on that. We are working on it. We
    are looking for availability of other parking. Very concerned
    about serving our employees, and I pledge to keep in touch with
    you personally about this.

                              DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

        On the issue of deferred maintenance and the omnibus
    spending bill, first, I want to repeat, and I cannot say this
    enough times, we are endlessly grateful to what you have done
    for us by helping us with the Air and Space project. It is the
    most visited museum in the world, and it is sorely in need of
    revitalization, as we call it. And so, we are very, very
    grateful.
        Having said that, there was the requirement, as you know,
    to reduce our facilities capital in other areas by a certain
    amount of money. I believe it was $24 million. And so, that has
    definitely caused us to defer, or to delay, or even reduce
    planned projects, as you mentioned, at the National Zoological
    Park, at Suitland at our collection center, at the National
    Museum of the American Indian, and other areas. I do not envy
    the decisions that you have to make, and none of this in any
    way clouds the gratitude that I and my colleagues feel. But we
    do need to keep our eye on the ball on other maintenance
    projects.
        Our amount of funding, which has been stable and for which
    I am very, very grateful, is about half of the amount that
    industry standards say we should be spending. We should be
    spending 2 percent or more of our installed base of buildings
    for maintenance. And we are asking in our request for fiscal
    year 2019 a $5 million increase in that aspect of the budget
    toward hopefully an eventual increase in deferred maintenance.
    In the meantime, we are keeping ourselves busy by having a very
    careful prioritization of those deferred maintenance projects
    using health and safety as our number one priority criterion,
    and then after that, thinking about the public interface and
    wanting to deal with the public in the best way possible.

                          ARTS AND INDUSTRIES BUILDING

        In terms of the Arts and Industries Building, that building
    is the apple of our eye. It is a chance to do something
    different than we can do elsewhere on the Mall. Blame me for
    the long time it has taken to come to an announcement in public
    what we are doing. It is not Rachel Goslins. It is none of my
    colleagues behind me. I have been working to raise
    philanthropic money to kick us off, as you say, on a campaign.
    I have been spending a lot of time on it. I have high hopes
    that pretty soon I will be able to give some good news. I do
    not have that good news today. But should good fortune smile on
    us and we are able to move the philanthropy along, we will have
    in all likelihood four different types of activities in the
    building.
        Number one, we will have an area of focus, and it will most
    likely be about the future. The Smithsonian is very much
    focusing, as you know, on the present and the glorious past of
    our country as these beautiful artifacts show you. But we also
    think that the scholarly capabilities of the Smithsonian and
    the ability to tell stories should allow us to engage the
    public spirit and imagination about the future. So, that would
    be one aspect.
        Secondly, just as you mentioned, the idea of a place to try
    things as sort of an innovation lab for anything in the
    Smithsonian Institution. So, if a museum director, or a
    research director, or an education director wants to try
    another way of interacting with the public, this would be a
    great space to do that. Thirdly, we will continue to use that
    space for some special events as they come up. And then
    finally, so-called pop-up exhibits that other museums may want
    to do there, it is great to have that space.
        Make no mistake, though. The building will eventually need
    a complete rehab, and the day may come that we approach this
    subcommittee and ask about changing the priority of possible
    funding of that. But the first thing that I am committed to do
    is to see what we can do with private funding. And I have hopes
    that we can bring you some good news, and all I can do today is
    tell you that I am working on it. And do not blame Goslins,
    blame Skorton why we have not told you yet.
        Ms. McCollum. [Off audio.]
        Dr. Skorton. Thank you.

                     NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM FUNDING

        Mr. Calvert. Mr. Joyce.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Doctor, it is nice to
    see you today.
        Dr. Skorton. You, too. Thank you.
        Mr. Joyce. You are not unlike other people who come before
    this committee where you have many problems chasing limited
    dollars. Can you describe the consequences you face if you fail
    to receive the funding needed in fiscal year 2019 for the Air
    and Space Museum project?
        Dr. Skorton. Thank you, Mr. Joyce, and it is good to see
    you again as always. Two years ago, I was asked what would
    happen if the country, for good and understandable reasons, was
    not able to support the project. And we would have to close the
    museum at some point because of the health and safety issues
    related to the cladding.
        You may notice that there already are some covered walkways
    in certain areas where we are concerned about a special
    vulnerability to the public should something actually move out
    of the cladding and fall, and so it is very, very, very
    important. However, I think you are asking me a tougher
    question, and that is what would happen, although you have
    already been generous with us and we are moving along, if you
    could not help us with the $127 million or keep things going.
    We would have to slow down the project to some extent.
        I think in the long run it would be our problem, but it
    would cost us more money to do that because of unavoidable cost
    increases. We do have fixed cost increases, of course, every
    year, and we are asking for some additional help with that in
    our appropriations request. But I think that the country would
    be served in the most cost-efficient way if somehow you could
    find in all the tough decisions you have to make a way to get
    to that $650 as quickly as possible.
        We believe that the more quickly we can get there, the more
    quickly not only can we give the American public essentially a
    new National Air and Space Museum, but we can avoid cost
    overruns which would put us in a situation that would force us
    to cut corners and go backwards on what the chairman asked me
    in terms of keeping this solid for a very, very long time. And
    then one other thing that I would mention is that other
    projects that we do need to do, as the ranking member
    mentioned, we view, I view, National Air and Space as so much
    by far our first priority that those other priorities would
    have to take a further backseat to this, which would be
    unfortunate because of the enormous visitorship in the other
    museums as well. Thank you for asking me that.
        Mr. Joyce. I understand that the physical plant, the HVAC,
    the other things in the facility, while in need of repair, that
    has all been held off to do the major redo, hopefully the major
    redo, and do all the upgrades at once, which is obviously wise.
    Do you have an expected life out of those systems? Are they
    near the end of their useful lives? Is the system about to
    break down?
        Dr. Skorton. Well, it varies with the particular system
    that you are talking about. We have known for some time that we
    would have to replace those systems. Some of them are getting
    closer to the point where it will be an urgent matter. And just
    as you said, sir, it is important, we thought, to try to do the
    whole project as one because that would be more cost efficient.
        And we also had another idea, which was the idea of the
    fabulous immediate former director of the museum, General Jack
    Dailey. And that was in addition to the systems, and in
    addition to the envelope, if you will, the roof, the cladding,
    the glass, the steel, that we want to give America 23 new
    galleries. So, we are in the process, I am in the process, of
    raising $250 million of philanthropic money to pair with the
    $650 million of public money. We are at about $70 million, a
    bit over a quarter of the way there.
        And I believe that the combination of your confidence in us
    and confidence in the importance of the museum has allowed me
    to raise money more vigorously on the philanthropic side
    because they say, well, we had a very difficult time in terms
    of Federal spending. The Federal government is investing in
    this. It must be a high priority. I, too, will want to invest
    in it. And I hope that it also shows you that we are taking
    seriously our responsibility to do everything we can to bring
    non-Federal dollars to the table as well.
        So, at the end of the day, we would have new systems, a new
    envelope, and 23 new galleries for the American public, and, as
    I mentioned, we are about $70 million toward that $250 million.
    And the Board of the National Air and Space Museum, which is
    peopled by some of the great leaders in the American aerospace
    industry, they are just a house on fire. They are just doing a
    fabulous job of not only themselves contributing funds, but
    helping to open doors for me so that we can get more people to
    do it. I am very confident that we will break the tape on that.
        Mr. Joyce. Our chairman, who is himself a wise man who is
    very frugal, our only codel last year was to your air and space
    facility where we got the chance to walk around and see all
    that you are doing. It is sad, but it is true unfortunately in
    this day and age, the need for security and what you would have
    to do to move things outside and change some of the structural
    features for how people enter and leave the museum for the
    safety of all concerned. That was not lost on me.

                       NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK SECURITY

        Let us step to the Zoo. Can you explain to me what your
    plans are for any security upgrades there where people can walk
    in and out freely? Again, a lot of visitors, and there is no
    metal detection and, from what I understand, not even a
    skeletal police force.
        Dr. Skorton. Thank you for asking another tough and very
    important question, Mr. Joyce. So, one of the things that keeps
    me up at night other than various orthopedic issues is trying
    to thread the needle and find that sweet spot between security
    for our visitors, for our staff, for our volunteers on the one
    hand, and openness and access. You will find that recently
    during spring break and during the crush of humanity to enjoy
    the Cherry Blossom Festival, that just before opening time the
    lines to our museums and the Mall were huge, sometimes around
    the corner going around the block.
        And the reason those lines are long is two reasons. One is
    that a lot of people want to enjoy these museums, and it is
    very, very gratifying, 25 million visitors last year. But the
    other reasons is that Mr. Horvath and others, the head of our
    Office of Protection Services, a wonderful professional, Jeanne
    O'Toole, in trying to find a way to thread that needle have had
    to up our game in security. America expects us to give them a
    safe environment.
        And our biggest challenge in that regard is the openness of
    the National Zoo. And Mr. Horvath, and I, and Officer O'Toole
    are spending a lot of time trying to find the optimal solution
    for that which would allow openness, allow people to enjoy the
    open environment of the Zoo. Clearly, we have work to do to
    optimize that as we do everywhere throughout the Institution.
    So, I am very glad, if you wish, to bring more detailed and
    granular details to you. I would be honored to talk to you
    about it or to anybody on the subcommittee, as would Mr.
    Horvath, as would Officer O'Toole.
        Mr. Joyce. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chair.
        Dr. Skorton. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Calvert. Ms. Pingree.
        Ms. Pingree. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you,
    Dr. Skorton, for being here today----
        Dr. Skorton. Thank you for having me.
        Ms. Pingree [continuing]. And for bringing these wonderful
    treasures and your team with you, and for the great work you do
    to protect this national treasure, and expand it, and keep it
    alive, and everything else. It is a big job.

                               EXPANDED OUTREACH

        Dr. Skorton. Thank you so much.
        Ms. Pingree. It is what makes Washington, D.C. a wonderful
    city to visit and a great place for families, and we see that
    in this time of the year where it is just crowded everywhere,
    so that is good.
        I want to take a slightly different tack about some of the
    outreach that you do. I am very pleased to see that your 2022
    strategic plan includes an ambitious vision for expanded
    outreach, and I know I have learned a little bit about that
    before, coming from a State like Maine with limited resources.
    Yet we have also seen how arts and humanities have really
    turned around some of our communities that have lost an
    important mill, or fishing has become less profitable, or
    something else that really is an important part of the economy.
        I would just like to hear more about your goal, about what
    is available today, what programs are being taken advantage of,
    and what we could do more to promote them.
        Dr. Skorton. Thank you so much. Thank you for your
    kindness. And if I might just digress for just a quick moment,
    you see the treasures before you on the table, and people have
    given me a lot of credit today. But the other treasures that we
    have that really make the place work are the people behind me.
    Those in the row immediately behind me and the 17,000 behind
    them. So, thank you very much for your kindness. And thank you
    for opening up the topic of outreach. Please cut me off if I
    blab too long. This is very, very close to my heart.
        So, we are going to pursue outreach in two different
    directions that are quite disparate. One is we believe that
    every nonprofit owes extra effort to its hometown, so to speak.
    And so, we are going to reach into the City of Washington in
    many ways, and I mentioned already that we are going to reach
    out to every K through 12 student in the D.C. Public School
    system. And I have a Youth Advisory Council that is comprised
    of D.C. teenagers as well as those from five other communities
    in the eastern half of the country. I met with them yesterday
    evening. And I think that outreach to young people in town is
    very, very important.
        Now, in terms of national and international outreach, we
    have multiple mechanisms, and I will just quickly outline a
    couple of them, not to go on too long. We have 216 affiliate
    museums. We are in 46 States, Puerto Rico, and Panama. These
    affiliates are owned and operated locally. They are not
    formally part of the Smithsonian, and we do not request funding
    for these museums. But we share expertise. We share experts. We
    share on occasion collections. And we learn from them as they
    learn from us, and I want to give you one example of one of the
    things we are doing that links to the second, and that is the
    Traveling Exhibition Service.
        We are coming up to a major celebration, 50th anniversary
    of the moon landing next year in 2019. And we are going to take
    the moon capsule and send it around the country. Those of you
    who were around then, and I was----
        Ms. McCollum. I was.
        Dr. Skorton [continuing]. Remember that NASA did a victory
    lap the year after the moon landing and took that all over the
    United States. And we are going to do a mini-Smithsonian
    version of that victory lap and take it to five cities. It is
    going to end up on the actual day of the commemoration at one
    of our affiliates in Seattle, the Museum of Flight, which if
    anybody happens to be in Seattle is a breathtaking, fabulous
    museum. And so, we are going to combine those two kinds of
    outreach, affiliate outreach, and the outreach of the Traveling
    Exhibition Service.
        Then there is a subset of the Traveling Exhibit Service,
    which I am very proud of having lived in small towns for much
    of my life, and that is the Museum on Main Street Program that
    reaches out to rural communities. And so, a very small
    community. We have one outreach to a community with less than
    800 population. They can have a Smithsonian exhibition in their
    town thanks to the Museum on Main Street Program.
        I thank you, Ms. Pingree, for bringing up the issue of the
    arts and humanities. I am a physician and a scientist, and yet
    I believe our most profound societal problems are not going to
    be solved by science alone. It is necessary, but not
    sufficient. And we emphasize and have enormous expertise--
    enormous expertise--in the arts and humanities in art, culture,
    history, anthropology, and so on. And I think the arts and
    humanities are unbelievably important for us to understand
    ethics, to understand ourselves and the world around us, and to
    understand what it means to be fully human.
        And if I can digress one more moment, on May 7th, I will be
    at a press conference at the National Academy of Sciences. As
    an individual I chaired a study for the National Academies
    about reintegrating the arts and humanities and the sciences in
    higher education, and I would very much appreciate any feedback
    members of the subcommittee have when learning about that. It
    is a big issue for the higher education community. So, thank
    you. Outreach is a big, big deal for us.
        Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, thank you very much for what you
    do and for explaining a little bit more about that to me. Thank
    you, Mr. Chair.

                               NATIONAL CAMPAIGN

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Some discussion about your
    ambitious multiyear campaign that you have been going through
    for the last number of years to raise money. I am curious, what
    was the initial goal of the campaign, and how much have you
    actually raised so far? How soon do you think you will be able
    to raise the balance of those funds?
        Dr. Skorton. Thank you. Well, I have the great privilege of
    doing a lot of fundraising for a lot of different kinds of
    organizations--community organizations, faith-based
    organizations, you name it. And coming to the Smithsonian,
    Chairman, I wondered without a football team that I know
    about--I am still learning about Smithsonian. But without a
    football team and without alumni in the usual sense, would
    people be generous to the Smithsonian, especially knowing the
    generosity of the U.S. Congress. And it is breathtaking--
    breathtaking--what this campaign produced.
        The goal originally was $1.5 billion. I take very little
    credit for this campaign. It was kicked off by my wonderful
    predecessor, Dr. Wayne Clough, and the American public helped
    us blow by that goal. We reached $1.88 billion, and two
    statistics I would like to share with the subcommittee that I
    am very proud of. One is that 93 percent of the gifts in the
    campaign were a hundred dollars or less.
        Mr. Calvert. Wow.
        Dr. Skorton. Ninety-three percent of the gifts were a
    hundred dollars or less. So, a lot of people who have their
    heart in the right place with limited capacity were able to be
    a part of the Smithsonian. One example of that is the National
    Museum of African-American History and Culture. When it set up
    a membership program, the entry-level membership was $25. So,
    quickly about a hundred thousand people were able to say to
    themselves and be members of this museum.
        The other end of the spectrum is that 356 people gave a
    million or more each, so we got to $1.88 billion, and we are
    going to continue to do very robust fundraising. Again, I
    return to the National Air and Space Museum project, that is
    going to be, again, like the whole Smithsonian throughout its
    history, a public/private partnership. And that is why we are
    so devoted to raise and even exceed that $250 million.
        Mr. Calvert. Great job. Ms. McCollum.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am glad Ms. Pingree
    asked about the creativity aspect of it because we talk about a
    lot about STEM here in Washington, D.C. But when I am at home
    in Minnesota, we talk about STEAM because we add the arts----
        Dr. Skorton. Yes. Yes.
        Ms. McCollum [continuing]. Because all the wonderful things
    that you brought today had either a connection with the
    humanities or the arts----
        Dr. Skorton. Yes.

                               SOUTH MALL CAMPUS

        Ms. McCollum [continuing]. Whether it is standing up for
    women's rights as the gavel does, or the music is arts and
    humanities, and then some of the engineering and science that
    we see. Our higher education institutions--and I am proud to
    have 22 of them in my district--we are the envy of the world
    with our higher education because we do have that creativity,
    that thinking outside of the box.
        But I am going to back to bricks and mortar because that is
    pretty much what the chairman and I are trying to figure out
    how to make work for you.
        It sounds like you spend all your time fundraising, and I
    know you do not because you are very on top of the day-to-day
    management. But I am going to ask about the South Mall campus.
    You have been working on a redesign for several years now, and
    for those who might not be familiar with where the South Mall
    campus actually is, it is the Castle, the Hirshhorn, the Freer,
    and then the Arts and Industries Building which I was asking
    about before. There are several gardens that connect with the
    pollinator garden on the other side of the Mall as well.
        The master plan has really changed since the original
    concept in 2014, and you are working your way through a
    planning process, and the comment period on the programmatic
    agreement closes in May. Can you update us a little bit on how
    this project is going, what your estimated cost of the master
    plan might be, and the timeframe? You did not request anything
    in this year's budget for it, so that is why the curiosity has
    gotten to me on this. Maybe it is because you are waiting for
    it and we are going to have a big ask in the next budget.
    Bottom line is, I know you are out there privately fundraising
    for a lot of things, but what your public/private match on the
    South Mall campus?
        Dr. Skorton. Thank you. Very, very important set of
    questions. Let me first start by just reminding myself and all
    of us what a master plan is. It is not a specific project that
    is ready to bring to the subcommittee or ready to bring to a
    planning commission. It is a general concept of where we have
    to get, a general destination for changing things. And we need
    to do some rethinking of the visitor experience and the entire
    South Mall area; how people can approach these museums from the
    Mall side from Jefferson Drive, how they can approach from
    Independence, how they interconnect with each other; how we
    load things, stuff that goes to the different areas, how many
    loading docks we have; how we have the support functions, the
    systems, electrical and so on for the entire area. And that was
    part of the idea of having a master plan, again, that I give
    the credit to Mr. Horvath and to Wayne Clough.
        Now, we have gone through several alternatives, as you
    mentioned, and the plan has evolved. We have settled on
    Alternative F as a specific way that we think the master plan
    should go. And I did not come today prepared with a lot of
    details or schematics about the master plan, but I am very glad
    to follow up at your request with you personally or with the
    subcommittee to remind you exactly what Alternative F is.
        I have heard more about the Haupt Garden than anything in
    this project, and I am very glad to have heard it, and I
    appreciate that you mentioned a pollinator area. To burden you
    with one piece of personal information, my wife and I are
    beekeepers, and I have been stung more than she has, but that
    is my clumsiness. But I am very, very engaged with the garden.
    And we had a schematic done by the architectural firm that we
    engaged to help us with the master plan, a schematic when it
    first came out that showed something pretty specific about what
    the Haupt Garden would look like. And in retrospect, I think we
    should not have had such a specific thing because we are not
    anywhere close to having specificity.
        I will tell you three things about the gardens in that
    master plan. Number one, we are absolutely positively committed
    to have at least as much garden space and probably more than we
    had before. Number two--number two--we are absolutely committed
    to make sure that the ambience of the garden and the way people
    can interact with it is reminiscent and evocative of the
    wonderful sense that people get going out there, including
    myself. My immediate office window and the office window for my
    support staff looks right out on the Haupt Garden, and I go out
    there frequently on some pretext just to get a little taste of
    that garden. But thirdly, it is a roof garden and it is
    leaking, and something does need to be done to redo the
    structure so that it will not leak on the areas below.
        And so, like the question that was asked about doing the
    systems for Air and Space, and the cladding, and the galleries,
    in this way as well, we want to tackle it in a systematic
    fashion that will allow us to do the right thing by the roof
    leak, do the right thing by the garden and the many, many
    people who love the garden, including me, and also do
    everything else that we need to improve for the long term the
    experience. We are not prepared to give you anything like a
    specific number today. It will be in excess of a billion
    dollars by the time all is in.
        The Castle itself is a very, very big, big project that we
    have to get to at some point, and we are glad to develop a
    briefing if you like just on the master plan and share details
    with you. But we are interacting carefully with the public
    bodies that are involved in approving aspects of it and very
    glad to come back and share more details with you.

                       ENERGY SAVINGS AND SUSTAINABILITY

        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, there is nothing more
    controversial than what someone's garden should look like
    because we all have our own vision. As a person who lost having
    a whole yard to garden down to a window box, which gets changed
    frequently I might add, I appreciate what you are saying about
    the focus all became on the gardens there for a while and not
    everything else.
        I think when you are looking at whole systems and
    replacement of HVACs and that, as Mr. Joyce put up, what would
    be helpful for the committee when we are looking at that would
    be to see the savings in doing the duct work right for the
    first time for what systems are going to be in the future,
    because sometimes duct work radically changes.
        Dr. Skorton. Yes.
        Ms. McCollum. And it can change the space inside of a
    building and how you can use that. And then the energy savings
    that you potentially see. I know when you mentioned having the
    right systems in place for the number of visitors that are in
    there on a hot day, or a cold day, or a humid day. It makes a
    huge difference, but along with that comes energy savings----
        Dr. Skorton. Yes.
        Ms. McCollum [continuing]. Which will not take your bottom
    line down, but will help with inflation and increased costs
    into the future. I think sometimes letting us know some of
    that, that it has all been thought out would be very helpful
    not only to us, but the public who might have a question on
    that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Dr. Skorton. If I may just comment quickly, and I will make
    it quick.
        Mr. Calvert. Sure.
        Dr. Skorton. Thank you for bringing those items up. I will
    pledge to you that Mr. Horvath and I will develop a specific
    briefing related to the two matters that you brought up,
    especially sustainability and energy savings. It turns out that
    we are engaged in a very significant initiative for that.
    Coming up in just a few days we are going to be celebrating
    LEED certification of the National Museum of African American
    History and Culture, and we have a LEED certification of the
    Anacostia Community Museum and other parts of our campuses. And
    it is very, very important to us both from the point of view of
    doing the right thing, but also, as you say, for long-term cost
    savings. So, we will develop a briefing for you. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Mr. Joyce, do you have any additional
    questions?
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no more
    questions, but for the record, I want to say that we traveled
    back and forth to the Air and Space Museum in the chairman's
    lovely automobile. [Laughter.]
        Dr. Skorton. I will not comment on any interactions among
    the committee members. I will just stay out of it. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Calvert. I am a fellow beekeeper.
        Dr. Skorton. Oh, my goodness.
        Mr. Calvert. It reminds me Einstein once said, ``the
    quickest way to destroy the human race is to destroy the
    bees''.
        Dr. Skorton. Yep.

                             COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT

        Mr. Calvert. One last question on the preservation of
    collections. That is one of your most important roles is to
    strengthen the preservation and care of these objects that are
    before us. Your fiscal year 2019 budget request continues this
    effort by including $69.8 million within the salaries and
    expense account for strengthening the Smithsonian collections.
    Now, this is of great interest to members. Can you describe the
    efforts taken in recent years to improve preservation and care
    for the Smithsonian collections, and what does the proposed
    funding in the budget request allow you to do in the coming
    year?
        Dr. Skorton. Thank you. So, we are taking a very systematic
    approach to this, and it has multiple components, and I will
    try to be brief. It is a very involved issue. As time goes on
    and as we expand to reach a billion people a year which is our
    goal, and as we do a better job of telling the story of women
    in America, Latinos in America, and everyone, we will certainly
    add to this already staggering size of the collection.
        So, we really have two sets of issues. One set of issues is
    how do we protect these absolutely irreplaceable objects? There
    is no coming up with another watch that clocked the first human
    flight, and so we are doing that in a systematic way. And as
    you are aware, Mr. Chairman, and I very much appreciate you
    bringing it up, not all of our collections storage and
    preservation areas are up to the standard that we believe they
    should be.
        We are about a third of the way toward design of Pod 6,
    which we mentioned before, and hopefully the time will come
    that we can get some assistance to make Pod 6 a reality. But
    one area is having the approach, and one area is having the
    actual space to do it. The second issue will be for new
    collections that come in, and we will have more collections
    even in addition to the staggering number that we have now.
        It is hard to predict what our needs will be for
    collections management until we know what those objects are.
    And so, 140 million plus of our objects are biological
    specimens, and that obviously requires one certain type of
    collections environment. And then the Enola Gay, or these
    papers, or Dizzy Gillespie's trumpet require a different type.
    They all require careful protection from the elements. They all
    require temperature and humidity controls of various types. And
    we are utilizing those funds to move along in a systematic way
    to upgrade the facilities that we have and continuing design
    work that you have supported for us toward a day where we have
    Pod 6 online. Thank you for asking that.
        Mr. Calvert. I have always been intrigued on your inventory
    system that you must have. I always remember the movie, Indiana
    Jones, where they had the Ark of the Covenant, and they were
    boxed in the back of a warehouse someplace. I know, in great
    specificity, that you know everything that is in these
    warehouses. Is that correct?
        Dr. Skorton. I did not hear you. You are breaking up, so.
    [Laughter.]
        I will tell you that they let me do some backstage stuff,
    as you can imagine, and when I get there and I start sort of
    noseying around the drawers, in a very polite, respectful way
    they say, why don't you sit over there, we will just bring the
    stuff to you. But thank you. It is very much like the movie.
    [Laughter.]
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, and if there are no additional
    questions, we are adjourned. Thank you.
        Dr. Skorton. Thank you very much.

                                               Tuesday, April 17, 2018.

