    [Senate Hearing 115-230]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-230

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

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                                   H.R. 3354

       AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
    ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER
                        30, 2018, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

              Department of the Interior--Office of the Secretary
                        Environmental Protection Agency
                             Indian Health Service
                           Nondepartmental Witnesses
                          United States Forest Service

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
            committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations

                                   __________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     24-085 PDF              WASHINGTON : 2018

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                      THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman

    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont,
    RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama             Vice Chairman
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           PATTY MURRAY, Washington
    SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine              DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska               RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina       JACK REED, Rhode Island
    ROY BLUNT, Missouri                  JON TESTER, Montana
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  TOM UDALL, New Mexico
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana              CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
    MARCO RUBIO, Florida                 JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia
                                         CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

                          Bruce Evans, Staff Director
                  Charles E. Kieffer, Minority Staff Director

                                     ------

     Subcommittee on Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
                                    Agencies

                       LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairwoman

    THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            TOM UDALL, New Mexico, Ranking
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee               Member
    ROY BLUNT, Missouri                  DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            JACK REED, Rhode Island
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                JON TESTER, Montana
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
                                         CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

                               Professional Staff

                                Leif Fonnesbeck
                                  Emy Lesofski
                                   Nona McCoy
                                 Chris Tomassi

                           Rachael Taylor (Minority)
                              Ryan Hunt (Minority)
                          Melissa Zimmerman (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                                LaShawnda Smith
                             Teri Curtin (Minority)

                                     (II)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                    hearings

                            Wednesday, June 7, 2017

                                                                       Page

    United States Forest Service.....................................     1

                            Wednesday, June 21, 2017

    Department of the Interior--Office of the Secretary..............    55

                             Tuesday, June 27, 2017

    Environmental Protection Agency..................................   107

                            Wednesday, July 12, 2017

    Indian Health Service............................................   175

              Statements and Letters of Nondepartmental Witnesses

    Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................   233

                                  ----------

                                  back matter

    List of Witnesses, Communications, and Prepared Statements.......   523

    Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................   233

    Subject Index:

        Department of the Interior--Office of the Secretary..........   529

        Environmental Protection Agency..............................   530

        Indian Health Service........................................   531

        United States Forest Service.................................   532

                                   (III)

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

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 2017

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

        The subcommittee met at 9:33 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski (Chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Murkowski, Hoeven, Daines, Capito, Udall,
    Tester, Merkley, and Van Hollen.

                          UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE

    STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF
    ACCOMPANIED BY SHERI ELLIOT, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF STRATEGIC
                PLANNING, BUDGET AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                  opening statement of senator lisa murkowski

        Senator Murkowski. Good morning, everyone. The subcommittee
    will come to order.
        Today marks the first hearing of the Interior
    Appropriations Subcommittee to review the President's fiscal
    year 2018 budget request. Today, we will be reviewing the
    proposal for the Forest Service.
        I am pleased to welcome back to the subcommittee Chief Tom
    Tidwell. I would also like to welcome Sheri Elliot, who serves
    as the Acting Director of the Office of Strategic Planning,
    Budget and Accountability at the Forest Service, and is
    accompanying the Chief today. Thank you both for being here.
        As a reminder to colleagues, we will adhere to the ``early
    bird rule'' for recognizing Members for questions. I will call
    on Members in the order in which they arrive, going back and
    forth between the Majority and Minority. We will do 6-minute
    rounds; hopefully have an opportunity for two, perhaps even
    three rounds.
        I do recognize that we have a vote that I believe is
    scheduled at 10:30 this morning. We will work around that.

                 forest service fiscal year 2018 budget request

        Now, the budget request itself. The budget request for the
    Forest Service for fiscal year 2018 is $4.7 billion. This is
    $880 million less than fiscal year 2017 when you factor in the
    $342 million in emergency funding Congress provided above the
    10-year average in the event of a severe fire season.
        The request for the Wildland Fire Management Program is
    $2.495 billion, with fire suppression funded at the full 10-
    year average of $1.057 billion.
        The budget does not propose a wildfire cap adjustment or
    any type of ``fix'' for fire borrowing. However, buried in the
    proposal is a statement that the administration ``Will work
    with the Congress during the 2018 budget cycle to develop a
    responsible approach that addresses risk management,
    performance accountability, cost containment, and the role of
    State and local government partners in ensuring adequate funds
    are available for wildfire suppression without undue disruption
    to land management operations.''
        I think the Chief knows that Senator Udall and I just
    returned from a meeting this morning with the Secretary of
    Agriculture, and spent extended discussion about just this
    issue.
        Chief, as you are painfully aware, the cycle of borrowing
    and repayment and the accompanying lack of budget certainty and
    discipline is not helping to improve the health of our Nation's
    forests.
        I am pleased that this administration recognizes the
    problem, and look forward to working with the Forest Service
    and the Office of Management and Budget to address this issue
    during this budget cycle in a fiscally responsible and
    politically feasible way.
        As I had mentioned to the Secretary, it kind of feels like
    this is Ground Hog's Day on this issue. Every year, we come
    back before the subcommittee and hear the same issues raised
    repeatedly. So, being able to address this needs to be a
    priority.
        Chief, this budget request is very different from the
    previous administration's proposals for your agency. Rather
    than a wish list of spending paid for with budget gimmicks,
    this budget proposes some very real cuts to programs. The
    worthiness of the cuts kind of runs the gamut here. Some are
    worth consideration, some I find very troubling, and some are
    in direct contradiction to other proposals in the budget.
        For example, the timber target is again set at 3.2 billion
    board feet, a level that is not as high as I would like to see
    it. I am concerned that the 73 percent proposed cut to capital
    improvement and maintenance will make that target difficult if
    not impossible to achieve.
        Without adequate funding for road maintenance and
    construction, the agency will be unable to provide necessary
    access for timber purchasers while also meeting legally
    required environmental standards.
        I am also concerned about the impacts of those proposed
    cuts on many other forest management activities, from
    firefighting to hazardous fuels reduction.
        The request acknowledges that it is the primary
    responsibility of the Forest Service to manage the national
    forests. When making tough funding decisions, we need to make
    certain we are meeting our basic forest health needs before we
    invest in other programs. While many of the funding levels are
    lower than I would like, I do appreciate that this budget
    proposal makes investing in national forest management needs
    its top priority.
        I am pleased that the request recognizes the importance of
    hazardous fuels management, and I am eager to hear more about
    the proposal to move the funding for that activity out of the
    fire program and into the National Forest System account.
        I am concerned, however, by the $12 million reduction to
    the recreation programs. Many communities rely on this program
    to help diversify their economies, particularly in Southeast
    Alaska.
        Again, I had the opportunity this morning with Senator
    Udall and Senator Cantwell to discuss the Secretary's vision
    for the Forest Service, and given the importance of the agency
    to the people and the economy of Alaska, I am hopeful that
    under his leadership the Forest Service will do more to make
    our forests the economic engines they should be, and not just
    in Alaska, but really all over the country.
        While Alaska paints a very stark picture of the need for
    robust and responsible uses of our national forests, the need
    is nationwide. Recreation, tourism, and forest products can and
    must coexist for us to have thriving and healthy communities
    and forests.
        This will take not only financial investments, but
    substantial leadership investments as well, and I hope the
    Forest Service is prepared to dedicate the time and the energy
    required to make this vision a reality.
        I thank you again, Chief, for being here. I look forward to
    your testimony. At this time, we will hear from the Ranking
    Member, Senator Udall.

                         statement of senator tom udall

        Senator Udall. Chairwoman Murkowski, thank you so much, and
    Chief Tidwell, thank you for being with us for our first
    subcommittee hearing on the President's fiscal year 2018 budget
    request.
        I am particularly pleased that you are here, Chief Tidwell,
    because your presence speaks to the important work that the
    agency staff does even when political administrations change.
    Thank you.
        Before we dive into the Forest Service budget itself, I
    want to note my concerns about the Trump administration's
    overall budget request. It is my guess that many of the
    decisions to shortchange key priorities in the Forest Service
    budget were made because the President has proposed to enact
    more than $54 billion worth of cuts to non-defense programs
    next year, a very unwise move, I believe.
        The decision to propose these massive cuts reverberates
    through programs that Members on both sides of the aisle care
    about, and virtually every agency. Within the Interior
    Subcommittee's jurisdiction alone, the budget proposes more
    than $5 billion in cuts compared to fiscal year 2017.
        What does that mean? It means a 30 percent cut to programs
    that preserve clean air and clear water within the
    Environmental Protection Agency's budget. It means a budget
    that slashes nearly $700 million from Tribal programs, ignoring
    this Nation's trust and treaty obligations for American Indians
    and Alaskan Natives.
        It means a 13 percent cut to the Interior Department, and
    it means devastating cuts to the Forest Service programs, the
    budget that we have today before us, that is what it does.
        In light of these irresponsible and callous cuts, I believe
    that this budget is dead on arrival. Luckily, we have an
    Appropriations Committee in the Senate that is committed to a
    bipartisan process of producing spending bills that reflect the
    true needs of our constituents.
        I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides
    of the aisle on this year's bill.
        Now, for the Forest Service. The President has proposed to
    cut nearly $900 million in funding from the agency's budget.
    That does not leave enough funding to fight wildfires. It does
    not allow the agency to perform core land management functions.
    It provides virtually no funding for the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund, and it cuts grant programs nearly in half.
        Even programs that support some of this administration's
    stated priorities are on the chopping block. For example, the
    President has said that his focus is building infrastructure
    and creating jobs in rural America, and in many areas of the
    West, this means jobs related to public lands, yet the budget
    proposal cuts capital improvements by 84 percent to just $100
    million.
        How do we sustain the $10 billion generated by visitors to
    our national forests and the 143,000 jobs they create if we do
    not have roads to access the forests or safe and accessible
    facilities, or hiking trails for visitors to use once they are
    there.