                             INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

                                    WITNESS

    REAR ADMIRAL MICHAEL D. WEAHKEE, ACTING DIRECTOR, INDIAN HEALTH
        SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC
    REAR ADMIRAL MICHAEL TOEDT, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER
    REAR ADMIRAL (RETIRED) GARY HARTZ, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND
        ENGINEERING
    ANN CHURCH, ACTING DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING

                      Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert

        Mr. Calvert [presiding]. Good morning, everyone, and
    welcome to the House Appropriations Committee oversight hearing
    on Indian Health Service budget for fiscal year 2019. We are
    joined this morning by the acting director of IHS, Rear Admiral
    Michael Weahkee; chief medical officer who will be here
    shortly, Rear Admiral Michael Toedt; and director of
    environmental health and engineering, Rear Admiral Gary Hartz;
    and the acting director of finance and accounting, Ms. Ann
    Church. Thank you all for being here today and your dedication
    to the mission of Indian Health Service.
        As stated by Congress in the permanent reauthorization of
    the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, ``It is the policy of
    this Nation, in fulfillment of its special trust reps and legal
    obligation to Indians, to ensure the highest possible health
    status for Indians and urban Indians, and provide all resources
    necessary to affect that policy.''
        The National Indian Health Board estimates that the full
    needs-based budget for Indian Health Service is $32 billion in
    2019. The current fiscal year budget is $6.9 billion, and
    comprised of $5.5 billion in discretionary appropriations, and
    $150 million in mandatory appropriations, and an estimated $1.2
    billion in collections from Medicaid, Medicare, and other
    sources.
        The administration proposes $114 million net decrease in
    appropriations for the IHS in 2019. While some of the specific
    proposals may have merit and warrant further consideration by
    this subcommittee, I think it is safe to say that an overall
    cut to the Indian Health Service budget continues to be a non-
    starter for this Congress. This subcommittee will continue to
    place the Indian Health Service budget among its highest
    priorities for 2019.
        Over the past 8 years, the IHS budget as a percentage of
    total billed has grown from 13 percent in 2010 to 16 percent in
    2018. Over that same period, the IHS budget has increased by
    $1.5 billion and accounted for half of the total growth of this
    bill.
        We are very proud of our work, but we recognize that very
    much more needs to be done. In its latest facilities needs
    assessment report to Congress, the IHS estimated that any
    facility built in 2016 will not be replaced for 400 years. An
    estimated 92,354 patient referrals for services only available
    outside the IHS system, costing an estimated $424 million were
    denied or deferred due to insufficient funds in 2016. Perhaps
    no other statistic sums up our challenge more than this one.
    The average life expectancy for American Indians and Alaska
    Natives is 4.8 years less than any other group of people in the
    United States.
        The IHS user population is estimated to increase by 56,189
    patients in 2019 costing an additional $185 million. Pay costs
    across the IHS system in 2019 are an additional $47 million.
    Inflation costs are an additional $80 million. Contract support
    costs are an additional $104 million. Six new or expanded
    facilities are scheduled to open in 2019.
        Come on in, gentlemen. We are just starting----
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. We apologize, sir.
        Mr. Calvert [continuing]. My opening statement just to save
    some time. I appreciate it. I understand the crowds out front.
        Including three constructions via the Joint Venture
    Program. Meeting the Federal government's obligation to staff
    these facilities is an additional $159 million. Added together,
    fully meeting the Federal government's contractual obligations
    and maintaining current levels of service in 2019 are estimated
    to cost an additional $575 million above 2018.
        The magnitude of the challenge before us is enormous and is
    on par with the wildland fire funding challenge that this
    subcommittee has been battling for the last several years until
    recently, until we have finally found, I hope, the final
    solution. That is why like fire funding, the Administration and
    Congress need to continue to consider every option and strategy
    providing high-quality healthcare to the American Indians and
    Alaska Natives, and fulfilling the commitments made by our
    predecessors. I look forward to continuing that discussion
    today and in the days ahead.
        Before turning to Rear Admiral Weahkee for his opening
    testimony, I am pleased to yield to the subcommittee's
    distinguished ranking member, Betty McCollum, for any opening
    remarks.

                        Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to you
    and I having a productive hearing. I would like to welcome our
    witnesses, and I hope when we discuss the budget that you will
    be able to share your insights and impact of having acting
    directors since 2015 and the effect it has had on this Service.
    So, I especially look forward to hearing from you, Admiral, on
    this.
        Every year in this hearing, I focus on the stark contrast
    between the health of Native Americans and Native Alaskans and
    the rest of the population of the United States. The contrast
    is clear between the way that these two special groups that we
    have treaty obligations with are treated differently. Their
    disparities include lower life expectancies, higher rates of
    heart disease, cancer, diabetes, even tuberculosis, and
    substance abuse disorders. Additionally, suicide rates are 4
    times higher than the national average, and suicide is the
    second-leading cause of death for Indian youth.
        Like all health outcomes, these disparities have complex
    roots, but one of the fundamental causes is the severe under
    funding of the Indian Health Service. In recent years, this
    subcommittee has worked together to make a nonpartisan effort
    to increase funding for IHS even while operating under very
    constrained allocations. In the fiscal year 2018 omnibus,
    Congress provided $5.5 billion for Indian Health Service, but
    disproportionately, President Trump's fiscal year 2019 budget
    request proposes to cut that amount by $263 million. This
    reduction would set back the progress we are making to improve
    healthcare and diminish the health disparities I just
    mentioned.
        Our goal today is to understand the Indian Health Service's
    challenges and to look for ways that we can work together
    towards solutions. Funding for the Indian Health Service has
    been an area of broad bipartisan cooperation, and this
    subcommittee has provided increases to Indian Health Service
    appropriations over the last several years. Longstanding issues
    in the Great Plains region, which is adjacent to Minnesota, are
    a clear example that more needs to be done. We cannot have
    Indian Health Service hospitals losing their certification and
    placing their patients at risk.
        So, today I hope you will be able to discuss the steps you
    are taking to improve the quality of Indian health services you
    provide, explain how you are addressing maintenance and backlog
    to improve our healthcare facilities, and tell us what you are
    doing to strengthen the organization and improve staff
    recruitment and retention. I hope you will also address several
    troubling proposals contained in the fiscal year 2019 budget. I
    am greatly concerned by the elimination for funding health
    education, community health representatives, and tribal
    management. Additionally, I oppose the budget's proposed 42
    percent reduction to health facilities maintenance
    construction.
        Over two-thirds of American Indians and Alaska Natives are
    urban Indians, and the services provided by urban Indian health
    programs are critical to address the economic and health
    disparities urban Indians experience. I am concerned that the
    fiscal year 2019 budget proposes a 6 percent funding reduction
    from the fiscal year 2018 omnibus, with the number of programs
    about to increase from 33 to 40. This Administration should be
    asking for an increase to support these centers, and I hope we
    will have an opportunity to discuss it today.
        I am also incredibly disappointed at the Administration's
    proposal to shift the Special Diabetes Program from mandatory
    to discretionary. IHS' discretionary accounts are already
    struggling to provide vital healthcare services and
    preventative healthcare. Not utilizing the authorized mandatory
    funding, in my opinion, is just another gimmick that makes the
    White House appear to have some fiscal responsibility, even as
    the White House continues to explode annual deficits by
    trillions of dollars with policies such as the Republican tax
    bill.
        As this Nation, a prosperous Nation, here in the United
    States, we should be working together to build a stronger
    America for tribal nations and to eliminate disparities between
    the better health outcomes enjoyed by most Americans and the
    persistent health problems within Native American and Alaska
    Native communities. We must make smart, sustainable investments
    throughout Indian Country to bridge those gaps. We need to find
    comprehensive solutions, holistic approaches to address health,
    education, and the quality of life, the needs of Native
    Americans. Unfortunately, this proposed IHS budget will not
    help us achieve that goal.
        So, I look forward to working with my subcommittee chairman
    and the other members of this subcommittee so that we craft a
    bill that appropriately funds IHS. We have a moral and legal
    responsibility to Native Americans, and we fall short. It is
    not just a violation of treaty agreements that we hold with
    Native Americans, but it is a violation of the trust that we
    should be sharing together.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing today. I
    look forward to working with you on these important issues and
    doing our part to build healthy tribal communities. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady. And, Admiral, you are
    recognized for your opening statement.

            Opening Remarks of Acting Director RADM Michael Weahkee

        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Good morning, Chairman Calvert,
    members of the subcommittee. I am Rear Admiral Michael Weahkee,
    acting director of the Indian Health Service, and I thank you
    for your support and for the opportunity to testify on the
    President's fiscal year 2019 budget. This budget advances our
    mission to raise the physical, mental, social, and spiritual
    health of American Indians and Alaska Natives to the highest
    level.
        The Indian Health Service provides health services to
    approximately 2.2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives
    from 573 federally-recognized tribes across 37 States. The
    President's fiscal year 2019 budget proposes $5.4 billion in
    total discretionary budget authority for the IHS, and this is
    an increase of $413 million above the continuing resolution,
    which was the comparison level at the time the budget request
    was developed.
        The budget reflects the Administration's strong commitment
    to Indian Country by protecting direct clinical healthcare
    investments. It increases IHS' discretionary budget authority
    by 8 percent. In order to prioritize direct clinical healthcare
    services, the budget proposes to discontinue the Health
    Education Program and the Community Health Representatives
    Program.
        The budget request includes $58 million to address
    accreditation emergencies within IHS and improve quality of
    care; $955 million for the Purchased and Referred Care Program;
    $80 million for the construction of two facilities on the
    healthcare facility construction priority list; $159 million to
    staff six new or replacement healthcare facilities, including
    three joint venture projects; and an estimated $822 million for
    contract support costs which remains a separate indefinite
    appropriation to guarantee full funding.
        The Indian Health Service remains committed to addressing
    behavioral health challenges, including high rates of alcohol
    and substance abuse, mental health disorders, and suicide in
    native communities. The proposed budget for these services is
    $340 million. Further, the budget provides $10 billion in new
    resources across HHS to combat the opioid epidemic and serious
    mental illness. As part of this effort, the budget includes
    $150 million for IHS grants based on need for opioid abuse
    prevention, treatment, and recovery support in Indian Country.
        The Special Diabetes Program for Indians is instrumental in
    improving access to diabetes treatment and prevention services
    in Indian communities. Diabetes-related health outcomes have
    improved significantly. The long-time trend of increasing rates
    of diabetes ended in 2011, and we have observed a 54 percent
    decrease in new cases of kidney failure due to diabetes among
    native adults. And the budget continues funding for this
    program at $150 million.
        We are working aggressively to address quality of care
    issues across our system, and in spite of ongoing challenges
    involving recruitment and retention of providers, aging
    infrastructure, and rural health facilities, today we are able
    to report progress. The Pine Ridge Indian Hospital is back in
    compliance with the conditions of participation for emergency
    services. The hospital is now in a reasonable assurance period
    pending a full survey to determine if it has maintained its
    compliance. The Rosebud Indian Hospital satisfied the
    requirements of the Systems Improvement Agreement with CMS in
    September of 2017, and we are now awaiting a re-survey at that
    site as well.
        We are also addressing concerns in the Navajo area at the
    Gallup Indian Medical Center. Both the Joint Commission and the
    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services surveys found the
    hospital emergency department to be out of compliance with
    their standards and conditions of participation. We moved
    quickly to address those findings, and efforts to restore
    accreditation of all services surveyed by the Joint Commission
    continue. The facility must now undergo a full CMS survey to
    ensure Medicare Program compliance.
        We have achieved progress in the areas of oversight and
    management of quality, and some key accomplishments include:
    credentialing and privileging policy and process modernization,
    development of a standardized patient experience survey, and
    the establishment of primary care patient wait time standards.
    I am proud of the efforts and the commitment of the staff for
    the progress that has been made so far, and we are firmly
    committed to improving quality, safety, and access to
    healthcare for American Indians and Alaska Natives.
        We appreciate all of your support, and we are happy to
    answer any questions that you may have.
        [The statement of Acting Director Weahkee follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              PER CAPITA SPENDING

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. As
    recently as 2015, the Indian Health Service published an annual
    chart comparing per capita spending on IHS patients against
    other Federal programs and the nationwide per capita average.
    In 2015, the nationwide average was roughly $8,500 while the
    IHS average was $3,100. In the National Indian Health Board's
    update for 2017, the IHS average is up slightly at $3,300, but
    is not keeping pace with the nationwide average of $9,200.
        Here is the question. Is the National Indian Health Board's
    assessment of the increasing trend in per capita spending on
    IHS patients consistent with the Indian Health Service
    estimate?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you for that question,
    Chairman. The IHS has updated our charts for 2017 and have
    validated the numbers that the National Indian Health Board has
    published. Those numbers are valid and in line with our own
    projections.
        Mr. Calvert. Is it accurate to conclude then that the per
    capita spending on IHS patients is on the rise because of
    increases in appropriations for the Indian Health Service have
    outpaced fixed costs, inflation, and population growth?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you, Chairman. The Indian
    Health Service very much appreciates the increases to the
    Agency's budget over the last 10 years, and we have seen some
    significant improvements as a result. I do want to identify
    however, that the Agency's budget was significantly
    underfunded, and it would take quite some time to make up for
    the lost revenues, lost third-party revenues, and with
    inflation being taken into account. At the current pace, we
    still have a lot of room to make up.
        We are also still contending with the 2013 sequestration
    that took $220 million out of the IHS direct service base
    budget, so we appreciate the funding increases. However, there
    is a lot of room yet to make up.
        Mr. Calvert. OK. I will wait until the second round for my
    next question. With that, Ms. McCollum.
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, as you know, there are many
    hearings at the same time, so with your permission, I would
    like to yield to Mr. Kilmer.
        Mr. Calvert. Mr. Kilmer.

                             DISCRETIONARY FUNDING

        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman, and I thank the ranking
    member for the courtesy. American Indians and Alaska Natives
    are substantially more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes
    than the general population. The Special Diabetes Programs for
    Indians, provides funding for diabetes treatment and prevention
    to approximately 301 Indian Health Service tribal and urban
    Indian health programs and the program is authorized through
    2019. First, why does the fiscal year 2019 President's budget
    propose to shift funding from mandatory to discretionary
    spending, and can you speak to what impact that shift to
    discretionary will have on the Indian Health Service's ability
    to fund other programs?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you, Congressman. With regards
    to the proposal to move SDPI from mandatory to discretionary,
    this is part of a greater Administration policy decision, not
    only looking within the Indian Health Service at our current
    mandatory line which is SDPI, but at all the MACRA extenders
    and moving those out of the mandatory into the discretionary to
    provide the Department with greater flexibility in identifying
    its priorities.
        So, we are kind of caught up, in this program specifically,
    in that greater Administration policy decision.
        Mr. Kilmer. Do you see it impacting the other discretionary
    programs under IHS?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. When programs are lumped together,
    there are decisions that have to be made, and I have heard from
    tribal leaders in consultation that there could be some
    unintended consequence of that move. The ability to plan for
    grants, the requirement to have to deal with continuing
    resolutions are a couple of examples that were put out early.
    So, when it comes to competing priorities, there will be hard
    decisions that would need to be made from time to time.

                          URBAN INDIAN HEALTH PROGRAMS

        Mr. Kilmer. Thanks. The number of urban Indian health
    programs is slated to jump from 33 to 40 this year. And I am
    curious how your Agency will support those additional programs
    given the proposed funding cut to the Urban Indian Health
    Program line item.
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you, sir. With regards to the
    urban health programs that are slated to be added to the Urban
    Indian Health Program line, this is actually an administrative
    movement. We had those programs currently funded out of our
    Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program. They are NIAAA programs
    that are being realigned administratively over into the Urban
    Indian Health Program line. So, the funds will come with them.

                          CARE COORDINATION AGREEMENTS

        Mr. Kilmer. OK. The ITU System of Care should be expanding
    its specialty care network through the use of care coordination
    agreements which allow tribal 638 facilities to contract
    directly with providers to deliver healthcare services. And
    these agreements are powerful tools to help support expanded
    access to specialty care in Indian Country. Can you just
    discuss the role that you and the IHS have played in helping
    ITU develop care coordination agreement templates so that they
    can enter into an existing specialty care network?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you, Congressman. With regards
    to care coordination agreements, the majority of this work has
    been facilitated in the field as each of the individual states
    have different rules. And we do have frequent meetings here at
    the national level with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
    Services. Dr. Toedt meets at least once a month with our
    counterparts at CMS. Also, at the Department level we have
    meetings, administrator to agency director, to discuss items
    like care coordination agreements. So, I would say at this
    point that a lot of that work is going on with our area
    directors and with our service unit leadership.
        Dr. Toedt, anything you would like to add since you have
    been our lead in discussions with CMS?
        Rear Admiral Toedt. Thank you, sir. So, care coordination
    agreements are mutually beneficial. They provide much-needed
    access to care, and they also provide better care coordination
    for our patients. So, we encourage them. We support them. We
    have had meetings to facilitate with our area directors, with
    CMS. I recall the most recent meeting I had was in the Great
    Plains area where we were discussing how to expand care
    coordination agreements in South Dakota. But we support them
    across the Nation.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thanks. I yield back. Thank you, Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Simpson.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for being
    here, and I thank you for the work that you do. As has been
    mentioned, Indian healthcare has been a bipartisan effort in
    this committee trying to find the resources to do what we need
    to do. And Ms. McCollum said, it is both a trust and a moral
    responsibility that we fund Indian healthcare. And the last
    several years, it is kind of interesting, we have focused on
    increasing the quality and availability of healthcare to Native
    Americans. We have done somewhat at the expense of not focusing
    on some other needs on reservations, whether it is law
    enforcement, or education, and those types of things. And those
    are areas that I know that the chairman has been focused on
    over the last couple of years, how do we do all of these
    things. It is a tough nut to crack, but it is something that we
    have to do. As I said, it is a moral responsibility for all of
    us.

                                  GREAT PLAINS

        I was glad to hear that Rosebud and Pine Ridge are
    apparently getting their certifications?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. We are moving in the right direction,
    sir.
        Mr. Simpson. Are there any other factors? I mean, we went
    to several of the reservations in South Dakota. Rosebud and
    Pine Ridge were, I would say, behind the Cheyenne River Sioux,
    and the Standing Rock, and some of the others in the quality of
    their care. Are there other factors that have led to this? Is
    it management? Is it other things that need to be corrected?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you, Congressman Simpson. I had
    the opportunity to spend 5 months, as did Dr. Toedt, in Rosebud
    helping to work on the issues that were impacting that
    particular hospital and have made several visits to Pine Ridge
    since coming into the acting role. And where I think that the
    work and efforts should be focused is on social determinants of
    care, so issues that are impacting the entire community prior
    to them coming into the healthcare setting, like job
    availability and economic development, availability of safe
    housing, healthy foods availability. Some of the items that you
    have mentioned that do need attention as well: schools,
    increasing access to better education. So, dealing with those
    social determinants are important and would result in less
    demand for service on the healthcare system in general.

                                 CREDENTIALING

        Mr. Simpson. Talking about that, I ask this question almost
    every year. It is about centralized credentialing. It is a
    question, as I said, I ask each year. Having been a former
    dentist, I know that it is a barrier to getting providers out
    to reservations, and that is one of the big challenges we face.
    How do you get providers to go out there, how do you find a
    place for them to live? Some of these places are pretty remote
    and pretty desolate actually.
        How is it going, and have you seen improvements in
    providers at IHS facilities? And I understand that the current
    breakdown is getting providers credentialed occurs at the local
    and regional level. How will the new centralized credentialing
    system address this problem?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you for the question, and I am
    happy to report that we do now have all of our Federal sites on
    a centralized credentialing system. They are all using the same
    software and entering information in the same manner. This
    provides us with some level of portability of those records
    from site to site, so we can expect to see over time that the
    amount of time that it takes to credential and privilege
    providers should decrease because of these efficiencies.
        Dr. Toedt actually chaired the implementation of this
    particular policy and centralization, so I would like to ask
    him if he could add some additional insight.
        Rear Admiral Toedt. Happy to do so. The rollout of the
    centralized credentialing was a key recommendation from you,
    and we took that to heart. This was a project that took a lot
    of effort, but we were successful in having all of our Federal
    sites now having all of our providers credentialed in a single
    database. We do still require privileging at each individual
    site. The privileges have to match the capabilities of the
    facility, so there is still that decision-making part. We also
    made sure that we are not sacrificing any element of safety
    because credentialing is the cornerstone of safety to protect
    our patients and make sure that all of our providers are fully
    qualified. But I am happy to report that the single
    credentialing system is in place.

                                    STAFFING

        Mr. Simpson. Do you have any idea how many vacancies we
    have for providers?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. We do have great tabs on all of our
    providers, not only by provider, but provider type. So, in
    terms of percentages for physicians specifically, we are in the
    34 percent range. Advanced practice nurses, about that same
    level. Physician Assistants, a little bit better, but still
    right at about 29 percent. So, we do have still have
    significant challenges with filling these vacancies, and we are
    making up for it by the use of very costly contracts.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you for what you do. We look forward to
    working with you to try to solve some of these problems in the
    future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Ms. McCollum.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to go back to
    the big picture. I know you are doing the best job you can,
    Rear Admiral Weahkee. But part of the challenge that we are
    struggling with is four acting directors since 2015 does not
    allow for a whole lot of continuity. When you are dealing with
    improving statistics on lower life expectancy, disproportionate
    disease burdens, heart disease, cancer, the recommendation that
    the President unfortunately has made to go from mandatory to
    discretionary funding for diabetes, and other things, it is
    quite daunting what you are tasked to look at.
        So, from your knowledge as being the most current acting
    director in the Indian Health Service, exactly what would this
    impact of the $264 million reduction from the 2018 omnibus bill
    have on meeting healthcare needs? Then I have a follow-up after
    you answer that one, sir.
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you, Congresswoman McCollum.
    And with regards to the continuity of leadership, I have had
    the privilege of having the most recent acting director,
    Admiral Chris Buchanan, serving as my deputy director as I am
    in the acting director role. So, there is continuity and ready
    access to his expertise and insights. I have also relied
    heavily on those who have come before me, so I dialogue
    frequently with previous directors, Admiral Charles Grim, Dr.
    Yvette Roubideaux, and we have great partners in Indian Country
    with the National Indian Health Board, National Council of
    Urban Indian Health, National Congress of American Indians. So,
    there are a lot of supports to somebody serving in this role.
        With regards to budget reductions or proposed reductions,
    as identified there are many needs within Indian Country, and
    the IHS in particular. And we have already identified through
    having a Federal Disparity Index and a line item for Indian
    Healthcare Improvement Fund that there is room for improvement
    in the funding of our programs. So, any reduction to Indian
    Health Service funding would be a detriment.

                            FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET

        Ms. McCollum. Along with the reductions unfortunately that
    the White House proposed on Indian health services, there are
    agencies that you work hand-in-hand with in a comprehensive
    approach for wellness, because you work to reduce risk factors
    with heart disease, cancer, diabetes, tuberculosis, and
    substance disorders. Can you describe how you are working with
    other agencies, if they are facing similar reductions? Is there
    a compounded cut to the work that we are doing in this area?
    Because in the proposal, community health representatives and
    tribal management grants are eliminated. These are some of the
    very people that you were talking about, working on health
    improvement.
        How does eliminating tribal grant management grants impact
    the projects that you have, for example, on implementation of
    electronic health records? And are you tracking what is going
    on in the centers? I will just use the CDC for an example which
    works on suicide prevention as well as working on opioid,
    alcohol, and drug abuse, and recovery? Are you tracking those
    budgets to see if it is a compounding effect with this cut that
    the White House has proposed?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you again for your question,
    and I caught several in there. I would like to start with the
    collaborations and keeping tabs on what is going on with our
    sister agencies. We do have many partnerships developed with
    agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on
    preventive matters. We have recently partnered with them on
    infection control training, and we are able to leverage those
    resources to train more than 300 of our own staff on infection
    control standards in our facilities.

                                    OPIOIDS

        With SAMHSA, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
    Administration, they have already received a good, sizable
    increase in funds to combat the opioid epidemic, and we are in
    initial dialogue with them about how they intend to use those
    funds, again really encouraging them to reach out to tribes and
    discuss what the needs are. I have heard directly from our
    tribal stakeholders that they would much prefer to receive the
    funds directly as opposed to going through a grant mechanism,
    and they have also voiced concern about funds going through
    States. They do not always make it to the tribal level.
        Ms. McCollum. Sir, not to cut you off, but I think we agree
    that the opioid funding is working towards being robust to
    address this problem. But my question was, and you pointed out,
    about the work, the collaboration that you do with the CDC,
    whether it is tuberculosis or other preventative diseases, do
    you know if the CDC is cut in the President's budget? Have you
    had concerns or questions about some of the other things? You
    said you used it to train 300 people? Do you know if there are
    cuts in there that are going to have an impact for you being
    able to do what you need to do, facing the fact that you are
    already looking at a $264 million cut yourself? Have you cross-
    tabbed those budgets?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. No, ma'am, we have not from within
    the Agency, and we would be happy to work with our Department
    of Health and Human Services financial office to provide you
    with information specific to Indian programming.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I will conclude this
    round of questioning with this. If we do not look at the big
    picture about what is happening in some of these other agencies
    where there is collaboration and there are further reductions
    in cuts, we won't know what this means to Indian Country and
    the work that we are doing. If we are able to increase IHS and
    then the CDC gets a cut and it is not able to do its
    programming, it still puts us behind. So, I would encourage us
    to get that information. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Stewart.
        Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Chairman. Acting Director, I have
    your name pronounced twice differently. Is it Wah-kee then or--
    --
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Weahkee.
        Mr. Stewart. Weahkee, yeah, thank you.
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you.
        Mr. Stewart. All right. It is always nice if people can
    pronounce your name correctly, right? [Laughter.]
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. It is a tough one. I have been
    dealing with it my whole life. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Stewart. I am sure you have. Well, to you, sir, and
    others who are with you today, thanks for being here. Like
    everyone, I have got a problem. I mean, that is kind of the
    value of these hearings is many times we can bring you issues
    that we need your attention on and your help. And this one is
    an important one, and it is one that we can fix, but we have
    not been able to yet. And, again, I need your help.

                       REIMBURSEMENT FOR MEDICAL AIRLIFT

        It has to do with recent changes in Indian Health Service's
    reimbursement structures for airlift, for medical airlift. It
    has resulted in catastrophic losses for ambulance services in
    the Navajo Nation, and I want you to picture the Four Corners
    if you could. I represent Utah, and in the Four Corners area
    you have got Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. If you
    want to be alone for a while, go to this part of the country.
    It is some of the most sparsely-populated area within the lower
    48, I am sure. But it is a real challenge then because when you
    have a medical emergency, it is a long, long way to go to get
    help in many cases.
        And because of this change in reimbursement rate, there is
    only one provider now. There used to be several, but the others
    have dropped out because they actually lose money every time
    they pick up a patient, and a substantial amount of money. Not
    just a few hundred dollars, thousands and thousands of dollars
    every time they pick up a patient, and yet they continue to do
    it because they feel compelled to because they want to serve
    their fellow man. But they have announced that they will pull
    out within the next few weeks if we cannot help them with this
    reimbursement. They will leave the Native Americans there
    without an air ambulance service then.
        We have reached out to local and Federal officials, and we
    have attempted to inform them and to get their help on this,
    and I am going to read you just part of a letter, if we could,
    that was sent last month. ``Due to catastrophic changes in
    reimbursements over the several years, Classic Care Medical,
    which is the last remaining provider in the region, will have
    no choice but to shut down operations in the region, leaving
    the area without emergency care.'' They have something like $3
    million in providing this service to Native American in that
    area.
        Look, we've got to do better, and we have got to find a way
    to work with you and CMS to get a reimbursement rate. They are
    not asking to make money. They just cannot lose money every
    time they do this. Can you help us with that?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you, Congressman Stewart. In
    the beginning of your question, you made me homesick because I
    am from the Four Corners and grew up in the Farmington Aztec
    area in northwestern New Mexico. So, I pictured the area and I
    am very fond of it for sure.
        Mr. Stewart. As am I, by the way.
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you. With regards to emergency
    transport and the rates that we are paying now with the
    implementation of Medicare-like rates or PRC rates, we are
    reimbursing at the same level that Medicaid or Medicare or any
    other Federal healthcare entity would reimburse. So, from that
    regard, we are actually saving the Agency money, getting better
    purchasing power with those funds.
        Mr. Stewart. Director, if I could jump in just quickly.
    That works for a business model when you are in a metropolitan
    area and you have private sector funding that can help
    compensate for it because everyone loses money on those rates.
    This is an area where there is no private sector. I mean, there
    is only the Indian Nation down there, so there is no other way
    for them to help even out the funding levels. Does that make
    sense?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. There are parts of our Nation where
    there is only one game in town for sure, and if that is the
    case in this particular area with Classic Care Medical, I think
    that it is incumbent upon our system to evaluate whether or not
    any competitors exist or other options, if air medical
    transport, if it is fixed-wing versus helicopter, or if ground
    transport is available. We need to look at all the options to
    ensure that we are taking our patient safety into account and
    that we negotiate appropriate rates.
        Mr. Stewart. Well, and so I will just restate something and
    then one more time ask your help. If you are in a big city
    where you have a lot of private insurance that will compensate
    these companies at a different rate, this will work because you
    can use that to help fill the gap for these lower, lower
    compensated patients. But, again, there is no option down
    there. It is only the Indian Nation.
        And once again, and then I will turn the time back over, if
    we cannot fix this and if we cannot fix it with some urgency,
    this company is going to pull out. And it is not in years, it
    is within weeks, and we just hope that we can work with your
    Agency and try to find a solution. I think the Native American
    people deserve it.
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. And thank you. I will commit to
    looking into the issue, and another option that we might
    consider is pulling Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
    into the discussion.
        Mr. Stewart. Yeah, we absolutely have to do that, and we
    have tried to work with them, but your weight behind that
    effort would be helpful.
        Mr. Calvert. Would the gentleman yield for a moment? I
    might ask a follow-up question. What flexibilities does IHS
    have to change the reimbursement rate to fix this airlift
    problem?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. We do have the ability to negotiate
    rates that are Medicaid or Medicare reimbursement plus a number
    to be determined based on a number of different variables. But
    there is some latitude in there of being able to account for
    situations like this that we can utilize.
        Mr. Calvert. OK. So, if that flexibility does exist in this
    case, that might be a potential solution.
        Mr. Stewart. Thank you, sir, and I yield back, Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Ms. Pingree.

                                    OPIOIDS

        Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all of you
    for being here today and for the work you are doing to help
    take care of the health of our tribes. And I apologize, I came
    in a little late, so I know you have talked some about the
    opioid crisis, but I just wanted to focus on it a little bit
    more. I come from the State of Maine where the opioid crisis in
    the news every day. We know that American Indians and Alaska
    Natives have the highest drug overdose rates in 2015. I am
    assuming that is continuing. Also, American Indian students'
    annual heroin and oxycodone use was about 2 to 3 times higher
    than the national average, so it is no small challenge to be
    taking this on.
        In States like Maine, we were one of just eight tribes
    throughout Indian Nation to receive funding through the
    Department of Justice Coordinated Tribal Assistance Program,
    which allowed us to establish a healing to wellness court. And
    I know that has been very successful, but that is a grant
    program and those things are not ongoing. And so, I want to
    talk to you a little more about the overall picture of funding
    and how this is being handled, and I know there are issues
    around coordinating with other departments which has been
    brought up as well. So, let me just throw out a few questions.
    If you do not get everything answered, we can follow up on it,
    but to see your sense of it.
        One is how you are working with tribal first responders,
    what criteria the Indian Health Service is using to award the
    multiyear grants that will be available to implement the Tribal
    Opioid Response Grant Program, how are you going to follow
    those, and what measures will you use and what process to
    monitor the grants. Will you be looking at best performance and
    sharing those best practices? Lastly, what is the status of the
    development of a comprehensive and culturally sustainable
    tribal action plan? I know that is a lot, but just anything you
    want to put in about the overview. It is certainly one of the
    biggest challenges we are facing nationally, and obviously in
    Indian Country much more significant.
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you, Congresswoman. Definitely
    the impact of opioids on Indian Country cannot be overstated.
    You mentioned some of the statistics, and we have seen an
    increase of 519 percent in overdose death rates for American
    Indians, so it is something that we need to tackle right away.
    Related to plans, future plans for the use of opioid funding,
    we within the IHS very much believe in and rely upon our
    consultation with tribes to have the initial conversation on
    where they believe the funds should be dedicated and for what
    purposes, and in what construct. And so, we will initiate
    consultation in advance of the receipt of those funds to obtain
    that feedback from our tribal stakeholders. And we have also
    encouraged our sister agencies to do the same, so for those
    like SAMHSA who are receiving large sums of funding, we are
    encouraging them to do that outreach to tribes as well.
        We are also sharing information with our sister agencies,
    the mechanisms that we have used as an Agency in the past to
    ensure that we get that money out into Indian Country in the
    best manner possible. Again, that does not replace the
    consultation. They need to have those conversations directly
    themselves.
        The criteria to be used for the IHS opioid funding, the
    $150 million a year, we are at least initially looking at the
    construct of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians and the
    manner in which we have run that grant program as a starting
    point, and then we will take the consultation and input and see
    if there are tweaks or changes that need to be made.
        I am going to ask Dr. Toedt as our lead in all clinical and
    preventive matters to address some of the other opioid
    discussions that we have had. We do have consultations
    scheduled in partnership with SAMHSA and the National
    Institutes of Health at a conference next month in Minnesota
    that the National Indian Health Board will be sponsoring. Dr.
    Toedt, do you want to take it from there?

                        PARTNERING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT

        Rear Admiral Toedt. Yes, sir. So, regarding the question
    about how we partner with tribal law enforcement, you are
    already aware that we partner with the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    and equip their law enforcement officers with training to
    recognize signs and symptoms of overdoses and how to intervene
    immediately when they are first on the scene. And as of
    December 2017, we have trained more than 300 officers and
    certified 47 BIA officers as naloxone trainers.
        Translating that to the tribal facilities, our direct care
    facilities also provide naloxone supplies training and toolkits
    to tribal law enforcement. And just this March 30th, our HOPE
    Committee, which is the Heroin, Opioids, and Pain Efforts
    Committee, released a policy that provides local policies and
    procedures for the IHS-operated pharmacies to provide the
    naloxone and law enforcement agencies and other first
    responders to prevent the opioid overdose deaths.
        I want to add that I have worked at the Micmac Clinic in
    Maine, and the people there are near and dear to my heart, and
    I appreciate you.
        Ms. Pingree. Well, thank you for mentioning them, and I am
    sure they will appreciate that and have fond memories, so thank
    you. I just want to follow up quickly by saying, I am glad you
    have things in place, particularly naloxone. I know that is
    often a challenge to make sure that is available everywhere it
    needs to be. I know some of this funding is new, but also, some
    of the things you are talking about are. We will and we are
    planning to follow up and since this crisis is ongoing, and
    nothing here is new to us. I hope that all efforts are speeded
    up as fast as possible.
        I am glad there is consultation, but on the other hand,
    people just, they want to see the action, and see the
    availability. I know a big concern in our area is residential
    substance abuse, and there has never been enough of it. I do
    not think I have to tell you that, but making sure that we
    continue to try to increase those numbers is really important.
        Lastly, I just want to concur with some of my colleagues
    who have said that the funding for special diabetes, also a
    huge problem in our State and in Indian Country in particular.
    Going from mandatory to discretionary raises a lot of concerns,
    and making sure there is adequate funding for that as such a
    prevalent problem is really important. So, thank you. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Joyce.

                                    NALOXONE

        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow up on
    Ms. Pingree's questions about naloxone. I am glad to hear that
    you have first responders using naloxone. Does your 2019 budget
    request reflect that support?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. So, that would be captured in the H&C
    budget where our pharmacy costs currently reside. There has not
    been any additional funding identified for the provision of
    naloxone, but pharmacy costs are supported through an H&C line.
    Hospitals and clinics, sorry.
        Mr. Joyce. As a matter of first response, it is important
    that you make naloxone available throughout American Indian/
    Alaska communities given the 519 percent increase in drug
    overdose claims from 1999-2015. I am glad to hear that first
    responders are getting it. I was making sure that we have
    adequately funded those efforts because obviously saving lives
    is an important part of this equation.
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Yes, and we have had discussions, and
    Dr. Toedt can give us the per dose cost and the evaluation that
    we have undertaken. And, again, knowing that the U.S. Surgeon
    General just earlier this month promoted family members,
    friends, and those at risk themselves to carry naloxone, we do
    expect to see a significant increase in prescriptions for and
    dispensing of naloxone. So, it is a cost that we need to take
    into account for future budget purposes.

                               BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

        Mr. Joyce. I am glad to hear that. For 25 years I was a
    prosecutor before I got here, and I have to admit after seeing
    staggering numbers like this, it shifts your focus from the law
    enforcement side of people being in possession of a drug to
    saving people's lives. The one question I have when I speak
    with people in the community is ``what works?''. Have you found
    anything that has been especially helpful as far as
    reintegrating folks back into society because I know the
    recidivism rate in people who are addicted to these drugs is
    unfortunately very high as well?
        Rear Admiral Toedt. Thank you for the question. So,
    definitely we see that when treatment is culturally
    appropriate, when it is based on the individual's native
    culture, when it addresses all of the underlying causes,
    addressing the problems that the individual has at home, when
    it is focused not just on recovery as a single timed event, but
    looking at after care when they return from recovery back to
    the community, those are the areas where we see the greatest
    successes where there is good coordinated care and follow-up
    after discharge from treatment.
        Mr. Joyce. Generally going back into the situation they
    were in before creates the same circumstances that brought them
    there in the first place. So, especially in the tribal
    communities, I was wondering how you were dealing with that
    item.
        Rear Admiral Toedt. Yes, sir, exactly right. If an
    individual is coming from an at-risk situation and they return
    to an identical situation, they remain obviously at risk. And
    so, helping the individual get to a better place, but then
    working with them either to improve their environment or to
    return to an alternate environment. And so, that may mean that
    they may not be able to go back to that same house. They may
    have to go to a recovery intermediate housing. There is
    definitely a need for that.
        There is the whole concept of a community becoming more
    sober, and so the work is with an entire community, partnering
    with law enforcement, pharmacies, providers, social services.
    Working really to clean up an entire community has also been
    very effective. There is a project in North Carolina called
    Project Lazarus that the Eastern Band of Cherokee have used to
    partner with surrounding towns and surrounding communities so
    that they are not just focusing on the tribe, but the entire
    environment that the tribe is exposed to.

                                  RECRUITMENT

        Mr. Joyce. I am glad to hear that. In your 2019 budget
    request, is there any funding to hire additional nurses to help
    you combat this opioid crisis?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you for that question. We do
    have heavy emphasis on direct clinical services in the 2019
    proposal. So, the hospital and clinics line is identified as
    the line item that would supplement additional nurses being
    hired. We can also hire nurses through the mental health
    services line and the alcohol/substance abuse line. Those would
    be for psych nurses who can help with medication management.
    So, there are several lines within the budget that have
    proposed increases, and those funds can be used to recruit and
    retain nurses.
        Mr. Joyce. That begs the question is there any plan or
    procedure in place to hire additional nurses to help you combat
    this crisis?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you for that question. We have
    been working diligently in developing strategies to improve our
    recruitment and retention ability. Actually, I will name three
    if you do not mind a little bit of time around this. We have a
    couple of proposals that are a part of this budget to gain
    parity with the Veterans Administration and enable us to pay
    better, to be able to offer better incentives like higher-level
    leave accrual, to also be able to hire greater numbers of
    providers, specifically physicians, not only with U.S.
    citizenship, but also those who have been trained in the United
    States who may have citizenship outside of the country. So,
    Title 38 authority, parity with the VA is a big help.
        Also, with our scholarship and loan repayment program, we
    have got proposals included that would help us to leverage
    those funds, make the scholarships and loans tax exempt, and
    give us parity with the National Health Service Corps and the
    Armed Forces Health Professions scholarships. We would be able
    to provide more scholarships and loans if we do not have the
    taxability issue.
        And then flexibilities within the existing program, our
    ability to allow students to repay on a longer projected
    timeframe. So, rather than having to do it all within 2 years,
    that they could extend to 4 years at half time as an example.
    So, these added flexibilities would provide us with a great
    opportunity to recruit individuals.
        Within our HR system, we are working at making the process
    less burdensome, doing a single application and applying for
    multiple jobs across the Agency--we call it global
    recruitment--so that they do not have to submit applications
    for each individual job. They do it once, and they are
    considered, and they can select the location that they would
    like. So, a couple of tools that we have been working on.
        Also, in partnership with the Office of the Surgeon
    General, we are looking at making priority placements into our
    most rural and remote locations, and incentivizing officers in
    the Commissioned Corps to do that. So, a lot of work underway,
    and we have just started to see the benefit of some of the
    items that have been implemented.
        Mr. Joyce. Similar to the opioid addiction crisis being
    unfortunately a nationwide issue, we have a primary care
    physician shortage that is also a nationwide issue. I am glad
    to see that nurses are going to be our primary care folks on
    the front edge. I am glad to see that you are using all the
    tools at your disposal to recruit these folks.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Kaptur.

                               POPULATION SERVED

        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Rear
    Admiral Weahkee. I wanted to follow on some of my colleagues'
    questions, but it is my first opportunity to question you, so I
    just want to clarify: The population that you serve is 2.2
    million total?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Kaptur. OK. So, the number of clinics that you operate,
    while you have 850 facilities directly, is about 2,500 average
    load per clinic, if they were all equal, which we know they are
    not. That seems like a pretty good distribution. You also
    mentioned in your testimony 608 hospitals, clinics, and health
    station. Is that in addition to the 850?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. That 850 number is comprehensive of
    the health stations.
        Ms. Kaptur. All right. So, the 608 is part of the 850.
        Rear Admiral Toedt. Right.

                                    STAFFING

        Ms. Kaptur. Oh, all right. Could I ask you what percentage
    of the doctors and nurses in those facilities are Native
    American?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. We know as an Agency overall, 70
    percent of our workforce is made up of American Indians and
    Alaska Natives. So, we are very much representative of the
    population being served.
        Ms. Kaptur. All right. I want to move----
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. For physicians specifically, Dr.
    Toedt, do you happen to have those statistics? I guess that 70
    percent statistic is for all jobs.
        Ms. Kaptur. All jobs. What about doctors?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Physicians, we would probably need to
    pull that information directly, and we do work in partnership
    with the Association of American Indian physicians. They may
    have those numbers readily available. We can do a pull within
    our own system. We do not necessarily track in all cases, but
    we can get back to you with that.
        Ms. Kaptur. If you can take a look at the doctors and the
    advanced practice nurses, I would be very interested in the
    percentage of Native Americans in total that you hire or
    contract with.
        [The information follows:]

    American Indian and Alaska Native Doctors and Advanced Practice Nurses
                          in the Indian Health Service

        Agency records indicate the following number of American Indian and
    Alaska Native employees by position title:
               Nurse Practitioners--28 out of 175, or 16 percent
               Certified Nurse Midwives--6 out of 46, or 13 percent
               Nurse Anesthesiologists/Anesthetists--5 out of 36,
            or 14 percent
               Advanced Practice Nurses--7 out of 32, or 22 percent
               Doctors--80 out of 789, or 10 percent

        Ms. Kaptur. You provided really good data on diabetes, and
    the improvement is remarkable. So, that is a real success
    story. Congratulations. I was not aware of that, and I know you
    are continuing along that line. I congratulate all the tribes
    for whatever they are doing in order to bring that horrendous
    statistic down. That bodes well for the future.

                                SUBSTANCE ABUSE

        Let me turn to the behavioral and substance abuse issue as
    many of my colleagues have. Do you know if you were to do a
    trend line for neonatal abstinence syndrome babies, drug-
    addicted babies, what would those numbers show over the same
    time period of 1996 to the present? Any idea?
        Mr. Hill. I am going to ask Dr. Toedt to take this one. I
    know we have got some great partnerships in place in this area
    in particular, so.
        Rear Admiral Toedt. Thank you. So, it is difficult to
    hypothesize what a trend line would look like. I do not have
    data specifically on neonatal abstinence syndrome going back to
    1996. But if I were to hypothesize, I would say that that trend
    line would be going markedly up. I have seen in my own practice
    increasing numbers of women who present, who are pregnant and
    also have an illegal or illicit or other substance on board.
    And so, unfortunately there are more and more babies that are
    being born addicted.
        We are working with the American College of Obstetrics and
    Gynecology and the American Academy of Pediatrics developing
    specifically a protocol for recognition and treatment of
    neonatal abstinence syndrome. It is something that we recognize
    has been markedly increased. We know that in the Billings Area
    they report that at least 3 out of every 4 babies has at least
    had some exposure. So, the numbers specifically for neonatal
    abstinence syndrome, we will need to develop that trend line.
    That is something that we can certainly look at.
        The coding has changed through the years with the change
    from ICD9 to ICD10. The recognition of neonatal abstinence
    syndrome is challenging, and I think that our partnership with
    ACOG, NAAP, with these professional organizations, will really
    help improve care.
        Ms. Kaptur. What about fetal alcohol syndrome?
        Rear Admiral Toedt. Similarly, alcohol continues to be a
    problem across Indian Country. American Indians and Alaska
    Natives continue to have a higher degree of alcohol exposure
    and substance use. Methamphetamine continues to be a problem
    across Indian Country as well. So, we hear from our tribes that
    it is not just the opioids. It is other substances as well.
        Ms. Kaptur. All right. Any clarity you could give on that I
    think would be helpful. In my own State of Ohio, we have at
    least 20,000 neonatal abstinence syndrome babies, and the
    number is growing. I would venture to say if you look around
    the country, you would find very similar numbers, so it is not
    exclusive to Native Americans. It is, as you know, within the
    general society.
        We also know that we are probably 100,000 doctors, people
    who work in the behavioral specialist area with these
    substances and so forth, short in the country. So, even if we
    had all the money in the world and we sent it down the chutes,
    if there are not people there to treat--and one of my big
    worries is whether it is tribal situations, or whether it is
    city hospitals, or rural hospitals, or veterans' clinics--we do
    not have as a country the specialists we need to treat this
    problem.

                                    STAFFING

        I am looking for examples, and maybe you can help me since
    you mentioned the VA, of where we fund the education of
    individuals who then go to work on tribal properties. They go
    to work in city hospitals. They go to work in rural facilities.
    They go to work in VA hospitals. I would be very interested in
    your comments about which programs you found over time have
    worked most successfully through Federal programs where we help
    to draw individuals into these specialties because I am worried
    about the country and what we are facing with this additional
    crisis now among our people, and how we manage it.
        I will be honest with you, Ohio does not have tribal lands
    as most of my colleagues here do. But, I am not sure that the
    solution that we have been promoting at the moment, which are
    residential treatment programs at the local level, are the way
    to go. Especially if one looks at recidivism, and if one looks
    at the fact that they are not removed from the community, from
    the place that they still have these connections and they
    receive back.
        I am looking at a model in my own mind, something like the
    old Civilian Conservation Corps where people are helped by
    being taken to a place where opportunity is more promising and
    where the help is needed. I have often thought of tribal lands
    thinking, hmm, I wonder if programs that we might initiate
    across accounts might be more effective than what I am seeing
    happening in a State like Ohio, which is at ground zero of this
    massive national crisis.
        So, I just thank you for listening, and if you could
    provide clarity for the record to the extent you are able, on
    babies, that is the future. The babies are the future. So, if
    they are sick, the future is not good. Also, if you could help
    us understand the increase in terms of the population that you
    serve and what the components of that are, that would be very
    valuable to us. I thank you.

                                    OPIOIDS

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady. On that subject, I
    read a short story recently, I do not know which publication.
    But obviously this plague is affecting every section of our
    society. I just read this morning that Mr. Mellon, the heir the
    banking fortune, a multibillionaire, was severely addicted to
    OxyContin, took up to 80 pills a day, a habit that was costing
    him $100,000 a month, died at a rehab center in Mexico
    yesterday. So, this is not just affecting, you know, people,
    you know, from various regions of the country or certain
    economic classes. This is affecting everyone.

                                    NALOXONE

        But going back to my question, I read a story where there
    was a potential for a chemical or a drug that would neutralize
    the effects of these opioids. Is there any truth to that or is
    there any research that seems promising on something like that,
    because that could have a huge effect on the country if that
    was true. Is there any comment about that, anything you hear
    about that?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you, Chairman Calvert.
        Voice. Mic, please.
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Sorry. Thank you for the question.
    The counteracting prescription that has been used is naloxone,
    and Dr. Toedt can talk a little bit more about how that drug
    works. There is also an effort within the Department of Health
    and Human Services to look at alternative pain initiatives,
    things that we can do other than prescribing other drugs, or
    promoting research that helps to develop additional types of
    counteractive measures.
        So, Dr. Toedt, I am going to ask if you could share a
    little more information about naloxone, Narcan.
        Rear Admiral Toedt. So, certainly there are medications now
    that do block the opiate receptor, so they provide protection
    from overdose when that medication is on board. There are newer
    medications that are in the pipeline for development, and
    certainly it is important that we have more options. One of the
    medications that is used successfully for alcohol abuse
    maintenance is a medication called VIVITROL, which is a longer-
    acting injection and blocks the effects of alcohol, and has
    some success also in patients with opioids. So, yes, there are
    medications that are both currently available as well as new
    medications in the pipeline to help address the epidemic.

                      INDIAN HEALTH CARE IMPROVEMENT FUND

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Over the last 2 years, the
    subcommittee has received testimony on an increasing number of
    tribes advocating for funding to be allocated based more on
    need than on historic funding proportions. Of course, this
    subcommittee is also represented by members of tribes who
    prefer the historic funding proportions. That is why the 2018
    appropriation provided equal amounts of $72 million each for
    the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund, which is based on
    need, and the historical current services formula. Please
    update the subcommittee on the latest efforts to update the
    distribution formula for the Indian Health Care Improvement
    Fund and to use the update to allocate the 2018 appropriation.
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you, Chairman Calvert. The IHS
    has an Indian Healthcare Improvement Fund workgroup that is
    made up of both tribal and federal representatives. That group
    has been seated and charged with updating the Indian Health
    Care Improvement Fund formula. They have met twice so far and
    have plans to meet again in about a month. Timeframe wise, they
    are working on a very short timeframe. They would like to get
    those 1-year funds out and available for sites to use before
    the end of the fiscal year.
        So, we are expecting them to make their recommendations by
    the end of May. We will then take those recommendations out to
    the rest of Indian Country through a formal consultation
    process, and expect to be making allocations of those funds by
    August of this year.
        Mr. Calvert. Please keep the committee informed on your
    progress.
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Yes, sir.

                            PURCHASED-REFERRED CARE

        Mr. Calvert. I appreciate that. As I mentioned in my
    opening statement, an estimated $424 million worth of patient
    referrals were denied or deferred in 2016 due to the lack of
    funds. Part of the challenging with increase appropriations for
    purchased-referred care is the Government Accountability Office
    has reported that a more equitable allocation formula is
    needed. My question is do you agree with GAO's conclusion that
    a more equitable allocation formula is needed?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you, Chairman. With regards to
    the Purchased and Referred Care Program, we have seen marked
    improvement in our sites' ability to provide services beyond
    Medical Priority Level 1. We have got about 70 percent of our
    sites now who are able to provide funding for referral services
    beyond that life and limb priority. So, there has been
    substantial progress, and I think that the implementation of
    those PRC-like rates has some to do with that as well.
        The GAO's recommendation of equitable funding was put into
    one of their formal reports to us. We reached out to the
    healthcare team led by Kathy King and invited her to our PRC
    advisory group meetings so that she could hear firsthand, she
    and her team, the discussion about funding equitability. And as
    a result of her involvement in those meetings and learning and
    hearing from our tribal stakeholders, the GAO closed out those
    recommendations as unimplemented with the understanding that it
    would put the Agency in a position where we would have to take
    existing funding from tribes out of their annual funding
    agreements, which could lead to legal issues.
        So, they have closed the recommendation as unimplemented,
    but we do still have sites that are not able to see all their
    Medical Priority Level 1 or provide funding for the referrals.
        Mr. Calvert. So, this issue is still being discussed and
    determined on how you are going to fix this problem.
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Yes, sir. The PRC advisory group will
    be returning with recommendations at least initially. In their
    first two meetings this year, they have recommended that we
    stay with the existing formula with the understanding that the
    healthcare reimbursement landscape is still pretty dynamic, and
    they want to see how things shake out.

                                CURRENT SERVICES

        Mr. Calvert. OK. Just another quick question here. The
    estimated cost increases needed to maintain current levels of
    service across the IHS have traditionally included a
    combination of pay costs, medical and non-medical inflation,
    and population growth. Is the Administration's 2019 request of
    $47 million for Federal and tribal pay costs the full amount
    needed to fund pay cost increases?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Yes, sir. That number is inclusive of
    pay cost increases.
        Mr. Calvert. Is it accurate to say that the employee
    recruitment retention continues to be a significant problem
    across the Indian health system and a root cause of other
    problems? The GAO has cited regarding access to and quality of
    care.
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Absolutely, yes, sir.
        Mr. Calvert. Ms. McCollum.