               collaborative forest landscape restoration program

        Just as important, the budget also proposes to zero out the
    Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund, known as the
    CFLR. The CFLR program is a collection of 23 projects across
    the country, including two in New Mexico, that were selected to
    receive 10 years of funding to build a coalition of local
    support to restore healthy and resilient forests.
        Eliminating this program just does not make any sense. Many
    of these projects require only a few more years of funding to
    complete. In the meantime, these projects are focused on
    leveraging local support to create jobs and reduce fire risks.
        These are the kind of win-win activities that we should be
    investing in, not subjecting to shortsighted budget cuts.

                        wildland fire management budget

        Finally, I want to discuss the wildland fire budget. For
    the last several years, the Obama administration requested
    funding for firefighting activities at a new forecasted level,
    the amount expected to be spent rather than the 10-year
    average, which has proved to be insufficient to cover
    firefighting costs.
        The previous administration also proposed a disaster cap
    adjustment to ensure the public that sufficient funding would
    be available for fire suppression going forward.
        So, the agency would no longer be required to borrow from
    non-fire accounts and put construction, land acquisition, and
    restoration projects on hold. Although we have not yet been
    successful in enacting the disaster cap, Congress has provided
    additional funding in each of the past two Interior bills to
    cover actual forecasted needs, including $407 million in
    emergency funding. I added to this bill last year as an
    amendment with bipartisan support from Chairman Murkowski and
    other Members of this subcommittee.
        I am very disappointed, Chief Tidwell, that the President's
    budget makes no attempt to provide supplemental funds to shore
    up the 10-year average or to address the longer term structural
    problems with the wildland firefighting budget.
        I very much agree with Chairman Murkowski. We had a very
    good meeting with the Secretary of Agriculture. Senator
    Cantwell was also there. The two of them really educated him on
    what had gone on in the past, and he seemed to be very
    agreeable to try to help out on things. I hope he does. It
    seems like you educated him on some of these issues, too.
        Chief, you have said in the past that you were concerned
    that the agency, to which you have devoted your career, will
    turn into the Fire Service rather than the Forest Service.
        This budget with more than 60 percent of funds devoted to
    wildfire prevention and response is a dangerous step in that
    direction. It concerns me deeply.
        Wildfire season is well underway in New Mexico. We have had
    several fires so far this year. Two of them are currently
    burning as we speak, the Abaca fire in the Heeland National
    Forest, and the Monument fire in the Lincoln National Forest.
    So far, we have not faced any major threats to communities or
    catastrophic burns this year, but the risk is always very real.
        I hope to discuss this issue more in depth during our
    conversation this morning. Again, thank you for joining us,
    Chief Tidwell, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall. Chief, if you
    would begin with your comments, and then we will have an
    opportunity to ask our questions and have a response back and
    forth. Welcome to the subcommittee.