                                    OPIOIDS

        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I want to go back to the diabetes
    model and talk about the opioid program. I think you have heard
    from the committee that we will be looking very seriously, in
    my opinion from hearing others, that the diabetes program stay
    mandatory and not become discretionary.
        The way that you disburse the diabetes funding right now is
    not done through a grant program. It is done on a
    formulization. You had mentioned that tribes like not having to
    go through all the grant process. For some tribes, they can
    afford to hire a grant writer. Other tribes, it is a hardship
    and they are taken away from other programs. If you were to
    move forward with making the diabetes program discretionary,
    was it your intent to turn it into a grant program, or were you
    going to leave it the same?
        I think the program of disbursement now seems to be working
    for the tribes, and you could model the opioid program somewhat
    similar to that because that has been a focus on a lot of
    conversation. Could you talk about what your expectations for
    the future for that were?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you, Congresswoman. And the
    SDPI Program, part of why it has worked so well is that we have
    come up with these funding methodologies in consultation with
    our tribes. In addition to not wanting to have additional
    administrative burden placed upon sites for hiring a grant
    writer or managing grants, there is also the concern about
    having to compete against each other for limited funds. So,
    these are definitely aspects that come into play.
        I think in terms of your question about whether the intent
    of moving the funds from mandatory to discretionary was to put
    them through a different mechanism, that was not discussed as
    part of the plans, and we would not do so without consultation
    with our tribal leaders' diabetes advisory committee, which
    reviews on an annual basis the mechanisms used for SDPI
    funding.
        Ms. McCollum. And would that be a program where the
    implementation that you do for the diabetes would be a model
    for something similar that you would look at doing with the
    opioid program, in consultation with the tribes?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. I think we could consider the model
    best practice. It has enabled us to obtain the information
    needed to prove that the funds are being used efficiently and
    effectively. We have also been able to publish the great
    results that have come out about obesity rates and diabetes
    rates leveling off, and kidney disease, kidney failures being
    reduced by 54 percent.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. I want to go back to a combination
    of staffing, and infrastructure, and equipment, because if you
    just graduate from medical school, knowing that a hospital has
    failed certification would not be the first place you would
    want to look to start out your medical career. Sometimes you
    are failing because of staffing. Sometimes not keeping the
    certification is because of infrastructure and equipment. So,
    all three go together. You know, an old phrase, which came
    first, the chicken or the egg.
        Some of this is going to be follow-up. You mentioned that
    you are over 30 percent short in doctors, nurse practitioners,
    and pretty close to that with physicians assistants. If you
    could provide to the committee if those tend to be lumped in
    certain areas, if we have trouble spots where you are short in
    all three, and if those are places where we are having
    infrastructure and equipment problems. If you could get that to
    the committee, and then I am going to be a little more specific
    here.
        [The information follows:]

        Correlation Between a Lack of Medical Staff and Infrastructure/
                                Equipment Issues

        Research reveals that specific design features in the healthcare
    environments can improve staff satisfaction, morale, recruitment and
    retention.\1\ Qualified medical staff who have been trained in state-
    of-the-art facilities with contemporary medical equipment will more
    readily seek employment in like facilities rather than aged facilities
    that do not accommodate today's healthcare delivery practices and only
    have dated equipment for diagnostics and treatment. State-of-the-art
    facilities with contemporary medical equipment not only contribute to
    patient well-being, but also to the well-being of the physicians,
    nurses, facilities staff, and administrators who work in the building.
    Contemporary evidence-based designed facilities reduce hazards to
    healthcare workers, patients, and visitors.\2\ These positive work
    environments contribute greatly to improved staff recruitment and
    retention.\3\ The facility also impacts staff attitudes and behaviors.
    Architecture is often recognized as an important tool in recruiting and
    retaining the best doctors and nurses and the most patients.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ University of Minnesota Center for Spirituality and Healing.
    What is a healing environment? Kreitzer, Mary Jo, Terri Zborowsky, and
    Jean Larson, accessed at http://www.takingcharge. csh.umn.edu/explore-
    healing-practices/healing-environment on 7/14/15.
        \2\ Ulrich R. Zimring C. The role of the physical environment in
    the hospital of the 21st century: a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
    Report to The Center for Health Design, for the Designing for the 21st
    Century Hospital Project 20043.
        \3\ McCullough, Cynthia. Evidence-based design for healthcare
    facilities. Sigma Theta Tau International. 2009.
        \4\ Carr, Robert F. Health Care Facilities. Whole Building Design
    Guide, National Institute of Building Science. October 2014.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   FACILITIES

        Ms. McCollum. The average age of federally-operated IHS
    facilities is 31 years. Numbers of facilities are over 40
    years, never having repair or renovation. In the private
    sector, it is about 10.6 years, so we have got a real gap
    there. As was pointed out, in the 2018 omnibus bill, the
    committee was able to provide an additional $300 million for
    health facility construction, sanitation facilities, and
    deferred maintenance. Could you please get to this committee,
    or if you are prepared to answer after I am done, how you are
    planning on allocating this funding because we know the needs
    are there. There should be a record of what has not been
    happening with infrastructure and equipment.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET

        Ms. McCollum. Knowing that there is this pressing need, and
    I just laid it out, again, I am just so puzzled by the fiscal
    year 2019 budget request with the reduction of $363 million in
    Indian health facilities, a 42 percent reduction from the
    fiscal year 2018. What activities are going to be cut? How much
    bigger does the list grow for infrastructure and for oftentimes
    just updated equipment?
        This reduction is going to make your priority list for
    repairs and upgrades even greater, I would have to think. Then
    that is going to have an impact on being able to retain and
    recruit staff and who suffers from this, so the tribal
    communities that we have a constitutional responsibility to be
    serving better. And some of this might be in some follow-up.
        This is not directed at you personally. I know you want to
    do the very best job you can when you wake up every morning to
    serve Native Alaskan and Native American communities. But I
    just do not see how the numbers work.
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you. Just to start, there is
    definitely a correlation between our recruitment and retention
    abilities and what professionals might read in the trade
    journals about an agency. So, when people see and hear nothing
    but negative, it does make our recruitment job that much
    harder. So, we are working to improve the image, and it is
    unacceptable for there to be anything less than high-quality
    care being provided in our facilities. So, it is something that
    we take very seriously. And we as a leadership team at IHS want
    to improve the image of the Indian Health Service and the
    services that we provide.
        Environment of care and life safety concerns are part of
    our accreditation issues, and when we have facilities that are
    on average 40 years of age in comparison, as you have
    identified, the hospital in the United States is about 10.6, 11
    years. The cost of maintaining those older facilities are
    greater and greater, and there is, again, a correlation between
    the amount of funding provided to maintain those facilities and
    how far back we fall.
        So, I do believe that we have some numbers that we can
    share with you now, and Admiral Hartz has them at his
    fingertips in terms of backlog of essential maintenance, and
    alterations, repairs, and also M&I. Anything else, any other
    items you would like to cover?
        Ms. McCollum. My question specifically, the President in
    his budget has a cut to this. So, it is not going to get any
    better, right?
        Mr. Hartz. Thank you for the question and the difficult
    position to respond to. As you stated earlier, the cliche,
    build it and they will come, and we have seen that historically
    and what difference it makes to have up-to-date modern
    facilities that are similar to the institutions where medical
    graduates have interned. And if we have that modern facility,
    we have the capabilities to do CAT scans and procedures like
    that, it does make a difference. So, we concur with you in your
    assessment.

                              MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

        The backlog of essential maintenance and repair that you
    identified is $569 million. The resources that you folks have
    provided to us in fiscal year 2018 will be utilized. That bump
    in M&I, which takes it up about $167 million in 2018, will be
    distributed in the manner in which we have been distributing,
    but with the increase in the M&I account, we will target
    primarily the backlog of essential maintenance alteration and
    repair. And that is consistent with the ways we have done it in
    the past, like with the ARRA money came through a number of
    years ago. So, we already have a methodology in place to
    highlight those many, many projects to be addressed on BEMAR.
        The healthcare facility construction, you asked about that,
    and that increase of $125 million, up to $243 million, will
    take us further down the priority list of projects to be
    funded. And I am really pleased to say that between the time
    the CJ came forth and the appropriation, that we were able to
    fund one of the projects that was in the CJ, Alamo, and we were
    able to go further down the list and now pick up Pueblo
    Pintado. So, it did make a tremendous increase in our ability
    to address the aging facilities that are out there.
        And in sanitation facilities, you folks included a little
    over $101 million. It takes that up to $197 million to address
    much, much-needed water and sanitation facilities across Indian
    Country. We have identified a list that we give to Congress
    every year of feasible projects right in the $1.2 billion
    range, a universe of need that is $2.9 billion. And we will
    actually work our way down that list with the predominance of
    the money going toward existing homes and communities that
    still lack what we wake up to and take for granted every
    morning--safe water.

                                   EQUIPMENT

        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, if I may, if we do the right thing
    with the infrastructure and with the equipment, get broadband
    up and running, get better CAT scans so that if you do not have
    a radiologist on site someone can look at it with a high level
    confidence to make a diagnosis, and radiologists can diagnosis
    lots of things, to see if we need to do purchased or referred
    care service or if something can be done in-house, or however
    the service is delivered. That in the end is going to save
    money.
        When we were working on the Affordable Care Act, OMB did
    not allow us to figure out how doing preventative care, having
    better standard equipment, better facilities, more access to
    doctors, physicians assistants, nurse practitioners would save
    money. Are you ever allowed to figure out how much money you
    would actually be saving if we could bring these facilities up?
    You could never quantitate in dollars human suffering, but are
    you allowed to show that you would actually be saving the
    Federal government money by accelerating and moving this
    forward faster, or is that something you are not allowed to do?
        Mr. Hartz. I will give you an example. A number of years
    ago we were funded to construct the Eagle Butte facility that
    Mr. Simpson mentioned earlier I believe. And with that new
    facility going into the Cheyenne River Reservation area in
    Eagle Butte, South Dakota, we incorporated in a CT scanner, you
    know, pretty much in the middle of nowhere.
        And I often go out to facilities after they are in
    operation to hear about all the good things that we did right.
    Actually, sometimes they tell us some things they would like to
    see improved. This time when we went into the facility, the
    first item we got was a positive, and the positive was because
    of the installation of that CT scanner and what that meant to
    them in not having to have the transports that Mr. Stewart
    talked about earlier because now when they had closed head
    injuries, they could determine whether, in fact, that patient
    needed to be medevac'd out of there to Rapid City, or to
    Pierre, or to some other distant location, and so they could
    maintain observation. And the savings that they made in that
    was very, very obvious to them.
        Now, they had to convince the providers in those locations
    that they had the capacity to do that, and in chatting with the
    operators of the new high-tech medical equipment, I said what
    prompted you to come here. Well, both of them, it just turned
    out that they had prior military experience and they wanted to
    come home to serve their people. But, you know, that is a good
    story. It is the truth. It is success to be able to show
    savings and be able to monitor such. You can find out how much
    you are saving by the things we do and improvements you folks
    help us by funding, and we thank you for that.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we have our
    work cut out for us protecting our allocation and making sure
    that we fund these programs to the best of our ability. I yield
    back.

                              MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

        Mr. Calvert. I am going to carry on with what Ms. McCollum
    was discussing, and that is the maintenance backlog. The
    National Research Council estimated that an appropriate budget
    allocation for routine maintenance and repair should be in the
    range of 2 to 4 percent of the aggregate current replacement
    value. So, this is the question. I think I know the answer, but
    let me ask it anyway. Is the Administration's request of
    $75,745,000 for maintenance and improvement within the National
    Research Council's recommended 2 to 4 percent range?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you for the question, Chairman,
    and definitely the expert is here next time. The $75, almost
    $76 million requested will help us make significant progress on
    the backlog. What would help us is the 4 percent, which is more
    in the realm of $208 million, so it is not in the 2 to 4
    percent range, but it would help us to make progress.
        Mr. Calvert. So, say it again. What amount of money would
    it be to be in that 2 to 4 percent range?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Between 2 to 4 percent would be
    between $104 million and $208 million.
        Mr. Calvert. OK, thank you. Thank you for that answer. Ms.
    Kaptur.

                                  RECRUITMENT

        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to follow up
    on that line of questioning we started earlier about your
    staffing and so forth. Do you have difficulty hiring
    physicians, or are you able to hire all the physicians for
    which you have budgeted positions? And the same is true with
    advanced practices nurses. Talk about across all accounts, but
    I am very interested, obviously, in the behavioral arena.
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you, Congresswoman. We
    discussed a little bit previously about our current vacancy
    rates for providers, physicians, advanced practice nurses,
    physician assistants, and all of them are in about the 30
    percent range, some of them up to 34 percent, some as low as 29
    percent. But there are significant vacancies in our provider
    numbers.
        With regard specifically to mental health providers,
    psychiatrists and advanced practice nurses who specialize as
    psych nurses, we are very much reliant upon those professions
    for medication management. So, it is a great need and
    increasingly difficult for us to find and recruit.

                                  TELEMEDICINE

        Ms. Kaptur. Do you use telemedicine between your various
    sites effectively or is that not adequate to meet the demand?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. I would characterize this as in some
    preliminary phase of telebehavioral health implementation. We
    have a great program initiated. We call our telebehavioral
    health center of excellence. It is based out of Albuquerque,
    New Mexico, and we are in partnership with the University of
    Mexico in providing those services to rural and remote sites.
    Dr. Toedt can provide additional information about how we have
    leveraged telehealth specifically in the behavioral health
    realm. We have also got some partnerships to provide specialty
    services through telehealth as well in partnership with Avera
    up in South Dakota.

                                    VETERANS

        Ms. Kaptur. Could I ask you what percent of your population
    are veterans?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. I do not have that number off the top
    of my head, but I do know that American Indians and Alaska
    Natives serve in the military at a higher percentage than any
    population. I am myself a veteran of the United States Air
    Force and very proud of the partnerships that we have with the
    VA and helping to serve our veterans. We can definitely get you
    that information.
        [The information follows:]

               Percentage of IHS User Population Who Are Veterans

        fiscal year (FY) 2017 data shows that 2.9 percent (or 48,169) of
    the IHS user population identified themselves as veterans. Refer to
    IHS's response to the Questions For the Record (QFR), Kaptur Q6, for
    additional information.

        Ms. Kaptur. Would a veteran who is Native American choose
    to go to your service or to a VA? How does that break down?
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. I do not have the break down. I would
    say it is personal choice based on what is more readily
    accessible perhaps. We would have to do some analysis of
    patient choice in that regard, veteran choice.
        Ms. Kaptur. Well, I can guarantee you the Veterans
    Department is also short on behavioral specialists and
    neuropsychiatric doctors as we face a crisis with PTS and with
    extended deployments. So, our whole country has to wise up to
    educating and helping to raise up another generation of doctors
    and nurses. I have learned here this morning that you need to
    be a part of that. So, thank you very much for your testimony.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                 ACCREDITATION

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I have one last question on the
    accreditation emergencies. As you already know, our colleague,
    Congressman Jeff Fortenberry, is a member of the House
    Appropriations Committee and represents the Omaha and Winnebago
    Tribes in Nebraska. Congressman Fortenberry has been the
    driving force behind the committee's effort to provide flexible
    funding for IHS direct service facilities of lost or at risk of
    losing accreditation with the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare
    Services. The committee appropriated $58 million for
    accreditation emergencies in 2018, including $16 million to
    reimburse facilities that have lost revenues as a result of
    losing accreditation. Please update the subcommittee on the
    service efforts to reimburse the Omaha Winnebago facilities of
    lost revenues.
        Rear Admiral Weahkee. Thank you, Chairman. We have been in
    robust conversations with both the Omaha and the Winnebago
    Tribes about the accreditation emergency expenses that have
    been realized at that location. We also are working through the
    recent letter of intent that the Winnebago Tribe submitted to
    the Agency identifying that they intend to take over operations
    of their hospital.
        And so, validating an amount for each of the tribes and the
    stake in that particular site is being processed through a
    formal negotiation between the Agency and the tribe. And I just
    want to assure you that the conversations are ongoing, and that
    we are taking Congress' intent into those conversations with
    regards to the accreditation emergency funding.
        Mr. Calvert. Well, please keep the committee informed of
    your progress. And with that, is there any other questions?

                                    VETERANS

        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I just want to go back to what Ms.
    Kaptur pointed out. There is supposed to be seamless care
    between Native American veterans and reimbursements backed if
    they are seeking help at an IHS hospital. But a lot of that
    depends upon good quality medical records, and it depends upon
    having accreditation. It depends upon a whole lot of things.
        As you get your information back about the population of
    veterans accessing service, if you could, give us some
    information on the reimbursement and how it is going, and what
    we need to do or what the VA needs to do to make sure that we
    make that happen for the veteran. Because if it is easier to
    receive physical therapy at a clinic or at a hospital close to
    the reservation, it makes a lot of sense for that veteran.
        [The information follows:]

       Veteran's Affairs (VA) Reimbursement to the Indian Health Service

        In FY 2017, the IHS collected $28 million in VA reimbursements for
    services provided to American Indian and Alaska Native VA-eligible
    veterans. Refer to IHS's response to the Questions For the Record
    (QFR), Kaptur Q7, for additional information.

        Ms. McCollum. And, Mr. Chair, you asked some great
    questions on purchase and referred care. I would like to follow
    up with getting some information on urban Indian programs that
    do not have access to purchase and referred care funding. As
    two-thirds of the total American Indian and Alaska Native
    population are urban Indians, this lack of funding has an
    impact on healthcare services provided to them. What do we need
    to do to remedy that problem to follow up on your good
    question, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

        Purchased/Referred Care Services for Urban Indian Organizations

        Since Urban Indian Organization (UIOs) are not eligible for
    Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) funding, programs primarily rely on
    third-party reimbursements and have the authority to use the PRC rates
    methodology when referring patients for tests or procedures not offered
    on-site. The Indian Health Service Office of Urban Indian Health
    Programs (OUIHP), as outlined in the OUIHP 2017-2021 Strategic Plan,
    has prioritized third-party reimbursements by supporting UIOs' efforts
    to diversify funding and increase revenue. The OUIHP provides technical
    assistance to UIOs seeking funding/reimbursements, including assistance
    with:
               Assessing the feasibility of entering into care
            coordination agreements in order for 100 percent of the Federal
            Medical Assistance Percentage to apply to services provided by
            UIOs, in accordance with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
            Services' guidelines;
               Demonstrating eligibility for reimbursements from
            funders and insurers;
               Negotiating agreements with the Department of
            Veterans Affairs (VA) to enable billing the VA for eligible
            care delivered to veterans;
               Identifying grant opportunities and resources to
            support grant writing; and
               Providing training on navigating the accreditation
            process.

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. We thank all of you for attending
    today, and we appreciate your testimony and answers to our
    questions. And I also appreciate your getting back to us on
    this and other issues that Ms. McCollum mentioned and that I
    mentioned earlier.
        With that, we are adjourned.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                              Thursday, April 26, 2018.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                   WITNESSES

    SCOTT PRUITT, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    HOLLY GREAVES, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
        AGENCY

                      Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert

        Mr. Calvert. The committee will come to order.
        I would like to welcome everyone to this afternoon's
    hearing. We look forward to a thoughtful discussion addressing
    EPA's fiscal year 2019 budget request and a number of policy
    issues of interest to the subcommittee.
        Before we begin, I would like to remind our subcommittee
    members and those in the audience of the importance of engaging
    in thoughtful, substantial discussion. While there may be
    disagreements relating to the views expressed today, my intent
    as chairman is to maintain order and decorum. Therefore, I ask
    those in attendance today, both in our audience and seated at
    this table, to be respectful of one another and to the
    Administrator throughout today's hearings.
        Today, we welcome back to the committee the 14th
    Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott
    Pruitt. Joining the Administrator is Holly Greaves, Chief
    Financial Officer for the Agency.
        Administrator Pruitt, you have had a busy year. You have
    worked to reform the Agency, provide regulatory certainty,
    while simultaneously finding ways to create jobs, protect the
    environment and human health. We look forward to hearing more
    about the budget request, understanding your goals for the
    Agency in the upcoming year, and discussing, I am sure, a
    variety of issues.
        Just last month, the committee worked hard to finish work
    on the fiscal year 2018 budget. Utilizing additional funds from
    the February budget agreement, this subcommittee was able to
    provide nearly $2 billion in critical infrastructure spending,
    which included targeted investments in EPA's water
    infrastructure and cleanup programs.
        As members of the Appropriations Committee, it is our job
    to ensure that the Agency spends these funds as Congress
    intended and in a manner reflective of the Agency's mission to
    protect human health and the environment.
        I know that I, along with my colleagues, want to ensure
    that taxpayer dollars are spent on water infrastructure, on-
    the-ground projects, and other vitally important programs,
    rather than some of the activities we have seen reported in the
    press.
        We will continue to provide necessary oversight to ensure
    that EPA and other agencies under this subcommittee's
    jurisdiction are held accountable, remain good stewards of the
    taxpayers' dollars, and comply with congressional notification
    requirements.
        Overall, the President's fiscal year 2019 budget request
    provides $6.146 billion for the EPA, which is $1.9 billion
    below the fiscal year 2018 funding level. While some reductions
    may be in order, cuts of this magnitude put important programs
    at risk.
        Within that request, State categorical grants, which
    provide financial assistance to States and Tribes to develop
    and implement environmental programs, are significantly reduced
    or terminated altogether. States rely heavily on these funds.
    Cuts of this magnitude will severely impact their ability to
    meet statutory requirements and address serious health and
    environmental concerns.
        The geographical programs, which are very important to a
    number of my colleagues, even on this subcommittee, are all but
    eliminated in this request.
        Beyond these programs, the budget also proposes to
    eliminate popular rural water technical assistance grants, the
    National Estuary Program, and Targeted AirShed grants. The
    Targeted AirShed grants, along with the Diesel Emission
    Reduction grants, or DERA, which are cut by 86 percent, are
    essential to my home State of California. My State relies on
    these grant programs to help drastically improve air quality by
    accelerating the replacement of older engines with newer,
    cleaner engines.
        In spite of these cuts, I am pleased to see that the budget
    request continues to support and prioritize updating aging
    infrastructure for both drinking water and wastewater systems
    by maintaining funding for the Clean Water and Drinking Water
    State Revolving Funds at current levels.
        The budget also maintains a Superfund program just below
    current levels, a promising increase from the fiscal year 2018
    budget request.
        Pivoting to policy, I think my colleagues would agree that
    we all want clean air and water to protect human health and to
    support a strong, robust economy. My constituents in California
    demand both a healthy environment and job creation, and I hope
    to work with your Agency to ensure both.
        In Southern California air quantity remains one of our
    biggest concerns. While we have made significant strides to
    improve air quality over the past decades, we continue to find
    ways to clean our air.
        As your Agency finalizes designations under the 2015 ozone
    standard, I hope that we can partner with the States to find
    innovative, cost-effective solutions to help all counties reach
    attainment without imposing economic burdens.
        I want to be sure that these clean air efforts are carried
    out in an effective manner and that we provide the resources
    necessary to support programs that have proven effective in
    reducing particulate matter and ozone.
        Finally at this hearing, last year you committed to
    reducing redundancies and inefficiencies within the Agency to
    better prioritize EPA's core mission. We hope to hear more
    about your Agency's ongoing work to review, reconsider, and
    ease regulations that bring undue stress to our Nation's
    industries while also remaining mindful of our environmental
    resources.
        As we approach the fiscal year 2019 budget, I reiterate
    that the power of the purse remains with the Congress, and my
    colleagues and I will do our best to continue to address
    infrastructure needs, water quality improvements, cleanups, and
    many of the issues we discuss here today. This subcommittee
    remains committed to continuing to work with your Agency, along
    with our State, local, and Tribal partners, to seek solutions
    to many of the challenges before us.
        No doubt all the members here today are eager to discuss a
    number of issues with you. I will ask members to abide by the
    5-minute rule so that everyone gets a chance to participate in
    today's hearing, and hopefully we will be able to have more
    than one round if we all stick to that.
        I am pleased to yield to the gentlelady from Minnesota, our
    ranking member, Ms. McCollum, for any opening remarks she would
    like to make.

                        Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator Pruitt, thank you for being here today. It
    has been a long day for you already.
        The fiscal year 2019 EPA budget is reckless, it is
    irresponsible, and it is unrealistic. Two months ago, Congress
    passed a bipartisan budget agreement to increase nondefense
    discretionary spending for 2 years. A month ago, in a show of
    strong bipartisanship, the fiscal year 2018 omnibus was enacted
    into law.
        We soundly rejected President Trump's reckless proposals
    that would desecrate our environment, starve Federal agencies
    from the funding they need to meet their critical missions, and
    jeopardize the health of millions of Americans.
        President Trump's first year in office has damaged our
    environment, public health, and natural resources. Today we
    will discuss many of these damaging policies and your role in
    turning back regulations to protect the environment.
        But that is not our only concern with your performance as
    EPA Administrator. All of us, whether elected or appointed,
    have a responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayers'
    dollars. But in just 1 year as EPA Administrator you have
    violated the public trust by abusing EPA resources and
    taxpayers' dollars. Your decisions and actions have displayed
    disregard for ethical standards to which all public officials
    should adhere.
        Administrator Pruitt, you are letting the American people
    down and you are letting your Agency down. Your actions are
    distracting the EPA from its core mission, and creating a toxic
    work environment, one that has demoralized your staff.
        One significant action that has proven not only to be
    unnecessary but unethical and unlawful was your use of $43,000
    to construct a privacy booth in your office. The Government
    Accountability Office found that you violated the
    Antideficiency Act and other appropriations laws, with your
    failure to notify Congress and this committee prior to the use
    of those funds. That is just one example of poor judgment that
    continues to plague you.
        I also have concerns about your work that extend far beyond
    ethical lapses and it undercuts the missions of the EPA. But
    thankfully, our government is built upon the principle of
    checks and balances and the courts are striking down much of
    the substandard work done by you and your political team.
        The courts have already ruled that the EPA acted
    illegally--illegally--in its efforts to undermine the methane
    and ozone rules. Based on your pattern of haste and careless
    work, I expect that the courts will rule against you on other
    reckless rollbacks.
        Administrator Pruitt, let me remind you, the law requires
    that the delay of a regulation or an issuance of a new rule is
    based on solid science--solid science. You cannot ignore the
    requirements of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and
    other bedrock environmental laws.
        Even though your work is turning out to be ineffective, we
    cannot ignore the danger that your policies pose for the
    American people. Climate change is the greatest environmental
    threat our planet faces. Your actions jeopardize our future,
    our national security, and the health of our communities.
        Withdrawing from the Paris climate accord or watering down
    fuel efficiency standards will harm the health of our children
    and grandchildren. Rolling back regulations that limit
    emissions will mean more cases of asthma in children. That is a
    fact. Keeping harmful pesticides on the market will damage
    children's brain development. That is a fact.
        Your approach is bad for the environment, it is bad for
    public health, and bad for business. Furthermore, it is a waste
    of taxpayers' money to develop regulations that ultimately will
    be overruled by the courts.
        You are falling short, and you are failing the American
    public, and you are failing your own Agency by not achieving
    the mission of the EPA to protect human health and the
    environment.
        The recently passed fiscal year 2018 omnibus clearly shows
    that Congress values a healthy environment. We will not support
    President Trump's budget cuts and the way in which the EPA has
    faced draconian cuts by this administration.
        Mr. Chairman, you have my commitment and my pledge to work
    with you and our colleagues in Congress to maintain the funding
    levels that will allow the EPA to continue to protect our
    environment. No matter what Mr. Pruitt may do to prioritize
    profits of fossil fuel and chemical corporations, it falls to
    the Congress to ensure that the air we breathe, the water we
    drink is safe for the American people.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Mrs. Lowey, the ranking member of the full committee, is
    here with us today.
        Mrs. Lowey, we always appreciate you taking time to join
    us. And would you have any opening remarks?

                         Opening Remarks of Mrs. Lowey

        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member
    McCollum, for holding this hearing, and welcome, Administrator
    Pruitt.
        I am really having deja vu as I look at another budget
    request that would drastically slash the EPA, in this case 30
    percent from current levels. Despite Congress' clear support in
    the fiscal year 2018 omnibus, you again propose to eliminate
    important programs like the Long Island Sound Geographic
    Program, the National Estuary Program, Endocrine Disruptors,
    and more.
        It is really astonishing that you would propose these
    drastic cuts on important investments for the public health and
    the environment while you appear to spend no--it is shocking to
    me that you are not sparing any expense on yourself. Your abuse
    of taxpayer dollars spent on first-class travel, $43,000 on a
    glorified phone booth, is an insult to the hardworking American
    taxpayers.
        Of course, as you know from last year when you testified
    before our subcommittee, I also have grave concerns about your
    close ties to the oil and gas industries, past work to directly
    undermine the EPA, and skepticism that human activity plays a
    role in climate change.
        I do hope your testimony this afternoon will address my
    concerns and all the allegations of unethical behavior you are
    facing.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        With that, Administrator Pruitt, you may proceed with your
    opening statement.

                         Opening Remarks of Mr. Pruitt

        Mr. Pruitt. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
    Member McCollum, members of the committee. It is good to be
    back with you again. Thank you for the opportunity.
        There is consequential and important work being done at the
    EPA since the beginning of the Trump administration, both in
    terms of improved environmental outcomes as well as substantial
    regulatory reform. We are stripping burdensome costs from the
    American economy at an unprecedented pace, and we are doing
    this while inspiring confidence in the American people that its
    government is going to work with them, as opposed to against
    them, to achieve harmony between jobs and growth and
    environmental stewardship.
        In the short time of the Trump administration, we have made
    enormous progress as far as improved environmental outcomes.
    Here are just a few.
        We have removed over three times the number of polluted
    sites from contaminated communities across the country as
    compared to the previous administration in 2017, and for 2018
    we are on pace to remove as many as 10 times the number.
        We are cooperatively working with the States to improve air
    quality by acting on more than 350 State plans. When I arrived
    at the Agency, there were 700 State implementation plans that
    had been prepared by some of your States with respect to
    improving air quality that were literally sitting on the shelf.
    We have gone through 350 of those to improve air quality across
    the country.
        With regard to water, we are leading a multiagency approach
    that has set a goal of eradicating lead from our drinking water
    within 10 years, largely through the utilization of a tool that
    you have provided, WIFIA. It is my goal to prioritize
    applications for critical water infrastructure through WIFIA to
    hopefully see approximately $4 billion a year dedicated to
    replacement of lead service lines.
        President Trump has set an ambitious agenda for the EPA
    under his administration, and our measurable achievements are a
    testament to the effectiveness with which a results-driven EPA
    is implementing that agenda.
        President Trump did not only task us with accomplishing the
    core mission of the EPA more effectively and more efficiently
    than ever before, but he also demanded comprehensive regulatory
    reform. The transformational change is happening. In just 1
    year, the Trump administration has saved the American people
    approximately $8 billion in regulatory cost savings. And the
    EPA alone is responsible for nearly two dozen regulatory
    actions, saving Americans more than $1 billion in regulatory
    cost.
        These actions are providing America's job creators with the
    regulatory clarity they deserve. By repealing and replacing the
    so-called Clean Power Plan, we are ending the one-size-fits-all
    regulation on energy providers and restoring rule of law. By
    rescinding and rewriting the 2015 waters of the United States
    rule, we are ending Washington's power grab over land use in
    this country.
        It is indisputable that we have made enormous progress in
    advancing the President's agenda with respect to pruning back
    decades of regulatory overreach that was unnecessary,
    burdensome, and ultimately harmful to hardworking Americans
    across our country.
        When the President nominated me to this position, I
    believed the work was going to be impactful, and it has been,
    and tremendous progress is being made. But I did not expect the
    work to be easy and I knew that there would be meaningful
    opposition.
        However, as I sit before you today, I recognize that there
    have been very troubling reports in the media over the past few
    weeks. I promise you that I, more than anyone, want to
    establish the hard facts and provide answers to questions
    surrounding these reports.
        Let me be very clear. I have nothing to hide as it relates
    to how I have run the Agency over the last 16 months. I am not
    afraid to admit that it has been a learning process. And when
    Congress or independent bodies in their oversight roles find
    fault in our decisionmaking, I want to correct that and ensure
    that it does not happen again.
        Ultimately, as the Administrator of the EPA, the
    responsibility of identifying and making necessary changes
    rests with me and no one else. That is prospectively and issues
    that we will talk about today.
        With that being said, facts are facts and fiction is
    fiction, and a lie doesn't become true just because it appears
    on the page of a newspaper. Much of what has been targeted
    towards me and my team has been downright half-truths or
    stories that have been so twisted that they do not resemble
    reality. And I am here--and I welcome the chance to be here--to
    set the record straight in many of these areas.
        Let's have no illusions about what is really going on.
    Those who have attacked our efforts and attacked the process
    are doing so because they want to attack and derail the
    President's agenda and undermine this administration's
    priorities. I am simply not going to let that happen.
        And I look forward to your questions today.
        [The statement of Administrator Pruitt follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                          ISSUES REPORTED IN THE PRESS

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you for your opening statement. I know
    you have spent a long time here so far today. I know you spent
    a good majority of this morning discussing some of the issues
    you just talked about that have been reported in the press
    lately. So I am going to use a little part of my time that I
    would rather talk about budget and some other concerns.
        But first, before we get started, I want to give you a
    moment, Administrator, to offer any comments you wish to make
    about those items. Anything you would like to comment about?
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, as I indicated, Mr. Chairman, in my
    opening comments, there are decisions that have been made that,
    as I look at them now, with respect to first-class travel, I
    have made changes. That was something that was predicated upon
    a security assessment. I can provide that to the committee.
        The inspector general has noticed that the threats against
    me have been unprecedented compared to previous administrators
    as it relates to the number, as well as to the type of threats,
    and that dictated the changes that were made in my travel. I
    was flying coach last year until those changes were made, based
    upon security assessments.
        I recently made changes to that, because I felt like, from
    an optics and perception standpoint, it was creating a
    distraction and I thought best to go another direction.
        There have been discussions about pay raises in the media.
    I want you to be aware that, as far as those pay raises are
    concerned, I was not at any time aware of the amount nor the
    process that was used to grant those pay raises. When I found
    out, I rescinded them and asked my chief of staff to resubmit
    them to the White House, pursuant to the protocols established.
        There are changes that I have already made, Mr. Chairman,
    with respect to these issues. But what I am trying to
    communicate to you today, if there are processes that have been
    not followed internally, and there are investigations and
    obviously review of that going on, I commit to you to make
    those changes prospectively to ensure that they are followed in
    the future.
        The recent discussion--and, Ranking Member McCollum, you
    brought this up--with respect to the secure communication, a
    little background on that, Mr. Chairman. I gave a simple
    communication to my leadership team that I needed secure
    communication in my office. From that communication, that
    turned into a $40,000-plus expenditure on this phone booth that
    the ranking member referred to.
        That was done by career staff. That process was approved
    from beginning to end, and the decision not to notify this body
    was made by those individuals, pursuant to advice and counsel.
    Our general counsel at the Agency has advised, actually, that
    they didn't think the notification was required. The GAO
    disagrees, and we have followed the GAO's request--excuse me,
    mandate--and notified Congress.
        I think it should have been done at the beginning. And I
    think, frankly, that the expenditure of $43,000 on secure
    communication should not have been made, and I would not have
    made the decision if I was aware of it.
        So that is just a sampling of some of the questions that
    have arisen in the media. But my objective here today is to
    speak to you in a way that provides you confidence that, going
    forward, we are going to address these issues in a meaningful
    way and recognize where faults have occurred and make sure they
    don't happen in the future.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you for that.
        Ms. McCollum.

                  INSPECTOR GENERAL'S DEATH THREAT ASSESSMENT

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Well, I was going to ask a question on something else, but
    I want to go back to what you just brought up.
        I listened to the hearing this morning. When you were asked
    about the removal of the head of the EPA office who found that
    you did not face death threats, you testified that: The
    inspector general himself has notified that death threats
    against me are unprecedented.
        Well, we reached out to the IG's office. We asked IG Elkins
    if he made such comments, and he disputed your claim.
        Please explain yourself, Administrator. Do you need to
    correct the record from this morning? Are you suggesting that
    IG Elkins is not telling the truth?
        Because Patrick Sullivan is the IG employee who we think
    you are going to tell me made those comments. He was in the
    news for his close relationship with a Mr. Perrotta, the head
    of your security. Mr. Perrotta is also under an ethics
    investigation for helping to give a security contract to a
    business associate.
        So did the inspector general himself tell you that you did
    not face death threats, that they have not found death threats?
        Mr. Pruitt. Actually, as I indicated, Ranking Member
    McCollum, this morning, I am actually looking at an inspector
    general's threat investigation report right now.
        Ms. McCollum. Who was it issued by, sir?
        Mr. Pruitt. The inspector general.
        Ms. McCollum. Is it issued by Elkins? I just want to make
    sure we are looking at the same thing.
        Mr. Pruitt. I am just looking at the document that says
    inspector general. I would like to highlight just two examples.
    There are many on this page, but just two with respect to the
    threat assessments.
        The EPA Administrator was receiving threats on a Facebook
    account. The threats were directed toward me, the father. The
    threat stated: ``I hope your father dies soon, suffering as
    your mother watches in horror for hours on end.''
        A second one, a correspondence between the subject and an
    EPA employee. OIG investigators found the following post
    tweeted, which states: ``Pruitt, I am going to find you and put
    a bullet between your eyes. Don't think I am joking. I am
    planning this.''
        Those are just two examples of what the inspector general--
    --
        Ms. McCollum. Can I see the letter, please, and see who it
    was issued by?
        Mr. Calvert. If you like, you can submit that to the
    record.
        Ms. McCollum. That would be great, because, you know, we
    all receive death threats on our Facebook page.
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. McCollum. We all do.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Pruitt. That is what I was referring to, Ranking Member
    McCollum, this morning in my testimony.
        Ms. McCollum. But I am quoting. You said the inspector
    general himself has noted threats, so----
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, that is what I was just reading for you.

                           ETHICS REVIEW: CONDO LEASE

        Ms. McCollum. And we will look at exactly who issued that.
        The other thing that I would like to clear up was the lease
    with the condo where you were staying. This morning, you said
    that everything had been approved by Ethics. Is it not true
    that the Ethics check was done after the lease was signed? And
    is it not also true that the Ethics attorney at the EPA said
    she had not been given the full picture when she signed off on
    the Ethics ruling about your condo? And she said, and I quote
    that individual: ``Advice that is given by Ethics officials is
    only as good as the information that is provided.''
        Was the Ethics review done after the lease was signed?
        Mr. Pruitt. There were actually two, and I did say this
    morning they were done afterwards. But there were actually two
    Ethics reviews. I think you are referring to Justina Fugh with
    respect to her comments. But there was a second one, more
    fulsome, more complete, where there were actually comparables
    of similar arrangements where they looked at the numbers.

                     PROPOSED RULE: TRANSPARENCY IN SCIENCE

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. I don't want to waste all my time
    on your ethical lapses.
        Mr. Chair, I would like to ask a question.
        I am very disturbed by your efforts to undermine the
    integrity of the EPA's science programs. You are aware of all
    the drastic cuts, the cuts to the advisory boards, how the
    advisory boards have been changed to favor industry.
        Currently, the EPA bases its regulations on well-
    established peer-reviewed research that tracks the public
    health of patients over decades. One of them is this
    groundbreaking 6-page study from the New England Journal and
    the Harvard School of Public Health. They show a strong link
    between air pollution and mortality risk, leading the EPA to
    regulate fine particulate matter.
        So scientists have collected this information. They have
    pledged to keep patients' names and personal information
    confidential. That is the way that medical research moves
    forward.
        Do you think it is appropriate, with what you are looking
    to do, to ask Americans to give up their personal health
    information for public consumption? Would you be willing to
    share your family's health information?
        Mr. Pruitt. I think perhaps there is a misunderstanding in
    the sense that we are not requiring that actually. We are
    protecting that. The changes that we have made this week, it is
    a proposed rule where we are saying that the third-party
    science that we use in support of rulemaking cannot just
    provide us the conclusions. It has to provide the methodology
    and data that supports those conclusions to ensure
    transparency.
        Under the APA, as you are aware, Ranking Member McCollum,
    individuals have the opportunity to receive a proposed rule and
    then to review it to make comments. If they cannot look at the
    data and the methodology and how conclusions were drawn, their
    ability to provide and form comments is actually prevented.
        Ms. McCollum. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chair, I would like
    to put the New England Journal of Medicine in the report to
    point out how you can collect----
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. McCollum. How they go about collecting medical data
    without putting individual public medical records at risk.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Pruitt. May I, Mr. Chairman?
        Just to be clear, in this proposed rule, confidential
    business information as well as personal information would be
    redacted and protected with respect to the transparency that we
    are requiring. That is actually in the proposal.
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, not to belabor the point, but if
    you are from a small rural town, you can still be identified.
    All of us who have worked on public healthcare records know
    that. We work on that. I worked on privacy issues when it comes
    to healthcare at the State of Minnesota for years serving
    there.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
        I know one thing, we are very good at redacting things
    around here.
        Mr. Simpson.

                       STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
        I wasn't going to mention this, but I happen to agree with
    what you have been doing recently with making available the
    studies and so forth that created the science, because I can
    tell you for years what I have heard from, whether it is
    organizations, individuals, associations, whatever, they come
    in and say: EPA came up with this rule. We have no idea how
    they came up with this rule. We don't know what science they
    used. We don't know how it was done. Our science doesn't show
    the same thing.
        And the basis of science is that if you do something and
    come to a conclusion, I ought to be able to look at how it was
    done and the factors that were used and be able to come up with
    the same conclusion. Then you have science. But right now,
    nobody knows how the EPA comes up with a lot of the information
    that they come up with.
        So I applaud the transparency that you are trying to create
    there as long as we can maintain that privacy of people's
    medical records and those other things that ought to be kept
    confidential. So I just wanted to throw that in there.
        Let me ask you a couple of questions on your budget,
    actually, since this is a budget hearing.
        One of the concerns I have and one of the things this
    committee has tried to do, we actually reduced the EPA's budget
    over the years, and one of the things we have tried to do, to
    the extent possible, is protect STAG grants, very important
    programs for State and local communities, Indian tribes, in
    addressing wastewater and clean drinking water standards.
        Several years ago, when I chaired this committee, the
    backlog of maintenance was like $700 billion. I think it has
    gone over a trillion dollars now of backlog maintenance. We
    appropriated $3.56 billion last year for STAG grants. The
    budget request is $2.9 billion or about $600 million less.
        How do you plan to address the backlog of maintenance to
    address the clean drinking water standard in this country?
        Mr. Pruitt. If I may, I want to commend Congress,
    obviously, for the omnibus that was passed recently, providing
    clarity on our budget. These are very important areas that you
    described.
        About half our budget historically has been focused upon
    these grant programs, to assist the States in implementation
    and critical infrastructure. It is something that I am
    committed to and will continue to convey that to the
    individuals I work with at OMB, and to hopefully see different
    objectives in the future.
        But I really appreciate the work of Congress to restore
    those levels of funding around those grants.

                         RURAL WATER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

        Mr. Simpson. One of the other important programs that was
    actually zeroed out in last year's budget that we didn't zero
    out and is zeroed out again in this year's budget is Rural
    Water Assistance. With a lot of small communities in Idaho and
    in other States, they depend on this Rural Water Assistance
    Program to help them learn how to address the standards that
    are necessary under the Clean Drinking Water Act.
        Is it wise to eliminate that program? And what coordination
    have you had with those local communities about how best to
    spend that money?
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, in my view, it is not wise. I think that
    the collaboration with the States and localities is really the
    heart of federalism on these issues.
        We have critical water infrastructure needs across this
    country. I mentioned lead in my opening statement. We have an
    opportunity as a country to take steps over the next 10 years
    to truly allocate resources to replace those lead service
    lines.
        I was in Cincinnati Monday of last week. They are leading
    the country with respect to leadership at the local level to
    replace lead service lines.
        I can only say to you that it is a commitment of mine and
    it is something that I want to see the Agency emphasize going
    forward. I am hopeful that we will have good outcomes as we go
    through the budgeting process.

                          CLEAN WATER ACT: SNAKE RIVER

        Mr. Simpson. One final really quick question. Long
    introduction maybe.
        In 2012, the Idaho DEQ received approval from the State
    legislature for site-specific temperature standards for the
    salmonid spawning below Hells Canyon Dam on the Snake River.
    The rule was submitted to Region 10 EPA.
        In March of 2014, EPA Region 10 asked for more information
    on the rule, which Idaho DEQ supplied. To date, no further
    action has been taken on the rule.
        The Clean Water Act states that EPA is required to respond
    within 60 days on approving this rule or 90 days if it would
    like to see changes to the rule. Since the rule was submitted
    in 2012, we are now more than 2,000 days beyond that
    requirement.
        The rule is a science-based standard that NOAA Fisheries
    has encouraged EPA to adopt, concluding that it would not hurt
    fall chinook or their habitat.
        Will you commit to us to working with the State of Idaho
    and Region 10 so that we can resolve this impasse that has been
    going on for several years?
        Mr. Pruitt. It sounds like we have work to do as far as
    responding, and I apologize for that delay as it relates to our
    part of that.
        Chris Hladick is the new Regional Administrator in Region
    10. He was one of the last that was actually approved. I think
    he is catching up to a certain degree. But I will be in
    conversations with the regional administrator to address this
    issue promptly.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you.

                WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND INNOVATION ACT

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Just a comment on your question,
    Mr. Simpson, on infrastructure. Don't forget WIFIA, because I
    think WIFIA is going to be a great tool to help leverage moneys
    to go into these various programs.
        Mrs. Lowey.

                       PROPOSED RULE: METHYLENE CHLORIDE

        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator Pruitt, I would like to follow up with two
    questions.
        Based upon my review, you are strategically starving
    programs that identify chemicals that could be harmful to
    children, while rolling back and delaying regulations for
    deadly chemicals. In December, you indefinitely delayed the
    proposed rule to ban paint strippers containing methylene
    chloride.
        This chemical has killed 50 Americans since 1980. Three
    have died since EPA first proposed to ban it. Just this past
    October, Drew Wynne, a 31-year-old small business owner, was
    killed when he was overcome by the fumes from the chemical
    stripper he used on the floor at his business. He bought that
    paint stripper at a home improvement store.
        When EPA conducts a cost-benefit analysis of rule
    promulgation, what value does it place on human life? And which
    is more important to you, the happiness of the industry you
    regulate or the safety and well-being of Americans? And what
    will it take for you to finalize this rule to save lives?
        Mr. Pruitt. So I appreciate the question, because I think
    there is some misinformation in the marketplace about what we
    have done and not done with respect to that proposed rule. As
    you know, the Obama administration in January as they were
    leaving office, proposed that ban. We have actually submitted
    that for comment, have received comments, and are reviewing
    those comments now.
        There has been no decision to deny that ban. I mean, that
    is something that is under consideration presently. It is
    actually one of the solvents that make up the list of 10
    priorities under TSCA.
        So I take this issue very seriously. We are working on,
    obviously, the prioritization of that. Also there will be a
    decision on the ban, but there hasn't been a decision yet.
        Mrs. Lowey. Well, I appreciate your comment, and I look
    forward to a very clear decision, because it is costing lives.
        Mr. Pruitt. If I may, about the chemicals generally. We had
    a backlog. As you know, under TSCA, before new chemicals enter
    the flow of commerce, we have to approve those new chemicals.
        When I came into office, there were over 700 of those
    chemicals that formed the backlog. I actually prioritized
    resources at the Agency, utilizing the Office of Research and
    Development, to assist the programmatic office to undo that
    backlog, and we did, to ensure clarity going forward on those
    chemicals.
        So we have tried to make progress at prioritization around
    these issues and will continue to do that, but wanted to share
    that with you as well.
        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. And I have one more question.
    Perhaps, though, you can discuss with us or just tell us how
    long that process will take, because lives are being lost in
    the interim.
        Mr. Pruitt. On the proposed ban?
        Mrs. Lowey. Yes.
        Mr. Pruitt. The comments, I actually asked earlier how many
    comments we had received, and I didn't get the official number.
    It depends on the volume of comments. But I would imagine that
    it is something that we can do this year.

                          ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS PROGRAM

        Mrs. Lowey. I appreciate that, and the sooner the better.
        I have one other question now. Your budget proposal
    prioritizes industry over the health of the American people, in
    my judgment. Last year, I asked you about the proposed
    elimination of the Endocrine Disruptors Program, which is
    critical to protecting against negative effects on public
    health caused by various chemical exposures.
        You assured me that you shared my concern and would work
    with us on restoring it. Yet once again you have proposed its
    elimination.
        How can you say that you will work to restore funding and
    then propose elimination?
        Mr. Pruitt. I think, Congresswoman, one of the things that
    I would share is that the absorption of those functions has
    actually gone to the Chemical Office, and we are using current
    available testing to address those issues.
        Mrs. Lowey. I am not sure what you are responding to me.
    Are you working on it? When can we expect a clear decision?
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, there is an available----
        Mrs. Lowey. I can remember, frankly, when that first issue
    was brought to my attention, it must have been 20 years ago, by
    the woman who discussed it. And this is really problematic.
    They have found all kinds of materials put in plastic. You know
    the whole story and I won't go into it. But I think a decision
    has to be made sooner rather than later.
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes, ma'am.
        Mrs. Lowey. Yes?
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes. I mean the testing battery is a tiered
    testing methodology that our Chemical Office has in place. That
    is being used to absorb the requirements of the program that
    you have referenced in the interim until we get clarity on the
    budgeting aspect.
        Mrs. Lowey. I would be most appreciative, because this is
    an issue I have been following for more than 25 years. And I
    would appreciate it if you would give me a timeline, tell me
    what is happening, and as soon as possible, I hope coming to
    the right decision.
        Mr. Pruitt. With respect to the funding or what is
    happening in the interim until the funding is addressed?
        Mrs. Lowey. Both.
        Mr. Pruitt. Both? OK, we will do both of those things.
        [The information follows:]

                              Endocrine Disruptors

        The Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) has a universe of
    approximately 10,000 chemicals. Tier 1 screening determines whether a
    chemical has the potential to interact with the endocrine system and
    requires more thorough testing. Tier 2 testing is conducted to rule out
    bioactivity for chemicals that show more potential for endocrine
    bioactivity. If a chemical is determined to indeed have endocrine
    bioactivity after completing EDSP Tier 2 testing, EPA would most likely
    conduct a complete risk assessment and risk mitigation exercise for
    that chemical.
        The EDSP has completed Tier 1 screening for List 1 chemicals, and
    identified 18 chemicals for Tier 2 screening. The EDSP has met
    statutory requirements for developing a tiered testing strategy (FQPA
    Amendments to FFDCA section 408(p)(1)) for estrogen and other endocrine
    activities as determined by the Administrator). The EDSP has also met
    the statutory requirements to take public comment on the tiered testing
    battery with FIFRA SAP under section 408(p)(2).
        EDSP is still implementing testing of all pesticides and inert
    ingredients with the tiered testing battery required under section
    408(p)(3)(A).

        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Mr. Cole.