                     summary statement of chief tom tidwell

                        fiscal year 2018 budget request

        Mr. Tidwell. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Udall, also
    Members of the subcommittee, once again, thank you for giving
    me the opportunity to be here to discuss the fiscal year 2018
    budget request.
        As you mentioned, this budget focuses on our highest
    priority work, and that is to maintain and restore the forests'
    health, at the same time, to reduce the threat, the wildfire
    threat, to communities, and to sustain rural America.
        We do that by increasing our work on the ground. We are
    going to be restoring over 2.4 million acres with this budget,
    and it will produce 3.4 billion board feet. We are also going
    to be treating those 1.7 million acres in the Wildland-Urban
    Interface.
        This budget request also provides for the necessary
    suppression resources, the large air tankers, the helicopters,
    the engines and the crews, that are necessary for us to be able
    to maintain our success rate of suppressing 98 percent of our
    fires during initial attack.
        It also requests funding for the 10-year average. I want to
    once again thank you for your leadership and your hard work in
    finding a solution to this.
        The thing I want to point out, the 10-year average from
    fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2018 increases $156 million. It
    is just another point of the urgency to be able to resolve
    this.
        As you mentioned, this budget request also proposes some
    very difficult reductions in some very important programs.
    However, it does allow us to focus on the highest priority
    work, and at the same time for us to be able to maintain our
    relationships by supporting our States.
        I also just want to thank you for your support with the
    fiscal year 2017 budget, the overall budget, and especially the
    additional funding to deal with wildfire suppression.
        I also want to let you know that we are already
    implementing some actions to improve our budget accountability,
    to do a better job to ensure that we are spending the
    appropriated money every year that it is received, and we are
    putting different controls in place to ensure that there is
    less of unobligated balances from prior years, and we can
    actually get more work done every year.
        With that, I appreciate the time here, and I look forward
    to your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Chief Tom Tidwell
        Madam Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for
    inviting me here today to testify on the President's fiscal year 2018
    budget request for the Forest Service. I appreciate the support this
    subcommittee has shown for the Forest Service in the past and I look
    forward to working with you in the coming months and years as we
    continue to improve our Nation's forests and grasslands; increase our
    focus on the active management of our lands; and work with Congress on
    actions or options to address longstanding wildland fire funding
    concerns.
        The 2018 President's budget for Forest Service is nearly $5.2
    billion, of which $467 million is mandatory funding, and is a good
    investment for the American public. The funding and related work will
    support between 340,000 and 370,000 jobs in the economy and contribute
    more than $30 billion in Gross Domestic Product. The administration's
    commitment to rural communities, jobs creation, shared stewardship, and
    the production of goods and services from National Forest System lands
    is demonstrated by the funding level of Forest Products and the
    movement of Hazardous Fuels from the Wildland Fire Management to the
    National Forest System. Through the use of tools like the Good Neighbor
    and other Farm Bill authorities utilizing funding within permanent and
    trust accounts, the Forest Service will sell 3.2 billion board feet of
    timber while improving the resilience of more than 1.7 million acres of
    National Forest System lands through hazardous fuels removal.
        The budget strengthens the agency's financial accountability and
    increases predictability in its budget planning and execution process
    at both the National and Regional level. Starting in fiscal year 2018,
    Forest Service firefighters will charge all base hours (the first 8
    hours of each day) to Preparedness and, when fighting fires, charge any
    hours over eight per day to Suppression. The agency is continuing to
    strengthen its financial accountability and credibility through the
    implementation of policies that reinforce timely obligation of funds,
    the management of prior year unobligated balances, and quarterly review
    of unliquidated obligations.
                          the president's 2018 budget
        The fiscal year 2018 request focuses on: acquiring knowledge to
    better manage forests and expand markets for wood and biomass; high
    priority projects on State and Private Forests; active forest
    management, as well as building agency capacity for active management.
    To address these focus areas, the budget makes key investments in the
    following program areas:
      --Forest Inventory and Analysis ($77 million, an increase of $2.14
            million from the fiscal year 2017 annualized Continuing
            Resolution level)--to continue to implement the annualized
            inventory program in all 50 States (including interior Alaska),
            the affiliated Pacific islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
            Virgin Islands.
      --Forest Health Management ($90.390 million, a decrease of $9.021
            million from the fiscal year 2017 annualized Continuing
            Resolution level)--to continue to treat prioritized areas to
            reduce the potential for new outbreaks; protect these areas
            from damaging insects, diseases, and invasive plants; and
            reduce the risks of undesired mortality from wildfire.
      --Forest Stewardship ($20.5 million, a net decrease of $2.492 million
            from the fiscal year 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution
            level)--to provide assistance to private landowners seeking to
            manage their forest lands. Better management of private lands
            supports the maintenance of nearby national forest and
            grasslands, and provides an economic contribution to local
            economies.
      --Forest Products ($359.1 million, the same as the fiscal year 2017
            Annualized Continuing Resolution level)--to sell 3.2 billion
            board feet of timber and continue to build internal capacity in
            our workforce.
      --Capital Improvement and Maintenance ($99.7 million, a decrease of
            $263.8 million)--to maintain a workforce that will implement
            critical infrastructure maintenance projects on National Forest
            System lands and remain ready to implement additional
            improvements that could be funded through the Administration's
            infrastructure initiatives.
      --Hazardous Fuels ($354.3 million, a decrease of $20 million below
            the fiscal year 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution level)--
            As most hazardous fuels work takes place on NFS lands, the
            agency will be able to administer this program more efficiently
            and effectively if managed as part of the National Forest
            System. With the funding, fuels treatments in the wildland/
            urban interface will reduce the risk of catastrophic fire on
            1.7 million acres.
      --Preparedness ($1.34 billion, an increase of $259.1 million from the
            fiscal year 2017 annualized Continuing Resolution level)--this
            increase funds all base 8 costs with Preparedness. This is not
            new funding, but was shifted from Suppression where a portion
            of base 8 costs have been charged since 2004. The Forest
            Service and the Department of the Interior are now using the
            same business rules.
      --Suppression ($1.057 billion, an increase of $247.4 million from the
            fiscal year 2017 annualized Continuing Resolution level)--this
            amount fully funds the 10-year average costs for fire
            suppression.
      --The budget for wildland fire management will fund up to 20
            airtankers under exclusive use contracts. In 2018, these
            contracts will be funded with both Preparedness and Suppression
            funding.
      --The budget does not include a proposal for a fire funding fix, but
            I look forward to working with the Department of the Interior,
            Office of Management and Budget and you to develop a
            responsible approach that addresses risk management,
            performance accountability, cost containment, and the role of
            State and local government partners in ensuring adequate funds
            are available for wildfire suppression without undue disruption
            to land management operations.
                             legislative proposals
        In connection with the fiscal year 2018 President's budget, we
    propose several key legislative changes to improve our effectiveness in
    delivering programs and services:
      --Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. The 2018 budget proposes
            general provision language for a 1 year reauthorization of the
            Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) which is
            currently scheduled to expire on September 30, 2018. The Forest
            Service receives approximately $65 million annually in
            recreation fee revenue. Ninety-five percent of the recreation
            fees collected on a national forest stay at that national
            forest to be reinvested in recreation sites and services. If
            FLREA expires without reauthorization, the agencies will have
            no recreation fee authority for operations and maintenance of
            recreation facilities or for payment for the National
            Recreation Reservation System.
      --Small Tracts Act Conveyance Authority. We propose increasing the
            maximum value of the land that could be conveyed, from $150,000
            to $500,000, to better align with current land values.
      --Extension of Grazing Permits. We propose that the terms and
            conditions of section 325 of Public Law 108-108 (117 Stat.
            1307), which regard grazing permits issued by the Forest
            Service on any lands not subject to administration under
            section 402 of the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (43
            U.S.C. 1752), shall remain in effect for fiscal year 2018. This
            would address recent amendments to section 402 of the Federal
            Land Policy and Management Act and public concerns that the
            amendments do not apply to grazing permits issued by the Forest
            Service on the national grasslands and on eastern national
            forests.
      --Forest Service Facilities Realignment and Enhancement Act. We
            propose a 1 year reauthorization of the Forest Service
            Facilities Realignment and Enhancement Act of 2005 (FSREA).
            FSFREA would allow the Secretary to convey administrative sites
            that the Forest Service no longer needs, and retain the
            proceeds from the sales for the acquisition, improvement,
            maintenance, reconstruction, or construction of facilities.
            Reauthorization would allow for better utilization of existing
            resources, increase the agency's ability to address health and
            safety issues, and enhanced service to the public.
      --Communications Site Program. The Forest Service seeks authority to
            retain $4.5 million annually to better manage the growing use
            of Forest Service lands for communications facilities. This
            will result in an increased annual return on investment to the
            Treasury within 2 years. This proposal will result in reduced
            processing time for new applications to provide better customer
            service (currently it takes 1 to 3 years to process a new
            application); enhanced and expanded telecommunications provided
            to rural communities via broadband, personal communications
            systems, and emergency services; and increased safety of
            visitors, agency staff, and first responders though additional
            communications capacity.
        Our budget request focuses on sustaining jobs (especially in rural
    America), increasing economic contribution, sharing responsibility for
    the stewardship of our natural resources, and more effective and
    efficient delivery of products and services. Our requested budget will
    enable us to continue to make progress addressing the growing extent
    and magnitude of our management challenges on National Forest System
    lands. Through strategic partnerships, we can accomplish more work
    while also yielding more benefits for all Americans, for the sake of
    all generations to come. I look forward to working with this
    subcommittee to fulfill the President's goals and our key
    responsibilities for the long term benefit of Nation's forests and
    grasslands and all Americans. I will be glad to answer questions you
    may have at this time.

                               TONGASS INVENTORY

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Chief. I will begin with a
    question on where we are with the Tongass inventory. As you
    will recall, back in 2015, the TAC, the Tongass Advisory
    Committee, recommended that the Forest Service complete a
    comprehensive stand level inventory of young growth and old
    growth on the Tongass in order to determine the volume
    available and really to figure out how we can transition in a
    way that works, not only on paper, but on the ground.
        In July of 2015, the State and USDA entered into a $4
    million challenge cost share agreement to inventory a sample of
    young growth and old growth on Prince of Wales, $2.5 million to
    be used to improve forest resource inventory information and
    $1.5 million to support workforce development.
        It is my understanding that approximately 11,000 acres of
    young growth and 11,000 acres of old growth have been surveyed
    thus far. The next field season is now gearing up.
        I have made very clear throughout all these discussions
    that I believe very strongly that this inventory should have
    been done prior to the Tongass plan being locked in, but the
    question for you this morning is just an update on that.
        When do you expect the inventory sample to be completed? Do
    you have the resources that you need in this fiscal year 2018
    proposal to complete the inventory? Do you have any preliminary
    results as to that inventory at this point in time?
        Mr. Tidwell. Madam Chair, we are moving forward. This year,
    we are doing another 13,000 acres of inventory. Within our
    budget request, we will be able to continue to move forward
    with that in fiscal year 2018.
        At this time, I do not have any of those results, but I
    would be glad to get back to you on that to show you what we
    are learning as we move forward.
        [The information follows:]