                            FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET

        Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        My friend, good to see you again. Sorry it has been a long
    day.
        But as this committee knows, I have known the Administrator
    for over 20 years, and I have high confidence in his personal
    integrity and ability.
        And certainly if a mistake was made, I am sure it will be
    acknowledged and corrected, because I have seen you do it over
    and over again in the course of a long and very distinguished
    career of service.
        I want to move quickly, because there are some things I
    want to get at. I want to first thank you and the President for
    getting us out of the Paris climate accord. Congress never
    approved that, because it would not have gotten the votes in
    either house. And if you have got confidence in an agreement
    and you want it to be permanent, you need to bring it before
    the Congress of the United States.
        The last President chose not to do that. So I think this
    President, and on your advice, acted wisely in that area.
        I also want to thank you for the deregulatory thrust of
    your office. I hear it over and over again from farmers,
    ranchers, all sorts of people, how grateful they are for what
    your department is doing to free them up from burdensome
    regulations.
        Now, I have been fulsome enough in my praise, but I have
    one other point to make first.
        On the budget, to be fair to you and the administration, we
    passed the omnibus budget a month ago, roughly. I assume your
    budget for 2019 was prepared before we had come to a bipartisan
    agreement. Is that the case?
        Mr. Pruitt. I think that is right, Congressman.
        Mr. Cole. So, I mean, that suggests to me that you have to
    adjust the budget. We didn't give you time to do it. Frankly,
    we were late getting our work done. And I have seen this in
    agency after agency. They are sort of caught with budgets that
    were prepared before Congress agreed to higher spending levels.
    And so this is a pretty common sight in every one of the
    subcommittees right now.
        The other thing I would say, and I wouldn't have put you on
    the spot on this, but I have never met anybody that got to
    fully prepare their own budget. Usually it has to go to the
    OMB. One of our former colleagues, named Mr. Mulvaney, operates
    that. He was a pretty famous budget-cutter here.
        So I expect you, as always, to defend the President's
    budget, that is your obligation as his appointee, but you don't
    always get to make those final calls. And I am not going to
    press you on it, but the budget you submitted probably didn't
    come back exactly as you submitted it.
        Mr. Pruitt. No, there is always an active dialogue there. I
    appreciate your comments.

                       STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

        Mr. Cole. OK.
        Now, there is one area that I do have a special concern in,
    and that is the cuts in the State and the Tribal grant
    programs. Those, as my colleague suggested, are extraordinarily
    important and particularly in the Tribal areas. These are not
    governments in many cases with much in the way of independent
    revenue, they don't have the ability to tax, and they are in
    some of the most remote and difficult sites in the country.
        So I would just tell you we are going to probably always be
    pretty aggressive at pushing back in cuts in those areas,
    because that is really not the Federal bureaucracy, that is
    money going right out directly to help the people that we all
    represent. So I would ask you to revisit that with the powers
    that be inside the administration.
        Mr. Pruitt. As you know, Congressman, we have an
    International and Tribal Affairs Office that works with those
    sovereign nations across the country with respect to
    implementation of environmental statutes and regulations. It is
    something that is very, very important to our efforts. So I
    agree with your assessment.

                         KERR WATER LAB, ADA, OKLAHOMA

        Mr. Cole. I have one particularly local matter to ask you
    to look into.
        As you know, the Kerr water lab is located in Ada,
    Oklahoma. It has long been an EPA facility. It is a very good
    facility, does groundbreaking work in groundwater issues.
        We recently had an administrator that left there, nothing
    inappropriate about that, but the one before him, that was
    allowed to stay vacant for 4 years. We had acting
    administrators.
        So I would just ask you and your office to put some
    attention to that. I don't have any candidate. I just don't
    want the administrative post at an important national
    laboratory left vacant for 4 years. And, frankly, it does
    disadvantage us when we are actually competing for part of the
    budget for research and science inside the EPA.
        Mr. Pruitt. I hear you and I appreciate the comment. It is
    something that I will visit with the ORD to make sure that
    there are ongoing efforts to fill that position.
        I think those labs regionally are very, very important to
    the work that is done by States across the country. Because
    those State Implementation Plans, water quality standards, and
    various steps that are being taken by the States to actually
    implement the regulations that we are setting, they need that
    technical assistance. Those regional labs matter substantially
    to helping them do that.
        Mr. Cole. I would just ask that you keep us posted on the
    process. Again, I don't have a candidate. I just want to make
    sure that from a personnel standpoint that that facility has
    the appropriate leadership, and I would appreciate your help.
        With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Ms. Pingree.

                            FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET

        Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you, Administrator Pruitt. Clearly, you have had a
    long day and it is not over yet, but thank you for being in
    front of our committee.
        I have had a chance to listen to a lot of the dialogue
    earlier this morning. I am not going to ask you to repeat every
    single question. But I do have concerns about the many things
    that have been raised about how you have administered the
    organization, some of those things that have already been
    brought up, some others about retaliation of whistleblowers,
    your housing issues, abuse of hiring authority, violations of
    the Hatch Act. There is really quite a list.
        But I have to say, I want to focus my concerns on some of
    the severe policy disagreements that I have with you.
        First off, I had hoped you would spend a little more time
    defending a reasonable budget. I know my colleagues mentioned
    it is not easy when you are the appointee. You have a budget,
    you have to sort of take a little bit of what is given to you.
        But to have the 30 percent cuts, the dramatic cuts that we
    have actually bailed you out of, I think, twice now in the
    budget processes, they don't stand. Programs are being
    eliminated. This just couldn't possibly go on. I would like to
    see you be a little bit more rigorous in your defense.
        But I want to focus a little bit on a couple of issues that
    concern me.
        I have a sense that some of the appointments of this
    Administration don't have the same view of how they should
    administrate the organizations as maybe some of us do, but are
    somewhat there to dismantle it or to look at a different
    purpose.

                                  MOROCCO TRIP

        I know I hear praise on the other side of the aisle. But
    one of the concerns that I had was how you oversee the EPA, the
    Environmental Protection Agency. A lot of concerns have already
    been raised about whether you have too much of a bent towards
    industry, towards fossil fuels.
        There were concerns raised about your trip to Morocco and
    the idea that you were there to promote LNG sales. I can't for
    the life of me imagine why an EPA administrator would be over
    there promoting energy sales. We have a Department of Energy.
    You should be thinking much more about some of the challenges
    with LNG and why you would be on the other side.
        The second----
        Mr. Pruitt. If I may.
        Ms. Pingree. Quickly.
        Mr. Pruitt. So there is a free trade agreement. The
    Ambassador of Morocco actually met with me in advance of a free
    trade agreement that was being negotiated and completed in
    February this year. We were there in December to negotiate the
    environmental chapter. That was the focus of the trip. There
    was a lot of reference made to LNG only because the ambassador
    asked me to share that with the individuals when I was in the
    country.

                                 CLIMATE CHANGE

        Ms. Pingree. Well, it has certainly been portrayed in
    another way, and it certainly raised a lot of concerns. I would
    not want to think that you saw yourself as promoting fossil
    fuels or fossil fuel sales outside the country.
        I am also really concerned about how you talk about climate
    change. It has been widely reported that you do not agree with
    the issues around climate change. You call it something that
    has been far from settled. This is a quote from you: ``I think
    that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is
    something very challenging to do and there is tremendous
    disagreement about the degree of impact.''
        You have also been known to say that there are assumptions
    being made that because the climate is warming that it is
    necessarily a bad thing. A recent article just showed that EPA
    staffers are given talking points to play down climate change,
    to say it is not clear that there is a man-made impact, to
    raise uncertainty.
        I think we could all give a tremendous number of examples
    why this is on us and on us faster than we ever imagined, that
    scientists from around the world are talking to us about this.
    I thought I might just quote from a couple of letters I got
    actually this week.
        I represent the State of Maine. We are part of the Gulf of
    Maine, which is warming at a rate about 99 percent faster than
    the oceans around the world. Lobster fishing is critical both
    to our economy, to our tourism business, to our culture. I get
    these letters from kids who live in fishing communities.
        Here is one that said: ``One of the changes from climate
    changes is warming waters, rising sea levels, and the migration
    of lobsters. In around 50 years, the water level will rise and
    the coast of Maine will be having tropic temperatures and there
    will be many new types of fish.
        ``There will also be no more native species that were once
    here, because the global temp is going up by 1.8 percent
    Fahrenheit since 1880. Climate change is a real thing. It will
    affect the coast of Maine.''
        Here is another kid who said: ``My grandfather is a second-
    generation fisherman who lives on one of the islands. Every
    summer my cousins come up, we always take a trip out to the
    island to eat lobsters and camp out.
        ``It is a tradition I know and would like to carry on with
    my children, but it might not be possible. If the oceans keep
    warming and pushing lobsters north, there will most likely not
    be the same island culture that there is today. Lobster
    fishermen will be replaced by tourists. There will be no reason
    for me to return to the island with my children.''
        That might be through the eyes of children, but if you are
    not going to listen to scientists, who are you going to listen
    to? This is what is going on in my State. How do I go home and
    tell them that the Administrator of the EPA doesn't want to put
    resources in this, doesn't actually believe in it, and said:
    Oh, maybe we are getting some benefit out of this. How do you
    defend that?
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, I have indicated many times, and have
    said it over and over again, the climate is warming and we
    contribute to it. But what is lost in this discussion is what
    authority does the EPA have to regulate?
        The Clean Air Act was last amended----

                                 CAFE STANDARDS

        Ms. Pingree. But with all due respect, I mean, we are going
    to talk about a lot of things, CAFE standard, Clean Power Rule.
    There are a lot of things that you are rolling back actively
    that I think would have a huge impact if you would stay on the
    other side.
        Mr. Pruitt. So there were two efforts made by the previous
    administration to regulate CO2, and both of them were struck
    down by the courts.
        Ms. Pingree. Well, get creative. There is a lot more we
    could be doing.
        Mr. Pruitt. They were creative.
        Ms. Pingree. CAFE standards were not struck down by the
    courts.
        Mr. Pruitt. That is not the issue we are talking about
    here.
        Ms. Pingree. Auto emissions?
        Mr. Pruitt. The Tailoring Rule that the previous
    administration adopted with respect to CO2 and then the Clean
    Power Plan was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court, and it was
    unprecedented. That had never happened, for the U.S. Supreme
    Court to issue a stay while a case was pending at a lower court
    level.
        Ms. Pingree. That doesn't allow us to say we are not going
    to deal with this issue.
        Mr. Pruitt. I haven't said that. I can only take the steps
    that Congress authorizes me to take. The faults of the last
    administration on this issue is they tried to pinch hit for
    Congress.
        I have taken the additional step that no previous
    Republican administration has actually taken. I have actually
    introduced an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the
    marketplace to solicit comment on our authority to regulate GHG
    under----
        Ms. Pingree. Excuse me. I want to finish my comment here.
        You can say that the fault is the last administration, that
    they didn't do it right, they were pinch hitting for Congress.
    To actively deny that we are now experiencing the effect of
    climate change, whether it is unexpected weather, whether it is
    something farmers or fishermen or anyone is experiencing right
    now, and that we don't have to start preparing for that, and to
    say that there might be some benefit, which I haven't heard you
    justify what those benefits are, we don't have time to blame
    the last Congress. I want to hear some leadership out of you
    about what we are going to do about it.
        Mr. Pruitt. We have actually, as a country, reduced our CO2
    footprint by almost 20 percent from the years 2000 to 2014.
    There was a GHG report that recently came out that showed an
    additional 2 percent reduction. We have led----
        Ms. Pingree. Well, if it has gone down from 2000 to 2014
    and you are rolling back the standards, we are not moving in
    the right direction.
        Mr. Pruitt. The other report recently came out, another 2
    percent reduction, and that is largely through innovation and
    technology.
        Ms. Pingree. Not since you got there.
        Mr. Pruitt. Actually, it was just in the last couple of
    weeks that it occurred.
        Ms. Pingree. I yield back. I don't need to keep going on
    this.
        But I just want to be clear, I find those statements
    unacceptable. I can't go home and tell my district or people
    that I serve with or young kids in elementary school who are
    writing me letters that there might be some good impacts to
    climate change and it is OK to do nothing about it.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
        Mr. Joyce.

                       GREAT LAKES RESTORATION INITIATIVE

        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator Pruitt, the subcommittee as a whole
    recognizes the importance of the Great Lakes Restoration
    Initiative and the role it plays in our ability to protect and
    preserve the Great Lake ecosystem. On a bipartisan basis, we
    have rejected proposals that have cut, whether it was the
    previous administration or the current administration, funding
    for the GLRI.
        Unfortunately, the Administration's 2019 budget would once
    again cut GLRI funding from $300 million to $30 million. Last
    year the proposal was zero, so I guess in some ways it was an
    improvement, but I don't see it that way.
        Have you ever personally visited the Great Lakes region to
    see how GLRI projects are helping us address regional concerns
    like invasive species and nonpoint source pollution?
        Mr. Pruitt. I was actually in Region 5 this past week.
    Obviously, that has been a major issue for Region 5 in Chicago
    and the States in that region.
        I think the Great Lakes Initiative represents something
    that is very, very good for the rest of the country. You have a
    collection of States that have joined together to advance
    issues of environmental concern--invasive species is an
    example--and taken steps locally. They have partnered with the
    Federal Government to achieve better efforts. I think it is the
    true example of federalism.
        I have expressed that in these discussions internally. I
    will continue to do that. I really appreciate Congress
    restoring that $300 million for the omnibus that you just
    passed.
        Mr. Joyce. I appreciate that, because I heard that from you
    last year. I didn't have the opportunity to go with you when
    you were in Region 5, but certainly I want to extend, on behalf
    of Ms. Kaptur and myself, an invitation to come to the Great
    Lakes--and certainly a number of members----
        Ms. McCollum. I have Lake Superior.
        Mr. Joyce. Well, ours is Erie. They are all good lakes. As
    I try to tell people, it is not a lake or a series of lakes; it
    is a national treasure, containing 85 percent of the fresh
    surface water in North America. So we would love to take you
    out there and show you firsthand some of the ways in which the
    GLRI has been working.
        Mr. Pruitt. These are regional investments. I think these
    regional grants and investments matter. But I appreciate your
    comments.
        Mr. Joyce. I agree on that. I strongly support increased
    coordination between the Federal agencies, States, Tribes and
    local entities. However, given the national significance of the
    Great Lakes, is it fair to expect the States and local
    communities to continue to shoulder the burden of caring for
    the Great Lakes?
        Mr. Pruitt. Hopefully, I have addressed that question as
    far as my commitment. I can only say to you, Congressman, that
    it is my belief, my conviction that we should work together to
    keep funding levels consistent with the omnibus level which you
    passed.
        Mr. Joyce. I thought I heard you say that the
    responsibility would come back to the localities. It is
    important that we all work together. That is the point I want
    to make clear.
        Mr. Pruitt. No, if I gave you that impression, I am sorry.
    I think it is a partnership that should exist between both the
    U.S. Government and those States and localities.

                           GREAT LAKES ADVISORY BOARD

        Mr. Joyce. As part of that, there is the Great Lakes
    Advisory Board. Are you familiar with the Board?
        Mr. Pruitt. I am familiar with it, yes.
        Mr. Joyce. It would appear that--and I would, if I may,
    pass a letter to you, on behalf of Ms. Kaptur and I.
        Mr. Calvert. The gentleman wants to submit that for the
    record. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Joyce. Thank you very much.
        I want to know if there is any concern that we should have
    regarding whether or not you are considering to disband the
    Great Lakes Advisory Board?
        Mr. Pruitt. I don't know of any current consideration to
    ban the board, if that is your question, Congressman.
        Mr. Joyce. Have you assessed whether the EPA may receive
    advice from our stakeholders using a mechanism other than the
    Federal Advisory Committee Act without violating FACA,
    especially when Congress has an interest in ensuring that the
    $300 million we appropriate annually for the GLRI should have
    strong public advice, support, and input to you?
        Mr. Pruitt. That should be reviewed as well.
        Mr. Joyce. Great.
        With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Kilmer.

                                 CLIMATE CHANGE

        Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Chairman.
        Thanks for being with us.
        Before I came to Congress, I worked in private industry. I
    worked in business and then in economic development. And here
    is what I will tell you. We saw when you do brownfield
    restoration, when you clean up Puget Sound, it is actually good
    for business. Tacoma is a more vibrant city because we
    remediated the surrounding lands and waters. It is a place
    people want to live. It is a place where businesses want to
    invest and can profit.
        But the ``P'' in EPA doesn't stand for profit, it doesn't
    stand for personal gain, it stands for protection. And sadly,
    there are far too many examples where the environmental
    protections that motivated the creation of this Agency have
    been ignored under your leadership.
        And a paramount example of that is climate change. So I
    want to follow up on Ms. Pingree's line of questioning.
        I would invite you to visit our region. We are seeing the
    impacts of climate change firsthand. You can come and see
    catastrophic wildfires. You can see changing ocean conditions
    that are impacting fishermen and shellfish growers, not just in
    Maine but in Washington State.
        Come visit our coastal communities. I represent 11 Native
    American Tribes. Four are coastal Tribes that as we sit here
    today are in the process of trying to move to higher ground
    because of persistent flooding.
        When the EPA doesn't act, the conditions on the ground in
    Washington State get worse. And the folks in my neck of the
    woods depend on your Agency to be the first line of defense,
    and you have let them down.
        You know, 3 months ago, to Ms. Pingree's point, you said:
    ``I think there are assumptions made that because the climate
    is warming that that is necessarily a bad thing. We know that
    humans have most flourished during these times of warming
    trends.''
        If you came to my district, I would introduce you to Fawn
    Sharp, the president of the Quinault Indian Nation, who told me
    that the ocean was once a football field's length away from her
    village and now it is their front porch. You could talk to the
    Army Corps of Engineers in our region who have responded every
    time their seawall breaches and their village floods.
        You can visit with our shellfish growers, Bill Taylor,
    whose business is constantly threatened by harmful algal blooms
    and by increasingly acidic waters that have been so bad that
    our government actually declared a disaster as a consequence of
    it.
        I could introduce you to a whole bunch of folks who are
    impacted by this.
        So I am not going to ask you to defend industry
    relationships or your views on climate science that you just
    articulated. I guess I want to ask for your help.
        What would you say to the coastal communities I represent
    that face an existential threat to our fisheries that are
    dealing with this, with ocean acidification? Do you really
    think they are going to flourish because of this?
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, as I indicated earlier, I think there are
    a couple of questions with respect to this issue. The one that
    does get lost in the discussion quite a bit is the process and
    the response opportunities we have as an Agency.
        We are looking at those options, on what steps we can take
    to regulate CO2 for stationary sources. And, Congressman, that
    has not been done before.

                            GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

        Mr. Kilmer. So let me speak to that, because you question
    whether you have the legal authority to do that. Even the late
    Justice Scalia held the opinion that you do. In a 2014 Supreme
    Court decision, Justice Scalia's opinion, he wrote: The EPA
    sought to regulate sources that it said were responsible for 86
    percent of all the greenhouse gas emissions emitted from
    stationary sources nationwide. Under the Court's holdings, the
    EPA will be able to regulate sources responsible for 83 percent
    of those emissions.
        Mr. Pruitt. We are considering that as we speak. We have an
    advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the marketplace,
    soliciting comment on regulating stationary sources for
    greenhouse gasses. That is in the marketplace today.

                               NO DISCHARGE ZONE

        Mr. Kilmer. And I know my colleagues touched on this, but
    also, in light of the challenges in these communities, what do
    you say to a poor Tribal community that is trying to move?
        I visited a Head Start facility in La Push, Washington, at
    the Quileute Tribe, that they are trying to move to higher
    ground because of the impacts of sea level rise. And they are
    struggling to find a dollar. And they are seeing this issue get
    worse when it is ignored in this town.
        How do you explain, when you spend tens of thousands of
    dollars on travel and thousands of dollars on soundproofing?
    They don't have the luxury of spending thousands of dollars on
    soundproofing. They can't even spend thousands of dollars on
    waterproofing when they are getting washed out.
        Mr. Pruitt. We granted the No Discharge Zone, and I think
    that provided environmental benefits to your community. We are
    taking Superfund actions.
        We are taking a host of actions that I think benefit those
    local communities with respect to environmental protection. And
    this issue that we are talking about here, we are evaluating
    our authority to address that going forward.
        Mr. Kilmer. I am at my 5 minutes. Thank you, Chairman, I
    yield back.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Next, Mr. Amodei.

                         FISCAL YEAR 2018 APPROPRIATION

        Mr. Amodei. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Good afternoon, Mr. Administrator.
        I want to start with a few things. I know it is kind of
    thin ice to be talking about the Sooner State and stuff like
    that, but I do want to correct one thing that was said earlier
    by a member of this committee when he was referring about your
    budget and he said we were a little late in getting our work
    done.
        With all due respect, we weren't, those folks on the north
    end of the building were. I would just like the record to
    reflect that.
        Mr. Cole. I stand corrected, and I am grateful for you
    pointing it out.
        Mr. Amodei. That is good enough then. I will stop there on
    that one. I appreciate it.

                      WASTEWATER AND SUPERFUND ACTIVITIES

        Mr. Amodei. And then the only other one--I guess the other
    thing I want to say as a lead-in is, on behalf of the other 40-
    some-odd States who have, I guess, modest and humble lakes
    instead of Great Lakes, thank you for your consideration, you
    doing those lakes also. No offense to the people from Ohio or
    the Superior.
        I want to talk with you a little bit about kind of some
    meat-and-potatoes stuff for the Agency and that is this. It has
    been my experience that when we have visited your folks in
    Region 9 in San Francisco, in the prior administration and in
    this administration they have been very helpful.
        And so, I don't want that to go without mention in terms of
    what is going on, because even though we may not be blessed
    with a lot of water in my neck of the woods, our issues with
    respect to water are still very, very important.
        Your Agency has done a good job of partnering with the
    Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, working together
    in terms of how your jurisdiction is shared with them and how
    you folks end up of achieving the goals of maintaining clean
    water for those of us where it predominantly comes from
    groundwater systems. So I want to put that on the record and
    thank you.
        We want to visit just a couple things. And I am not going
    to take your time today, because I know you have been fully
    employed so far today and I know you probably have plenty of
    fun things to do tonight in terms of overtime.
        So I just want to put on the record with your folks that we
    are going to be getting ahold of you and we want to talk about
    a couple of wastewater situations that are the result of the
    huge winter that we had on the eastern slope of the Sierra that
    are not under your direct control, but it kind of gets into
    your jurisdiction.
        One of them is north of Reno in a place called Swan Lake,
    if you can believe that there are swans in the desert.
        Another one is an update on your Superfund activities in
    the State, because while you don't have a lot of them, some of
    them are kind of long range. By necessity we just kind of want
    to see where we are and what the status is under your
    administration in going forward in that.
        So with that, we will look forward to getting ahold of your
    legislative liaison folks. Thank you for your service.
        I yield back and thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for his
    contrition on that one.
        Mr. Pruitt. Mr. Chairman, may I first?
        Mr. Calvert. Mr. Pruitt.
        Mr. Pruitt. I just want to offer, because I think the point
    the Congressman makes about the State DEQs, the Departments of
    Environmental Quality and Departments of Natural Resources
    across the country, that has been an emphasis of ours at the
    Agency, to work with our State partners in a very, very close
    way with respect to these, technical assistance. We were
    talking about that earlier.
        So I really appreciate hearing that Region 9 and others are
    doing that effectively because it has been a point of emphasis.
        Mr. Calvert. I want to point out, too, that the lake that
    the gentleman is referring to is shared with the great State of
    California.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just referring
    to the better part of the lake.
        Mr. Calvert. Ms. Kaptur.

                               TOXIC ALGAL BLOOMS

        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member
    McCollum.
        Welcome back, Administrator Pruitt.
        I wore this color today for a reason. Last June I invited
    you, and I think it is fair to say Congressman Joyce joined me
    in this, to visit Lake Erie, the 12th-largest freshwater lake
    in the world and the shallowest of the five Great Lakes. That
    lake is choking, and it is choking deeply, due to phosphorus
    and manure runoff. In fact, 4 years ago the city of Toledo had
    to shut off its freshwater system to half a million people for
    3 days because of what is happening with toxic algal blooms.
        Now, I am a little offended you couldn't accept our
    invitation. I know you are a busy man, but I read in the paper
    that you in the past year traveled to Italy and Morocco, and
    that the trip to Italy alone cost more than $120,000.
        Did you travel to those two countries last year?
        Mr. Pruitt. I did, Congresswoman.
        Ms. Kaptur. You did.
        Mr. Pruitt. And to the G7 in Italy.
        Ms. Kaptur. Do you have any idea what a plane ticket to
    Cleveland, Ohio, might cost you to come and visit?
        Mr. Pruitt. Probably less than the trip to Italy.

                       GREAT LAKES RESTORATION INITIATIVE

        Ms. Kaptur. It would cost you a great deal less, yes. It
    would be about $200, $250, somewhere in that range.
        According to a Federal judge, who ruled just recently, you
    have ignored your duty as the Administrator of the
    Environmental Protection Agency for this Nation under the Clean
    Water Act. I am sure that court proceedings will bring out the
    truth in all of that.
        The President's budget for this year recommended
    elimination, zeroing out of the Great Lakes Restoration
    Initiative. What I would like to know is, did you recommend
    that to the President?
        Mr. Pruitt. I did not.
        Ms. Kaptur. All right. The budget you are submitting this
    year cuts the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative by 90 percent,
    $270 million, which isn't even enough. Even if we got $300
    million, which we have had in the past, it wouldn't be enough
    to deal with what we are struggling with right now.
        Your budget cuts our Section 106 pollution grants by 33
    percent. You eliminate Section 319 nonpoint source pollution
    management grants. I want you to know that all of those cuts
    and programs, if they were funded, represent half of Ohio EPA's
    budget, half.
        All right. So our States depend on this funding. I would
    like to know if you recommended to the President to cut those
    programs?
        Mr. Pruitt. I did not.

                               REGION 5 STAFFING

        Ms. Kaptur. I also want to let you know that the Superfund
    program, which is very important to us, is terribly short-
    staffed in Region 5. And I am sorry to be provincial, but we
    have all talked about our parts of America. That is what the
    House does, we represent all places in our Nation.
        In that region there are zero hydrogeologists, who are the
    people who determine how the toxins may spread and endanger
    other citizens. Also, there are zero civil investigators, who
    find out who is responsible for these billion-dollar messes
    that we have to clean up, and require them to fund the cleanup.
        As we sit here today, just so you know, Region 5 has lost
    at least 90 employees under your leadership, and there have
    been only two hires that you have made, and they are both
    political.
        What I want to know is, do you have any intention, and can
    you fully commit, to fully staffing Region 5, not just for
    Superfund, but for all of the programs to protect human health
    and the environment in our fragile region?
        Mr. Pruitt. The good news is that OMB has actually lifted
    the hiring freeze. For Region 5, we can act with respect to
    those deficiencies that you have identified.
        Ms. Kaptur. So what are you going to do for Region 5?
        Mr. Pruitt. The OMB has lifted the hiring freeze. For
    Region 5 specifically, we can act to address the deficiencies
    that you have raised.
        Ms. Kaptur. At what level do you expect you will be able to
    employ individuals to do the job?
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, with the omnibus I am sure that we are
    going to have more flexibility.