        The Tongass Advisory Committee recommended the Forest Service
    ``complete a thorough analysis of young growth inventory at the stand
    level in the first 3 years of the transition and to more accurately
    predict the young growth timing and supply to complete the
    transition.'' The stand-level inventory currently being conducted under
    the Challenge Cost Share agreement between the Forest Service and the
    State of Alaska includes both young growth and old growth. The
    information gained from this inventory, along with other existing
    information, is of sufficient scope and depth to plan project-level
    timber sales. We believe that the amount of data being collected during
    2016-2018 will be sufficient to complete a comprehensive inventory for
    the Tongass.
        Preliminary results of the inventory are not yet available. The
    focus of the fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017 field seasons has
    been on the collection of the data (plots) as well as meeting the other
    deliverables in the agreement (workforce development and all lands/all
    hands southeast Alaska-wide engagement). The forest expects to post the
    raw survey data online soon. Verified stream data is critical in
    determining fall down acreages.

        Mr. Tidwell. Our commitment is to do 70,000 acres.
        Senator Murkowski. Do you still think that 70,000 is a
    reasonable sampling?
        Mr. Tidwell. I do. When I think about how many years of
    work it will take us to get through that 70,000 acres, and then
    also based on what we learned from the inventory that will also
    provide additional information as to if we need to be doing
    more, or even if we need to change how we are doing the
    inventory, if we need to adjust how many plots we are putting
    out there, et cetera.
        It is an ongoing process. We will be glad to share the
    information not only with you but with everyone, with the
    members of the public, so they can see what we are learning as
    we move forward with this transition.
        Senator Murkowski. I think that would be helpful in terms
    of sharing the information, but also making sure that as we are
    moving forward, again, the resources are there to allow for the
    level of inventory that we are all talking about.
        Do you have any sense as to how much additional funding the
    Forest Service will need to complete the full inventory? Do you
    have any lead on that?
        Mr. Tidwell. From the work that we are doing and now that
    we have the staff trained up and working through the challenge
    cost share with the State, I feel comfortable that we have
    adequate funding to move forward and be able to complete this
    work.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, that is in fiscal year 2018, you
    have what you need to get to the 70,000, but I am talking about
    a complete inventory, not just our sample here.
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, based on what we learn from the 70,000
    acres, that is what will determine what additional inventory we
    need to do as we move forward, but it is going to be part of
    our ongoing work, but at the same time to also be able to focus
    on actually getting some projects implemented.
        That is also part of the learning that needs to occur, not
    only with the inventory but as we move forward with various
    projects, that we can be working with the industry to be able
    to find the right package, the right economic package, that
    makes this economically viable so we can sustain our
    communities.
        It is going to be an ongoing process, not only with the
    inventory, but also from as we implement projects what we can
    learn.
        I want to share with you that one of the big projects this
    year is being done by the States through the Good Neighborhood
    Authority. We are actually having State personnel out there
    doing sales prep for that project.

                                  TIMBER SALES

        Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you about the sales prep. You
    know that we continue to receive complaints from the industry
    that for a variety of reasons, the Forest Service is having
    trouble laying out and offering timber sales that result in a
    profit, and this whole issue of the appraisal process itself.
        What are you doing to improve that sales planning and to
    solve the appraisal issues that we are dealing with?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, there are two things. One, we are
    reviewing our appraisal process, and not only in Alaska but
    throughout the country, so that we can do a better job to make
    sure we are getting the work done.
        The second thing is that through the Good Neighborhood
    Authority, by being able to use State personnel and being able
    to use State practices, it gives us an opportunity to also
    learn that through some of the State approaches, if that may be
    a better way for us to be able to move forward.
        So, those are the two things that are ongoing. I am
    optimistic that as we move forward that we can make the
    adjustments in our appraisal system so that we are able to get
    more projects done.
        Last year, we had 500 million board feet of no-bid sales
    across the country, including some in Alaska. A lot of that is
    just driven by current markets. Our job is to get the work done
    regardless of what the markets are. Part of that is to be able
    to make the right adjustments in our appraisal system so we can
    actually make it economically viable for folks who do the work.
        Senator Murkowski. As we have had this conversation before,
    this is key in terms of those issues that just drive folks
    nutso. It is what is happening with the appraisal process here.
    Let's be working on that one.
        My time has expired. I will turn to Senator Udall.
        Senator Udall. Senator Tester has a pressing engagement.
        Senator Tester. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I want to
    thank the Ranking Member very much. Chief Tidwell, it is good
    to have you here. We have been in this position many, many
    times before.
        I know quite frankly the administration and Congress puts
    restrictions on you on dollars that certainly you have to work
    under, and certainly puts you in a bad position, and I can tell
    you often times we come in here and we blame you for our
    actions, and I just want to say thank you for your service,
    thank you for what you are doing. You are a career man, and I
    certainly appreciate your commitment to the Forest Service and
    the job you have done.

                                 TIMBER TARGETS

        That being said, I would be less than honest with you if I
    did not tell you that this budget was a wreck. I will tell you
    why. Forest fighting costs since 1995, they were 16 percent.
    You know these figures. Today, they are 52 percent. They will
    be 67 percent in another 8 years if we do not do something.
        The share of the Forest Service budget for fighting fires,
    as the Ranking Member pointed out, continues to increase, and
    as it continues to increase, are you going to be able in fact
    to meet those timber harvest targets, and we have to be honest
    with ourselves. If you are spending money for fighting fires,
    that is less money you spend for doing management. Can you meet
    those targets?
        Mr. Tidwell. Senator, from what we see this year and the
    work that we are doing planning for next year, I am optimistic
    that we can meet that target. We have actually increased it
    from 3.2 to 3.4 based on the additional funding that you
    provided in fiscal year 2017 for us to actually be able to get
    some additional planning done.
        Our folks work very hard on it, but we also want to be very
    straight, and we do not try to stretch, but I am confident we
    will be able to reach that target.

                          OUTFITTERS AND GUIDE PERMITS

        Senator Tester. The outdoor industry in Montana, because we
    have 10 national forests in our State, amounts to a good chunk
    of our economy, $6.4 billion, 64,000 jobs. A lot of that has to
    do with guides and outfitters. Are they going to be able to get
    their permits in a timely manner under this budget?
        Mr. Tidwell. It will be more challenging, but the changes
    that we are making in our dealing with special use permits,
    including outfitter and guide permits, we are finding new
    efficiencies, so that we can make sure we are working closely
    with our outfitters and guides, and all of our special use
    permittees to be able to make sure they can go to work.

                              INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

        Senator Tester. As the Ranking Member pointed out, when it
    comes to infrastructure, there is an 84 percent cut, and
    correct me if it is wrong, for roads, trails, and facilities.
    One of the things my office hears a lot on is trail
    maintenance. I think we had a scrap last year on the cuts and
    you fixed it. Thank you.
        Are we going to be able to have proper maintenance for
    trails, for access to our national forests under this budget?
        Mr. Tidwell. Under this budget request, we are going to
    focus on ensuring we maintain our staff and expertise so that
    when the infrastructure plan moves forward, we will be well
    positioned to be able to implement projects, not only those
    roads that are not only essential for access for our timber
    work, but also it is essential for our recreating public, as
    you just mentioned.
        That is how we are moving forward with it. We are going to
    focus on maintaining our staff and expertise so we are well
    positioned to be ready to respond to an infrastructure plan.

             FIRE FIGHTING AND THE FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

        Senator Tester. There is debate on this subcommittee and
    there is debate in Congress whether we ought to treat wildfires
    as a natural disaster. I think we should. I think we ought to
    just admit that the fire seasons are getting more intense. They
    are getting longer.
        If we can free up dollars for you to do the work you need
    to do in the Forest Service, long term, not in the short term,
    not in the next couple of years but in the next 10 years, I
    think the fire risk could potentially go down.
        So, that has an impact on your budget. I can tell you that
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund being zeroed out, the
    CFLRs being zeroed out, infrastructure being cut by 84 percent,
    I am going to tell you there is a move in this country to sell
    our public lands, to privatize our public lands.
        My concern with this budget, as we do not have access to
    trails, as the roads are not being done, as the facilities are
    not being kept up, as the trees are not being managed in a way
    that makes sense for next generation, it just gives more
    ammunition to those short-sighted people out there that want to
    turn our land over to the private sector. They want to sell it
    and do away with our $6.4 billion recreation economy in the
    State of Montana, and make Montana and a lot of other States
    into a different place.
        As we go forth with this budget, I hope you keep that in
    mind, as I started out, we put restrictions on you, you have to
    live within the restrictions, and then we complain to you when
    we do not have trails opened up because we do not have enough
    money for them.
        Keep that in mind, and I would just hope that when you come
    to subcommittees like ours, and I know it is tough to speak
    truth to power, but you need to tell us this is not working.
    You need to tell us I do not have the money for road
    maintenance because we are spending it all on fighting fires.
    We know it. We smell the smoke every year in Montana.
        We also blame litigants out there for stopping the forest
    cuts, and part of that is for people who do not want to see a
    tree cut, but another part of it is you do not have the
    resources you need to do the management practice ahead of time
    to make sure the cuts are straight up.
        Mr. Tidwell. Senator, I appreciate your understanding the
    importance of our public lands and our national forests to
    Americans. There is one reason we have national forests in this
    country, and it is simply that the people want them.
        Our job is to be able to work with our communities, to be
    able to manage it in a way that meets their needs and desires.
        I will point out again that the sooner we can find a fix to
    dealing with the fire funding is the sooner you have more
    flexibility to be able to provide funding to address the needs
    of our constituents.
        Senator Tester. Thank you for your service, Chief, and
    thank you, Ranking Member and Chairwoman.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Tester. Senator
    Daines.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