                                CLEAN WATER ACT

        Ms. Kaptur. All right. Now, do you understand that one of
    the reasons that the court is questioning your duty under the
    Clean Water Act is because, in terms of cleaning up Lake Erie,
    we needed to hear from Federal EPA because we have various
    States involved in this: Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and actually
    Ontario, Canada. And the EPA sat on the bench, didn't do a
    thing.
        Mr. Pruitt. I don't know if you are referring to,
    Congressman, the water quality standards that Ohio submitted.
    We have been very diligent in responding to Ohio. In fact, we
    have asked for the data from the State of Ohio about those
    issues.
        Ms. Kaptur. You dragged your feet on declaring impaired
    status. The National EPA made our entire marine community, a $7
    billion industry, terribly worried. This is what it looks like.
        We invite you out. I invite you out this year. I will drive
    you myself if you don't like airplanes, but apparently you fly.
        For us this is a life-and-death issue, and I just don't see
    that the EPA is serious. I am old enough, I've been around when
    we past Earth Day. I remember Gaylord Nelson. I remember
    America becoming conscious in the last quarter of the 20th
    century that we have to live in communion with the Earth or we
    all will die. It is pretty clear.
        My grandmother said to me in 1952, when I was nearly 6
    years old, and she was an immigrant, but she was close to the
    land. She said: ``America will pay a great price for this.''
    She pointed at our river, the same river that is sick today.
    She said: ``The people here don't understand what they are
    doing.'' She couldn't even speak English, but she knew what it
    meant to live in communion with the Earth. To have this kind of
    ignorance by the EPA, I consider at this point in our history,
    to be un-American.
        I need your help. We need the help of the Government of the
    United States to protect our people, to protect their economic
    activities, to protect their human health. I expect more than
    cursory answers in this committee.
        I will look forward to your letter of reply to questions I
    am submitting to the record.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady. And rest assured the
    Great Lakes will be addressed in our appropriation, as it
    always is.
        Mr. Jenkins.

                                 WEST VIRGINIA

        Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Administrator, thank you for being here.
        In your remarks you talked about restoring confidence. Let
    me tell you about the people of West Virginia. I don't use the
    word confidence, I say hope. And this administration, in your
    work, in your Agency, is restoring hope to the people of West
    Virginia.
        The last administration devastated us economically. The
    regulatory overreach put almost one half of our coal mining
    jobs, coal miners out of work and on the unemployment line.
        We want to talk passionately about the environment and
    protecting what we have. Let me tell you about protecting the
    livelihoods of people of West Virginia, people who lost their
    homes, their cars, their life, literally, as a result of the
    heavy overreach that decimated our State and its people.
        What a difference, candidly, an election makes, the fact
    that one candidate called the people of West Virginia
    deplorable, one candidate that callously stood up and said her
    policies would put a lot of coal miners out of work, after we
    had just gone through 7 years of being economically devastated.

                                  RULE OF LAW

        If you don't like the message too often people attack the
    messenger. I am not apologizing for any of the actions that you
    have taken with regard to secure communications or travel.
    Those are issues you are going to have to respond to and you
    are going to have to be held accountable for and you are going
    to have to address. But I do applaud you for being pointed in
    saying you respect the rule of law.
        And it was a powerful comment made a little bit ago when a
    member here said: Get creative. That is exactly what the prior
    administration did. Gina McCarthy sat as far from me to you as
    we are today. I challenged her to come to West Virginia. I
    asked her had she ever been, and she said no.
        It is not your job to be creative, to advance an agenda. I
    think it is your job to respect the rule of law. If folks don't
    like what the law says, then we need to change the law. It is
    not your responsibility to get creative. We have had enough of
    that.
        It is amazing to me what a difference a year makes, 2 years
    make, because it was Gina McCarthy, sitting here just feet from
    me, when the EPA had been found by the inspector general of
    having violated antilobbying laws by using social media to
    promote their WOTUS program.
        And I could go through the litany, the failure to share
    information, the documentation that backed up the rules that
    they were advancing. The litany of misdeeds, inappropriate
    actions from the prior administration put us out of business in
    West Virginia. Today we are back in business, thanks to this
    administration and the promise and the commitment that you made
    to the coal miners of West Virginia.
        We are an energy State. We have got abundant coal, natural
    gas, oil. We have fueled the Nation. We have forged the steel
    that has won world wars. We have good people. They didn't
    deserve the last administration that absolutely deprived them
    of their livelihood.
        I appreciate the fact that you are respecting the rule of
    law, and I appreciate the good work of this administration
    getting us back in business.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        Ms. McCollum.

                               STAFF RETALIATION

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have had a few minutes to look over the document that was
    given to us by Administrator Pruitt. I don't see anything in
    here, just for the record, because I want to make sure that Mr.
    Art Elkins, the Inspector General, his name doesn't appear on
    this. This appears to be a log that talks about Mitch McConnell
    and others. So I know it is in the record, but this is not a
    satisfactory answer to me, what you handed me. I just wanted
    you to know that, sir.
        I want to go back to the science question I had because one
    of my colleagues said, well, he wanted to get back to the
    budget. What my question on the science focused on is that you
    are proposing dismantling ways in which scientific health data
    was gathered before and making it more public.
        We had this discussion in the House. There is a bill that
    was introduced by one of our colleagues in the Science
    Committee, Mr. Smith. And so this proposal has been scored.
    This is a budget question.
        What the EPA would be doing would be spending $250 million
    annually over the next few years to supposedly ensure
    transparency, which does not seem to be a problem in putting
    together scientific evidence in medical journals that has been
    used in tobacco cases, other cases, and concluding what we need
    to do to protect the public health from harms that are being
    made by certain substances.
        I just wanted folks on the other side of the aisle to know
    my question did have a $250 million attachment to it of money
    that, in my opinion, would be wasted.
        Mr. Pruitt, EPA staff has been under attack during your
    tenure. You publicly blamed your staff instead of taking
    responsibility for your wasteful spending. And I heard what you
    said: I take full responsibility. But yet when someone asks a
    direct question it is always: Well, someone signed this, or
    someone did that, or someone did this, and I was under the
    impression. It seems to be a pattern.
        You are supporting a budget that nearly slashes 4,000
    employees, and you have imposed a hiring freeze and staff
    buyouts. I am glad to know you are going to lift the freeze--or
    a portion of the freeze, we will see how big it is--in Region
    5.
        My colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee spent
    much of the morning chronicling your numerous ethical
    transgressions, including reports that you reassigned several
    employees in retaliation for voicing their concerns about the
    spending and management of the Agency. In fact, some of them
    are gone.
        I would like to hear from you, because this is out in the
    public. I have to say that when you don't have the confidence
    of the public and the people that you directly have to report
    to--I have lost all confidence in the way that you handled some
    of the questions and the way that you said you took
    responsibility but then, in fact, deflected the responsibility.
        How do you think these ethics scandals are affecting
    employee morale? How are you going to overcome your reputation
    so staff do not fear retaliation? Because there is documented
    retaliation as far as I am concerned.
        How do you expect to maintain the scientific or the
    technical recommendations from independent peer-reviewed
    scientists, that have been used for decades, by Republicans and
    Democrats across the board, both Presidents and people in
    Congress.
        When somebody speaks out against your agenda they appear to
    be retaliated against, removed from a board, or just deflected.
        So what are you going to do to regain not only the trust of
    your staff, but you have lost my trust?
        Mr. Pruitt. I would say to you unequivocally, I am not
    aware of any instance that any employment action has been taken
    against someone for any advice or counsel they have been given
    with respect to spending. I am not aware of any instance of
    that.
        Ms. McCollum. Is Mr. Chmielewski, is he still in your
    employment?
        Mr. Pruitt. I am not aware of any instance in that regard.
        Ms. McCollum. Is Mr. Chmielewski still working for the EPA?
        Mr. Pruitt. It is my understanding he is not.
        Ms. McCollum. He is not.
        Mr. Pruitt. He resigned I think late last year.
        Ms. McCollum. He resigned? And he resigned because he
    actually publicly has gone on the record with a Mr. Jackson and
    a Mr. Reeder and a Mr. Allen a couple of times pointing out to
    you directly about your spending. They had questions about
    things going on in the office and desks and hardening of cars
    and other things like that. They looked at your travel plans,
    and a couple of times their pushback prevailed.
        And then Mr. Chmielewski, who had been very vocal about it,
    all of a sudden found himself the target. I find this kind of a
    curious thread. He found himself the target after he came back
    from a trip from Asia with Mr. Pence. He was asked to resign,
    turn in his credentials.
        Mr. Pruitt's aides informed the White House that they were
    dissatisfied with Mr. Chmielewski's unresponsiveness during his
    travel plans, including a time when he could not be reached in
    Hawaii when he was preparing for a visit by Mr. Pence.
        There were anonymous complaints filed with the EPA
    inspector general that alleged Mr. Chmielewski could not get
    the appropriate level of security clearance for his duties
    because of various indiscretions.
        After an investigation the inspector general dismissed all
    allegations in the complaint and found it unfounded. And it
    appears that Mr. Perrotta, who I had mentioned earlier, who is
    under an ethics investigation, was a person out to discredit
    him.
        Is Mr. Chmielewski, deserving of an apology? How do you
    tell other employees that if they speak up, they speak out,
    that the same thing won't happen to them?
        Mr. Pruitt. I can only say to you what I said earlier,
    which is I am not aware of any instance that actions have been
    taken from an employment status with respect to those issues.
        I do want to address the science issue, because, again, I
    think that to characterize this as somehow being selective in
    the kind of science that is going to be used at the Agency is
    just simply not reflective of the decision we have made. This
    is a proposal that affects all science, irrespective of the
    source.
        I think this committee, some members of this committee,
    would probably be upset if the API issued some sort of findings
    with respect to methane that didn't provide methodology and
    data to the Agency to support rulemaking and we didn't publish
    that as part of our decisionmaking.
        So this is----

                                  RESIGNATION

        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I am reclaiming my time.
        I have been through this with the tobacco industry. I have
    been through this with Monsanto and other things in the ag
    industry. I think I have a good handle on what is going on.
        And you had an opportunity today to come here and say you
    were going to support peer-reviewed science that has been used
    for decades. You had an opportunity to say you were taking full
    responsibility for any ethical lapses that you had. And you had
    an opportunity to explain why, the ozone and the methane rule
    that you took to court, it was sloppy work, the court rejected
    it, and you didn't. You kind of not answered that directly.
        So I just really feel, and I have held back on doing this
    as some of my other colleagues have, but I think I am going to
    say it clearly and straight to you, because I think you deserve
    that, but, Mr. Pruitt, I think it is time that you resign.

                              CLEAN AIR ACT WAIVER

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        I would like to talk to you, Administrator, about clean
    air. Obviously, I am from California. Clean air remains
    critically important to me and to my constituents in
    California. Not only was California the first State to start
    regulating air quality when the Clean Air Act was written,
    California already had pollution rules in place.
        I think we have talked about that before. Because of this,
    in writing the Clean Air Act of 1970 California was provided a
    unique authority to write its own rules and set its own
    standards.
        Earlier this month the Administration took steps to
    reconsider and likely roll back standards set by the previous
    administration related to emissions for cars and light trucks
    for model years 2022 to 2025.
        As part of this revaluation you mentioned that you would
    also be reexamining California's waiver and the ability to set
    stricter standards for vehicle emissions. While the California
    waiver was not currently under review at the time of this
    hearing last year when I asked you about plans to continue the
    waiver in the future, you noted: It is important that we
    recognize the role of the States achieving good air quality
    standards and that it is something we are committed to in the
    Agency.
        As an advocate for States' rights, I think it is important
    to note that in my home State transportation accounts for about
    50 percent of California's greenhouse gas pollution, about 80
    percent of its smog and other air pollutants. These standards
    play an important role in curbing air pollution, improving air
    quality for my constituents.
        So my question is, Administrator, do you plan to continue
    the Clean Air Act preemption waiver that the Agency granted to
    California.
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are actually in active
    discussions with CARB in California. Mary Nichols and others
    have sent staff to discuss the MTE as well as the impending
    potential or proposed rule with respect to the CAFE standards.
        It is my hope and it is my commitment to you to work very
    diligently to try to find an answer with California and the 10
    or so States that follow their lead, because it is very
    important, as best we can, to have a national standard.
        We have a role to play and so does California and that
    collaboration is important. We are committed to it. We dedicate
    our resources to it and will continue to work through the
    process to try to achieve commonality and an answer for both
    California, and those States and our agencies.
        Mr. Calvert. The history of this, as you know, President
    Reagan was very much involved in maintaining the waiver in the
    State of California. Certainly our former chairman and
    colleague, Jerry Lewis, who wrote a lot of the clean air
    standard laws in the State of California when was in the State
    assembly, before he came to Congress. And, of course, my
    colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle in California.
        Of course, we were the most--we had--we still have 8 out of
    the top 10 most polluted areas in the United States because of
    our population and geographical reasons and other reasons.
        But we appreciate your attention to this problem. I just
    wanted to make sure that you understood my position.
        Mr. Pruitt. We are working hard with California to try to
    find an answer.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Ms. Pingree.

                                 CAFE STANDARDS

        Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much.
        Thank you again, Administrator Pruitt.
        I appreciate my colleague and the chair bringing up this
    question from the perspective of many States. We are very
    grateful for California in setting higher air standards and
    that they have often moved the rest of us forward.
        I brought up CAFE standards before and I just want to go
    back on that a little bit. I am concerned about some of the
    changes in the Administration around CAFE standards, greenhouse
    gas emissions, and the relationship to that, and the idea that
    there would be any loosening of that standard.
        I look at clean air in kind of the big picture here. As I
    have told you ad nauseam, I come from the State of Maine. We
    are also at the end of tailpipe when it comes to the Clean
    Power Rule, which clearly you disagreed with.
        We are one of the States where, if there are coal-fired
    power plants, and I certainly sympathize with the coal miners
    and the challenges of those communities, but on the other hand,
    we get the bad air. We have high rates of childhood asthma, we
    have red air alert days. For a State that you think of as
    pristine and clean and has a huge tourism industry, it is
    surprising that we would end up with this bad air.
        So I have no idea why would you want to roll back emission
    standards on vehicles. There is always, of course, pressure
    from the industry, but there are a lot of studies and
    statistics that show that we have all saved a lot of money for
    having higher fuel efficiency standards. I know Mainers are
    very pleased that they pay less money at the gas pump.
        We have amazing technology now. We have jobs that have been
    created, whether it is hybrid cars or electric cars. I can say
    that I drive a Volt, it is a hybrid car, and I have to fight
    over my electric parking space in the garage now and I am
    getting kind of grumpy about it, because there did not used to
    be anybody else down there. But I think there are Republicans
    taking my space and I want to do something about that.
        There is money in this and all car companies are moving to
    this.
        So I guess my question is, it seems to me you don't have,
    just like climate change, our best interest at heart, that you
    are not on our side on this. I want to give you some time to
    talk about it.
        The other thing is this idea that the Administration is
    rolling back the ``once in always in'' policy. I know that gets
    a little obscure and complicated, but basically when we have
    identified sources of pollution before, we have forced them to
    stay with any reductions that have been made to make it simple.
    And so in January you also announced you are going to roll back
    that rule.
        It just seems to me that you don't take this seriously that
    there is something going on in our atmosphere, whether it is
    about the public health and asthma and all the concerns we have
    around that or climate change and the emissions that we have in
    our atmosphere. Why are you on the other side of this?
        Mr. Pruitt. Thank you for a couple of things about each of
    those issues.
        As you know, the time period that those standards are
    typically set are for 5 years. In the 2010-2011 timeframe, the
    previous administration adopted those standards up until 2022,
    2025.
        That is very difficult to predict the market conditions
    over that long period of time. What is the price of gas? What
    is consumer demand? All the issues that drive the decisions
    with respect to those standards, it is very difficult to be
    predictive over that long period of time, which is why the
    midterm evaluation was put in place.
        As the midterm evaluation was evaluated in April of this
    year, the data that was reviewed showed that the assumptions
    made in 2011 didn't match what was in the marketplace in 2018
    with respect to the fuel cost, the fuel demand, and other
    related issues.
        What we don't want to see happen is to set the standard so
    high, Congresswoman, that the manufacturers manufacture cars
    that people don't purchase. Because what happens is that people
    stay in older vehicles, which actually increases emissions
    because they don't have the choice. We should be focused upon
    efficiency for cars that people are actually wanting to
    purchase.
        So as we go through this process, we have not concluded
    anything yet. All we did in the midterm evaluation is to say we
    need to evaluate that based upon current data. There will be a
    proposed rule that will take place with DOT and a process where
    comments will be received and informed decisions will be made
    about whether the 54 miles per a gallon, approximately, was
    appropriate.

                                 AUTO EMISSIONS

        Ms. Pingree. With all due respect, we do have a pretty good
    sense of what is happening. You hear from most car companies,
    they are moving to electric cars. There are people lined up to
    buy Teslas, there are people who are talking about electric
    semi, tractor trailer trucks. There is a movement in that
    direction.
        So to say that suddenly we are uncertain about it or to say
    that somehow we should favor the oil and gas industry because
    maybe there have been less sales or the price is going down
    doesn't make any sense to me. There was a lot of certainty in
    which direction we were going and it seems to me you are
    reversing that decision.
        Mr. Pruitt. The other area, was it ozone? I can't remember.
        Ms. Pingree. My other question was around ``once in always
    in.''
        Mr. Pruitt. Oh, ``once in always in.''
        Ms. Pingree. And you rolled that back in January.
        Mr. Pruitt. My perspective on that is that you have major
    emitters and you have minor emitters under the statute.
    Previous policy said to those that were in the major emitter
    category that though they invested sometimes hundreds of
    millions of dollars to improve their outcomes, they always had
    to stay in that major emitter category. And to me, that is a
    disincentive.
        Ms. Pingree. My understanding was that they always had to
    comply with the level. They couldn't suddenly go back up again.
    They were required once they had reduced their emissions to
    keep those emissions reduced.
        Mr. Pruitt. They could never be----
        Ms. Pingree. They could never emit again.
        Mr. Pruitt. You could never go in the minor emitter
    category despite investments you had made to reduce emissions.
    That seems to me to be a disincentive to companies across the
    country to invest to improve outcomes.
        Ms. Pingree. It seems to me a disincentive to pollute. And
    no matter--we are obviously at an impasse here so we will stop.
        But I just want to say, I don't know how the head of
    Environmental Protection Agency can have so little concern
    about climate change, so little concern about the impact on
    public health of these emissions, and make so many decisions
    that go in the opposite direction when it is clear we shouldn't
    be doing that. For all of us who have constituents and people
    and public health to protect, you don't seem to be serving our
    interest.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady for her questions.
        Just as a point, when you are looking at the causes of
    asthma, years ago we were looking at that on the Science
    Committee. It is important to look at indoor air pollution.
    Because of some of the pollutants that are in our homes are
    irritants that may have an impact on asthma also.
        Mr. Simpson.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am going have a question here at the end of this, a
    really short one, but I have to make a couple of statements
    first.
        I am pleased that gentlelady is plugging in her car
    downstairs and supporting the coal industry that is providing
    that electricity that charges that car.
        One of the problems with electricity----
        Ms. Pingree. I am being very bipartisan.

                                 SOLID SCIENCE

        Mr. Simpson. Yeah. And I support electric vehicles. One of
    the challenges you have is that in Idaho I might drive 500,
    600, 700 miles a day. I don't have 4 hours to charge a battery
    halfway there or a third of the way there two or three times.
        Now, we are working on that. A lot of that work is done at
    the Idaho National Laboratory. You are going to have more
    electric cars in the future and more hybrid automobiles. That
    is a good thing as far as I am concerned.
        But I was told that since transparency of science is in
    fact a budget question by my ranking member, who is a good
    friend, I guess I can ask her about that or make a statement
    about that.
        I have a hard time believing--and it came with her opening
    statement where twice she used the words solid science. The
    question is, what is solid science if you don't have the
    transparency behind it to determine whether it was created in a
    fashion that makes it solid science? Based on who? Based on
    what? Whether it is the New England Journal of Medicine or a
    Bazooka comic book. I am not trying to equate the two.
        But I can't believe that anybody would have a problem with
    saying: Let's see how you came up with this science. How did
    you come to this conclusion? Can I repeat your experiment and
    come up with the same conclusion? If I can't, there is
    something wrong here. Then maybe we ought to look at it
    further.
        To me, that is what I think you are trying to accomplish
    here.
        Now the ranking member has said: I think I know what is
    going on here. I would like to know what is going on here, if
    that is it or not.
        But as I said in the opening round, I have heard more and
    more industries, businesses, associations saying: I don't how
    they came up with this. We can't duplicate it.
        And without transparency, how do you know whether it is
    good science or bad science? Good science is the science which
    I agree with, bad science is the science which is on the other
    side of the aisle, I guess. That is no way to do it.
        Ms. McCollum. Would my good friend--my good friend from
    Idaho invoked me, so I will be brief and then let the
    administrator say something.
        Mr. Simpson. But only if I yield, right?
        Ms. McCollum. Right. I am asking if you would.
        Mr. Simpson. Go ahead.

                               HEALTH DATA: HIPAA

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        So we are talking about health data. Scientists are able to
    collect health data because they pledge to keep a patient's
    name and personal information confidential because of HIPAA.
        Mr. Simpson. Reclaiming my time.
        Didn't the Administrator say that that could be kept
    confidential under the proposal that they are making? Is that
    what you indicated originally?
        Ms. McCollum. At $250 million.
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Congressman, that is correct. I think you
    have said it eloquently and passionately, much better than I
    have today. I think your assessment is absolutely right.
        The science that is reproducible and transferrable should
    drive our decisions at the Agency. We should be agnostic about
    the source.
        You know, what it is interesting about this discussion is
    that we are talking about third-party studies, studies that are
    not done at our Agency. These are not studies being done by
    ORD, they are not being done by a lab, they are not being done
    by a programmatic office. They are being done by a third party
    that is not under the same controls or guidance that we have as
    an Agency.
        As those third-party studies are produced to us, they
    undergird rulemaking. They are actually what we use to say:
    This is action we are taking that will apply as laws of general
    applicability to Americans across the country.
        To say that as those third-party studies come in that they
    should be subject to reproducibility and transferability, data
    and methodology should be a part of the conclusions, to me make
    abundant sense. That is the proposal.
        The concern about personal information data, confidential
    business information, all that will be addressed as we go
    through the proposed rulemaking process because it is important
    to protect that data.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
        I was going to also comment on what Mr. Jenkins had. I have
    been kind of astounded here hearing people say: You need to get
    creative. Find a way to enforce the law.
        As I have studied politics since junior high school, I
    guess, I understood that it was the legislative branch that
    wrote the law, with the help of the administrative branch, and
    that the President could either veto or not veto a bill, that
    that became the law and it was your job to carry out the law as
    passed by Congress.
        And if you saw a problem that the law didn't address that
    needed to be changed, it was your responsibility to try and
    tell Congress or submit a proposal to change it so that you
    could address it. But otherwise it is your job to carry out the
    law as it exists.
        Mr. Pruitt. That is correct. There are certain areas within
    the statute, in fact we have talked about these, like New
    Source Review. I mean, I think there needs to be clarity in the
    statutes with respect to background levels and exceptional
    events and different things that affect the ozone
    determinations.
        Mr. Simpson. That is the same thing with WOTUS.
        Mr. Pruitt. Exactly. So there is work to be done there. I
    think the executive branch should be working with the
    legislative branch to provide that kind of clarity so that we
    know what our job is.

                                  IRIS PROGRAM

        Mr. Simpson. One quick question, Mr. Chairman.
        The report language in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus
    appropriation legislation noted progress is being made by the
    Agency to implement the critically important recommendations
    made by the National Academy of Sciences in their 2011 and 2014
    reports on IRIS. It also expressed support to ensure that IRIS
    programs focus its work on the near-term regulatory needs of
    the EPA program offices.
        Can you describe how you will make sure that the IRIS
    program reflects the priority needs of the program offices? And
    what is the prioritization process? And how will the public be
    informed?
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, I am aware of the language to which you
    refer. We are actually in the process of funding the IRIS at
    prior year enacted levels. These are the steps we are taking.
        Mr. Simpson. OK.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Mr. Kilmer.

                             SECURITY DETAIL REVIEW

        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It is alleged that the head of your security detail helped
    direct your Agency to pay his business partner to conduct a bug
    sweep. Do you think it is ethical for a public servant to hire
    a firm he has interest in to do government business?
        Mr. Pruitt. No, and that is under review.
        Mr. Kilmer. Did you know about it?
        Mr. Pruitt. I was not aware of that at all.
        Mr. Kilmer. So you do now. Do you intend to take any
    action?
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, it is under review by the inspector
    general and the Agency.
        Mr. Kilmer. Let me just ask. It seems today like your
    security team has made a lot of decisions that you now disagree
    with or have concerns with. Is anybody being held accountable?
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, what I referred to, Congressman, earlier
    is the assessments made by the security does impact, obviously,
    travel and those kinds of issues. I did take steps to change
    that earlier this year, with respect to the first class travel
    back to coach. That was something I felt was something right to
    do.

                                  PUGET SOUND

        Mr. Kilmer. Your job, and I think you heard this from my
    colleagues as well, is to protect our constituents. They need
    help to protect their homes from rising sea levels. Last year I
    asked you about that, you sat in that chair and you said: That
    is a good idea, we are just short on the money do something
    about it.
        Last year and this year again your budget had exactly zero
    dollars to protect Puget Sound, which you said was a good idea
    last year and you said we just don't have the money, we had to
    make some tough choices. And it seems like you have spent a lot
    of money on trips and security and sound proofing.
        You know, EPA stands for Environmental Protection Agency,
    not Executive Protection Agency. So why are you spending money
    on executive protection, but not environmental protection?
        Mr. Pruitt. The security decisions that have been made at
    the Agency are made by law enforcement personnel and I have
    heeded their counsel. The reason I have heeded their counsel is
    that I have a responsibility to do so.
        Now, I have made decisions. I just mentioned one with
    respect to how we travel.
        But on the issue as far as the funding for Puget Sound,
    that is something the omnibus, obviously, addressed. I have
    shared with you that we will continue to communicate the
    importance of that, as with the Great Lakes Initiative, and
    with our partners at OMB.
        That is something we engage in active discussion, we have
    engaged in pass-back communications, both last year and around
    budget discussions going forward. I will continue to advocate
    for these regional programs that matter to the environment of
    the Puget Sound and other areas that you have been raising
    today.

                OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT REPROGRAMMING

        Mr. Kilmer. I hope they are listening.
        I want to ask you about your Office of Research and
    Development laboratory. EPA sent more than 40 employees notices
    that they are being reassigned to other parts of country or
    else they will be separated from Federal service.
        The omnibus contained very clear instruction which requires
    agencies funded by this act to submit reorganization proposals
    for committee review prior to their implementation.
        It specifies--and I am just quoting--reprogramming
    guidelines apply to proposed reorganizations, workforce
    restructure, reshaping, or transfer of functions presented in
    the budget justifications, or bureau-wide downsizing,
    especially those of significant national or regional
    importance, and include closures, consolidations, and
    relocations of offices, facilities, and laboratories presented
    in the budget justifications.
        So my questions are, will you be submitting a programing
    request to the committee? And can you commit to us that one
    will be provided?
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, I have made a comment earlier that I
    think those labs across the country are extremely important at
    helping our State partners and local partners do their job.
    Some of the recommendations that have actually been made, if
    not all, actually occurred in the Obama administration.
        I am reconsidering regional lab closures at this point and
    may not make any changes there at all. If there are changes, I
    will submit them to Congress. But at this point I am revisiting
    those regional decisions.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.
        Thanks, Chairman. I yield back.

                               PERSONAL SECURITY

        Mr. Calvert. I am going to recognize Mr. Cole here pretty
    soon, but first I want to make a point, Administrator. I think
    I can speak for the entire committee that no one wishes you
    physical harm on your job. And so we want to make sure that the
    proper security is provided and that you and your family are
    kept safe. I think that is important.
        With that, Mr. Cole.

                              CLEAN AIR ACT WAIVER

        Mr. Cole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I want to be very careful how I phrase this, because I
    don't want to get on the opposite side of my friend the
    chairman at all.
        This is a curiosity question, but has a real economic
    impact in my area. One of largest private employers I have is
    York air conditioning, which is a division of Johnson Control.
    It employs about 600 or 700 people, they are moving up to 1,100
    people. They are clearly doing well.
        And the facility has been there for--you know it, you have
    driven down I-35 plenty of times, it is right off there on the
    east side of the road, been there since the early 1970s.
        I was recently was visiting there and there is a testing
    lab and they had multiple bays. And they explained one of their
    great problems was the fact that, while I am a big believer in
    federalism, waivers do cause them, particularly when it is
    something like California, a gigantic problem, because they are
    driven by markets. It is not like all States are equal, and
    California is an economic powerhouse.
        And that is actually one of the issues they raised with me.
    And again, not critical of anybody in California or anything
    like that in their view. It is that we need some measure of
    uniformity here if we are going to produce for a national
    market.
        So does that go into the economic consequences? It would be
    one thing if Oklahoma asked for a waiver on something, we are
    not very big, but Texas or Florida or California really are.
        So you see the ripples of that out through the whole
    economy. And sometimes that has actually been a force for the
    good. It has been a driver in innovation and what have you. But
    how do you weigh that out when you are wrestling with those
    decisions?
        Mr. Pruitt. This waiver issue has long been a point of
    contention. In fact, it was the Bush administration, I think in
    2007-2008, that actually rejected the waiver.
        There are statutory criteria that you have given me to
    evaluate with respect to the waiver. I think you are speaking
    more to a practical issue, Congressman, as Congressman Calvert
    did earlier.
        I think it is very important that as we do our work at the
    EPA that we do it in collaboration and partnership with all
    States across the country. We have a job to do and we seek to
    work with California and others to do that job.
        But what I have said, and I think Congresswoman Pingree
    said earlier, we can't have one State dictating to the rest of
    the country, and I have said that. I think that it is almost
    like having a diplomacy effort in some respects, a State
    Department internal to the EPA, to work through these issues.
        So all I can tell you is we have dedicated staff. The head
    of my Air Office, Bill Wehrum, has spent substantial time in
    California working directly with Ms. Nichols, and that will
    continue. I am hopeful and optimistic that we will be able to
    have a decision that will benefit the entire country, take into
    consideration California, obviously, and their role, and
    achieve good outcomes.
        Mr. Cole. And, again, I don't mean to be critical of
    anybody here. And I actually brought the issue just to show
    some of the complexities you have to wrestle with in these
    issues. Because it is clear all States are equal under the
    Constitution, but they are not equal in terms of their economic
    impact or significance or how they can affect the market.
        Nothing wrong with that, it is just the way it is. But
    sometimes you are not in a very good position to satisfy people
    at both sides of this today.
        Mr. Calvert. If the gentleman would yield.
        Mr. Cole. Certainly yield to the chairman.

                           L.A. BASIN--NONATTAINMENT

        Mr. Calvert. I think one of the reasons why California has
    had a waiver that is particular to the State is just the L.A.
    Basin itself. The L.A. Basin has significant geographic issues.
    It traps emissions in an area where 26 million people reside.
    It is the most concentrated large area in the United States.
        And so that is one of the reasons why it has been important
    for us to help regulate our own air quality.
        Mr. Pruitt. May I? I think, like on ozone, this issue is
    particularly important to the West Coast because of
    international transported pollution from Asia.
        I mean, we have made tremendous progress as a country
    reducing our levels with respect to ozone, but a lot of the
    challenges we have with nonattainment occur because of
    transported pollution from international sources.
        There are efforts that I have been engaged in with respect
    to Mr. Lighthizer and some discussions. 85 percent of the
    pollution and nonattainment in El Paso as an example, is caused
    by issues south of the border.
        So we domestically are impacted by decisions that are being
    made internationally, and we must use all efforts to achieve,
    get better outcomes there. This is one of those issues,
    particularly for your State.

                                AQUIFER RECHARGE

        Mr. Cole. Well, again reclaiming my time.
        Again, I respect my friend, and I understand you are going
    to have to have something different with the conditions that he
    is talking about and living with then we might have on the
    plains. I am just glad to know there is a process that you work
    this through and try to come to an equitable decision, because
    it does have real consequences economically.
        One other quick question. In our part of the world, my part
    of the world, and much of the Plain State, aquifer levels have
    been going down for a long time. It is a real problem for us.
    Obviously, it is a problem agriculturally. It is a problem in
    terms of long-term water supply in that area.
        Could you give me some sort of overview of whether or not
    you are focusing on aquifer recharging? Where does that rank in
    the priorities within the department?
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, I think that ORD has been very involved
    in that and working with the States to address that. As you
    know, Congressman, Utah, the second-most dry State in the
    country, is different than Minnesota with respect to the issues
    that were faced on water. So I think what is important----
        Ms. McCollum. Our aquifers are disappearing, too. USGS is
    helping us.
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, not just with respect to aquifers. I
    think what is important is that our office work with State
    partners to determine priorities, and we are in fact doing
    that.
        Mr. Cole. I appreciate that. I just wanted to flag it
    because, again, it is a hugely important problem for the future
    of our State.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank the gentleman.
        Ms. Kaptur.
        Ms. Kaptur. It would be interesting to witness that
    personally, Congressman Cole. It would be interesting to have
    you make a presentation to us about Oklahoma.
        Mr. Cole. You probably don't have that much time.

                               REGION 5 STAFFING

        Ms. Kaptur. Administrator Pruitt, thank you for your
    endurance here today.
        On a previous round of questioning, I got into detail with
    you about Region 5 staffing, and you stated that the hiring
    freeze had been lifted. But if that is so, why are no job
    openings listed?
        Mr. Pruitt. I am not sure why that has taken place. I just
    know OMB has suspended that hiring freeze for Region 5.
        Now, they did it April 12. So that may be why it has not
    taken place yet. So it has just been within the last 2 to 3
    weeks.
        Ms. Kaptur. Two to three weeks. Do you----
        Mr. Pruitt. No, I am sorry, that is 2017, actually 2017. So
    it has been over a year that that has been suspended by OMB.
        Ms. Kaptur. Yes. So why don't you have any job openings
    listed for Region 5? Under the information that I have been
    given, they aren't listed. So, if you are going to hire, how do
    people know there are jobs available, especially since many
    people have left the region already.
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, I will check into that and provide the
    information.
        [The information follows:]

                               Region 5 Staffing

        As of May 10, 2018, EPA Region 5 has 3 EPA-internal job
    announcements listed on USAJobs.com.
              1. Enforcement Investigator
              2. Senior Analytical Chemist
              3. Supervisory Life Scientist/Physical Scientist/
            Environmental Engineer

                               TOXIC ALGAL BLOOMS

        Ms. Kaptur. Great. Thank you very much for that.
        My next question really revolves around toxic algal blooms.
        Mr. Pruitt. Ma'am, one thing I would say to you with
    respect to those decisions is we didn't get a Region 5 regional
    administrator until recently. So it could have delayed,
    obviously, an assessment of those deficiencies.
        Ms. Kaptur. It took an inordinate amount of time.
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes, it did.

                                CLEAN WATER ACT

        Ms. Kaptur. Last year, I asked you about the U.S. EPA's
    acceptance of Ohio's Clean Water Act assessment of the waters
    of Lake Erie. You countered that the State had not actually
    assessed the waters, as if that was an acceptable response when
    you, as the Federal Administrator, are required to assess those
    waters every 2 years under the Clean Water Act.
        So, what we had was a tennis match between the Federal
    Government and the State of Ohio; neither of which showed that
    much concern about what was happening to Lake Erie.
        Now, there is a Federal court case in which a Federal judge
    has stated that, in fact, the U.S. EPA had given Ohio a pass.
        A new report by the State of Ohio shows that, in fact, the
    runoff problems are getting worse. This is despite millions of
    dollars of voluntary efforts to try to deal with the largest
    watershed in the entire Great Lakes. If we can get it right
    here, we can get it right everywhere, but we can't get it right
    here yet, and the days are ticking.
        All people concerned in this feel that we as a country will
    miss the target of 20 percent reduction of phosphorus by 2020.
    That is not that far away.
        So my question really is, what practical steps can you take
    on an expedited basis to reach the 40 percent reduction goal
    that was set by international treaty agreement with the Nation
    of Canada by 2025?
        Mr. Pruitt. If I could first, it is the State's
    responsibility to prepare and submit lists of impaired waters
    to EPA under Clean Water Act 303(d). The issue with Ohio is
    that they were saying they could not or would not include an
    assessment of the open waters of Lake Erie as part of their
    2016 impaired water list. The delay that you are referring to
    is our office and our Agency going back to Ohio saying it was
    really their responsibility.
        Now, this is subject to litigation----
        Ms. Kaptur. You also have authority every 2 years under the
    Clean Water Act. You have the authority of the Federal
    Government.
        Mr. Pruitt. If the State refuses to do it. This is subject
    to litigation and we are, obviously, evaluating that. But that
    was what caused the delay that you are talking about, the
    communications between the EPA and the State of Ohio.
        Ms. Kaptur. One could say that over the last couple of
    years that there wasn't any real willingness on the Federal
    level, nor on the State level, to deal with this lake that is
    so sick.
        Mr. Pruitt. We are committed to doing that.

                               TOXIC ALGAL BLOOMS

        Ms. Kaptur. I am really glad to hear that. Could you tell
    me what steps you will take, practical steps, to stop the toxic
    algal blooms that are killing that lake?
        Mr. Pruitt. I believe that those conversations, not just
    for Ohio but the States in the entire region, there has been a
    commitment through cooperation to reduce those phosphorus
    levels.
        Certain States seem to do more. I think that we have to
    look at TMDL opportunities to address that if States refuse to
    take the steps that they were supposed to take.
        Ms. Kaptur. Well, I reissue my invitation to you, and I
    think I speak for Mr. Joyce as well. Mr. Administrator, come to
    our area. You need to have EPA personnel on the lake, and they
    need to work with our people. It is not getting any better, and
    probably, oh my goodness, I don't how many tens of millions of
    dollars have been spent; we are not getting it right yet.
        Rotary has made this their number one priority, as high as
    their selection of eliminating polio years ago. You have
    international Rotaries interested in helping, but to what end?
    We need a leader. We need your department, your Agency, to
    engage fully, and I am really begging you to do that.
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, we should proceed to set up that trip.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank the gentlelady.
        Mr. Pruitt. And Congressman Joyce should be a part of that
    as well.
        Ms. Kaptur. Absolutely. We are locked at the hip. He is at
    one end of the state, I am at the other.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Mr. Jenkins.
        Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I, too, would like to extend the invite. I think you are
    going to be doing a lot of traveling this next period.
        A lot of people want to invite you to their State to see
    concerns, see problems, seek action. As I stated in my remarks
    a moment ago, I want to extend and invite to you to see
    success, see progress, see people back to work.
        So I hope you will come to West Virginia. And yes, express
    our gratitude, but also see what work we are doing. We do care
    deeply about clean air, clean water. We have got scenic beauty
    second to none. So I hope you will come to West Virginia.
        Will you do it?
        Mr. Pruitt. Oh, absolutely.

                          WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

        Mr. Jenkins. Thank you.
        A couple of quick questions. For the term that I have been
    here on this committee, every work product out of this
    committee we have put limitations of funding to implement the
    Clean Power Plan, limitations of funding to implement waters of
    the U.S. Obviously, Democratic opposition to that or no action
    in the Senate.
        My question to you is, give me a status of Clean Power
    Plan, waters of the U.S., and the actions you are taking to
    reverse the implementations of those. What are you able to do?
    Do you have the resources in order to wind those down back to
    within the parameters of the statutory authority that we talked
    about under Clean Air and Clean Water Act earlier? Can you give
    me a status check, a report on this?
        Mr. Pruitt. With respect to WOTUS, there are actually two
    rules in the marketplace presently. One is a proposed
    withdrawal of the 2015 definition to which you refer, and there
    is also a rule that has been finalized extending the compliance
    dates with respect to the obligations under that 2015 rule.
        What is not in marketplace yet is a proposed replacement of
    the waters of the United States rule, and that is anticipated
    for OMB review in the month of May and no later than June. It
    is my hope that we will have the rescission of the 2015 rule
    and the comment period on the proposal to revise the definition
    closed by the end of 2018.

                     NAVIGABLE WATERS AND CLEAN POWER PLAN

        Mr. Jenkins. So with regard to the proposal to withdraw the
    definition of navigable waters and the other issues that are
    already out there, when do we think that would become finalized
    and when would we see a rescission of that Obama era rule?
        Mr. Pruitt. As far as the proposal and the replacement,
    that won't occur until next month or in June. So you would see
    that potentially being finalized by the end of year.
        With respect to the proposed withdrawal, there is some
    contemplation about doing a supplemental notice that we would
    send out in the marketplace for a short time, possibly 30 days,
    to get some additional data on the purposes of the withdrawal.
    That is something I am reviewing now. But that could happen
    very soon, and then we could finalize that in the near future.
        But with respect to the Clean Power Plan, as I mentioned
    earlier, we have, obviously, the proposed withdrawal that has
    been discussed, but also an advance notice of proposed
    rulemaking that is in the marketplace on a potential
    replacement to the CPP, soliciting comment on our authority
    under Section 111. So that is the process we are going through.
        Mr. Jenkins. Are there any actions that we need to take
    budgetarily to give you the full resources to pursue those
    steps that you have outlined?
        Mr. Pruitt. Not that I am aware of now, Congressman.
        Mr. Jenkins. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        And thank you, Administrator, for your testimony today. I
    know it has been a long day for you. I appreciate your coming
    up here to testify. And don't forget about DERA and Targeted
    AirShed grants. It is important to not just California. I
    appreciate your being here.
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, we are going to be able to put
    in questions for the record. I have one on advisory panels.
        Mr. Calvert. Certainly, additional questions will be
    submitted to you, Administrator. We would like to have the
    answers to those to be submitted for the record.
        Mr. Pruitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            I N D E X

                           ----------

                   Department of the Interior
                 FY 2019 Budget Oversight Hearing
                         April 11, 2018

                                                                       Page
    Acting Assistance Secretary--Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

    Advisory Board: International Wildlife Conservation Council......   128
    African American Civil Rights Network Act........................   140
    African Elephant Sport Trophy-Hunting............................   125
    AML Pilot Program................................................    37
    Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Drilling.........................   142
    Arlington Memorial Bridge........................................    77
    Asian Carp

    Biography--Denise Flanagan.......................................    24
    Biography--Olivia Barton Ferriter................................    23
    Biography--Secretary Ryan Zinke..................................    21
    BLM Budget.......................................................    33
    BLM Law Enforcement..............................................    75
    Bureau of Indian Affairs Tiwahe Initiative.......................   144
    Climate Change

    Consultation.....................................................    30
    Department Senior Level Vacancies................................    59
    Earthquake Early Warning System..................................    56
    Elwha Water Facilities...........................................    44
    Endangered Species Act

    Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request..................................    59
    Fisheries........................................................    45
    Fundamental Science Practices....................................   124
    GAO High Risk Programs in Indian Country.........................    60
    GAO High Risk Programs: Education................................    63
    GAO High Risk Programs: Indian Energy............................    65
    Grants...........................................................    39
    Grazing Permits..................................................   119
    Great Lakes

    Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation.................................    78
    Habitat Conservation Plans.......................................    71
    Hurricane Emergency Supplemental.................................   137
    Invasive Species.................................................    58
    King Coal Highway................................................    38
    Land and Water Conservation Fund.................................   147
    Landsat..........................................................    58
    Leadership.......................................................    51
    Maintenance......................................................    46
    Maintenance Backlog..............................................    45
    Mineral Withdrawal: Superior National Forest.....................   145
    Monuments

    National Park Entrance Fees

    National Park Service Predator Control Rule......................   141
    Native Plants/National Seed Strategy.............................    82
    NPS Acting Director Smith........................................   140
    Office Expenses..................................................   136
    Office of Inspector General......................................   110
    Office of the Solicitor

    Offshore Development

    Offshore Wind

    Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert..............................     1
    Opening Remarks of Chairman Frelinghuysen........................     5
    Opening Remarks of Mrs. Lowey....................................     6
    Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum..................................     3
    Opening Remarks of Secretary Ryan Zinke..........................     7
    Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT).................................    60
    Public Lands Infrastructure Fund.................................    62
    Questions for the Record from Chairman Calvert...................    59
    Questions for the Record from Mr. Simpson........................   119
    Questions for the Record from Ms. McCollum.......................   120
    Questions for the Record from Ms. Pingree........................   147
    Reorganization

    Reprogramming....................................................    31
    Royalty Policy Committee.........................................   142
    Science

    Solicitor's Opinion on Migratory Bird Treaty Act.................   138
    Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act......................    33
    State Staffing Levels............................................    83
    Statement of Secretary Ryan Zinke................................     9
    Sue and Settle...................................................    39
    Topographical Map................................................    58
    Travel...........................................................    32
    Twin Metals......................................................    49
    Update on new Grant Review Process and Timeliness of Getting The
      Funding Out....................................................   137
    USGS Budget......................................................    57
    USGS National Geospatial Program U.S Topographic Program.........   108
    Veteran Photography on National Mall.............................   147
    Wild Horses and Burros

    Wild Horses and Burros: Comprehensive Plan to Congress...........   144

                            Smithsonian Institution
                        FY 2019 Budget Oversight Hearing
                                 April 12, 2018

    Arts and Industries Building

    Biography--Secretary Skorton.....................................   165
    Collections Management...........................................   178
    Deferred Maintenance.............................................   169
    Energy Savings and Sustainability................................   177
    Expanded Outreach................................................   173
    Introduction of Smithsonian Curators and Objects.................   153
    National Air and Space Museum Funding............................   170
    National Air and Space Museum Revitalization.....................   166
    National Fundraising Campaign....................................   175
    National Zoological Park Security................................   172
    Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert..............................   149
    Opening Remarks of Mr. Cole......................................   166
    Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum..................................   150
    Opening Remarks of Secretary Skorton.............................   151
    Parking..........................................................   168
    South Mall Campus................................................   175
    Statement of Secretary Skorton...................................   155

                             Indian Health Service
                        FY 2019 Budget Oversight Hearing
                                 April 17, 2018

    Accreditation....................................................   221
    Accreditation Emergencies........................................   227
    Behavioral Health................................................   206
    Biography--Acting Director RADM Michael Weahkee..................   192
    Biography--Ann Church............................................   195
    Biography--Gary Hartz............................................   194
    Biography--RADM Michael Toedt, M.D...............................   193
    Care Coordination Agreements.....................................   197
    Centralized Credentialing........................................   232
    Construction Backlog.............................................   231
    Credentialing....................................................   199
    Current Services.................................................   213
    Current Services: Inflation......................................   226
    Current Services: Pay Costs......................................   224
    Current Services: Population Growth..............................   226
    Denied and Deferred Services.....................................   232
    Discretionary Funding............................................   196
    Equipment........................................................   218
    Facilities.......................................................   215
    Fiscal Year 2019 Budget

    GAO High Risk Report.............................................   228
    Great Plains.....................................................   198
    Great Plains Crisis..............................................   234
    IHS Health Workforce.............................................   240
    Indian Health Care Improvement Fund

    Legislative Proposals............................................   225
    Maintenance Backlog

    Maternal and Child Health........................................   237
    Naloxone

    Native American and Native Alaskan Veterans......................   242
    Needs-based Budget for Full Funding..............................   236
    Opening Remarks of Acting Director RADM Michael Weahkee..........   184
    Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert..............................   181
    Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum..................................   182
    Opioid Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Supports..............   241
    Opioids

    Partnering with Law Enforcement..................................   205
    Per Capita Spending

    Population Served................................................   208
    Purchased/Referred Care

    Quality Health Care..............................................   234
    Questions for the Record from Chairman Calvert...................   223
    Questions for the Record from Mr. Simpson........................   232
    Questions for the Record from Ms. Katpur.........................   240
    Questions for the Record from Ms. McCollum.......................   234
    Recruitment

    Reimbursable Funding Report Directed in FY 2018 Omnibus..........   236
    Reimbursement for Medical Airlift................................   202
    Reimbursement from Third Party Collections.......................   235
    Staffing

    Statement of Acting Director RADM Michael Weahkee................   186
    Substance Abuse..................................................   209
    Telemedicine.....................................................   220
    Urban Indian Health Programs

    Veterans

                        Environmental Protection Agency
                        FY 2019 Budget Oversight Hearing
                                 April 26, 2018

    Advisory Panels..................................................   363
    Algal Blooms

    Anaerobic Digesters..............................................   331
    Antideficiency Act (ADA) Violation/Financial Controls............   347
    Aquifer Recharge.................................................   310
    Australia Trip...................................................   362
    Auto Emissions...................................................   303
    Background Ozone.................................................   320
    Biography--Administrator Scott Pruitt............................   257
    Biography--Holly Greaves.........................................   259
    CAFE Standards

    Clean Air Act Waiver

    Clean Power Plan and Methane.....................................   317
    Clean Water Act

    Clean Water Act--Snake River.....................................   281
    Clean Water Act Preemptive Votes.................................   326
    Clean Water Act: Enforcement.....................................   371
    Climate Change

    Condo Door Repayment.............................................   347
    Disneyland Trip..................................................   362
    Electric Pathway: Optimal Solution...............................   369
    Electric Pathway: Timeline.......................................   369
    Electric Pathway: Anaerobic Digester Technology..................   368
    Endocrine Disruptors Program.....................................   283
    EPA Marine Engine Waivers........................................   322
    Ethics Review: Condo Lease.......................................   271
    Executive Orders and Deregulatory Actions........................   317
    Fiscal Year 2018 Appropriation...................................   294
    Fiscal Year 2019 Budget

    Great Lakes Advisory Board.......................................   290
    Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

    Greenhouse Gas Emissions.........................................   293
    Harmful Algal Bloom Coordinator..................................   331
    Health Data: HIPAA...............................................   305
    Inspector General's Death Threat Assessment......................   261
    Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)

    Issues Reported in the Press.....................................   260
    Italy Trip.......................................................   359
    Kerr Water Lab, Ada, Oklahoma....................................   285
    L.A. Basin--Nonattainment........................................   310
    Lab Closures in contravention of Reprogramming Requirements......   338
    Memorandum from Inspector General and Protection of Personal
      Information....................................................   335
    Mid-term Evaluation & the California Waiver......................   323
    Morocco Trip

    Navigable Waters and Clean Power Plan............................   314
    No Discharge Zone................................................   293
    Office of Research and Development Reprogramming.................   308
    Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert

    Opening Remarks of Mr. Pruitt....................................   247
    Opening Remarks of Ms. Lowey.....................................   246
    Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum..................................   245
    Personal Security................................................   308
    Proposed Rule: Transparency in Science...........................   271
    Prosed Rule: Methylene Chloride..................................   282
    Puget Sound......................................................   307
    Questions for the Record from Chairman Calvert...................   315
    Questions for the Record from Mr. Joyce..........................   331
    Questions for the Record from Mr. Kilmer.........................   366
    Questions for the Record from Mr. Simpson........................   329
    Questions for the Record from Mr. Young..........................   333
    Questions for the Record from Ms. Katpur.........................   368
    Questions for the Record from Ms. McCollum.......................   335
    Region 5 Staffing

    Regulatory Rollback..............................................   365
    Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)........................................   333
    Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Electric Pathway...................   366
    Renewable Fuel Standard: Waivers.................................   369
    Renewable Fuel Standard: Wood Biomass Exclusion..................   329
    Rent and Space Consolidation.....................................   321
    Resignation......................................................   301
    Rule of Law......................................................   298
    Rural Water Assistance Program...................................   281
    Science and Peer Review..........................................   337
    Security Detail Review...........................................   307
    Small Refinery Exemptions........................................   333
    Solid Science....................................................   305
    Staff Retaliation

    State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)

    Statement of Administrator Pruitt................................   250
    Superfund and Brownfields: Budget Request vs. Actual Needs.......   318
    Superfund Special Accounts: $3.3 billion Waiting to Spend on
      Cleanups.......................................................   319
    Tier 4 Restrictions for Generators...............................   323
    Wastewater and Superfund Activities..............................   294
    Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act..................   282
    Waters of the United States......................................   313
    West Virginia....................................................   297
    WIFIA Implementation and Job Creation............................   315
    WOTUS: Rescinding the 2015 Rule and Rewriting the Definition of
      ``Waters of the U.S.''.........................................   316