        Senator Daines. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, Ranking
    Member Udall. Chief Tidwell, good to see you again. I was very
    pleased to have Secretary Sonny Perdue, our new Ag Secretary,
    and again Ag and Forestry Secretary, out in Montana.
        We had a summit there. They had huge attendance. Forest
    management reform was also an important part of that
    conversation because timber is a renewable resource. It is
    actually a crop; it just takes longer to grow it. Very pleased
    to have Sonny Perdue out.
        We had a roundtable with some of our folks from the wood
    products industry. Once again, we are hearing the dismal state
    that the industry is in. They are running single shift. We are
    down to just eight now active mills on Montana, 30 when I was a
    kid growing up, now down to eight. They are down to single
    shift.
        The left would tell you that the reason it is single shift
    is because there is no demand. That is absolutely false. The
    reason we are at single shift is we cannot get enough logs. We
    are bringing logs in from Canada, bringing logs in from
    hundreds of miles away from other States to try to keep our
    mills afloat right now.
        In fact, they told me--we had press there. I said report
    the truth. The press heard that demand has never been stronger
    for our products, but we cannot get logs to the mills.
        It is a sad, sad state of affairs, and it is because of
    these extreme environmental groups who are litigating many of
    our sales that we have right now in Montana, and we are not
    taking care of the forest, and then we see them burn, and we
    can reduce the wildfire risk as we know by actively managing
    our forests.
        I will tell you this. There is new optimism amongst the
    folks back in Montana if they heard Secretary Perdue talk about
    how he was going to engage and work on policies going forward,
    it is the first time they have been optimistic in a long time.
    I was grateful to have Sonny out in Montana.
        I also want to echo your call for wildfire funding reform.
    It is crucial that Congress gets this done. I want to voice my
    concern with the budget proposed cuts that are to recreation
    and road development, the latter of which are important to
    carrying out forest projects. Both proposals are harmful to
    Montana's national forests and our way of life.

               COTTONWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER/LYNX AMENDMENT

        Chief Tidwell, Senator Tester and I have introduced
    legislation to statutorily reverse the disastrous Ninth Circuit
    Court decision in the Cottonwood Environmental Law Center
    versus U.S. Forest Service.
        According to the Obama administration, this decision has
    the potential to cripple Federal land management across Ninth
    Circuit States. Citing the Cottonwood decision, courts have
    already halted four forest health projects in Montana.
        Does the Forest Service support the bipartisan efforts to
    statutorily reverse this decision?
        Mr. Tidwell. Senator, first of all, thank you for your
    work, your bipartisan work with Senator Tester to introduce
    that legislation. Yes, we support that, and we need your help
    on this.
        It would be one thing if we just needed to reinitiate
    consultation. We would be glad to be able to do that. Our
    employees are working through that now. The way this court
    decision came down, it creates a continuous procedural loop, so
    we are never done. Even when we do say the Lynx Amendment and
    we consult on that, it is not considered completed.
        Any time there is new information, and there is constantly
    new information, it can even be like a Master's thesis, maybe
    not even peer reviewed, that is new information. That could
    create a need to reinitiate consultation.
        So, we want to consult, of course, and we want to do what
    we need to to be able to provide for Lynx habitat, and work
    very closely with Fish and Wildlife Service, which we are.
        This is just one of those cases--I need to really stress
    this goes way beyond Lynx. It goes way beyond the State of
    Montana. Fifty-two percent of the National Forest System land
    is in the Ninth Circuit. We had a different ruling out of the
    Tenth Circuit.
        This is one where we need your help to be able to resolve
    this so that we can do our job to consult, take care of
    habitat, but at the same time, be able to do the work.
        Senator Daines. Thank you. I just will be pleased with our
    Chair and my fellow Senators to join Senator Tester and myself
    on this piece of legislation. It is bipartisan already. The
    Obama administration was with us on this. The Forest Service
    clearly has both feet planted to help us on this, and we need
    to get this done. There is a statutory remedy that will solve
    this specific problem with Cottonwood, and we need to get this
    moved across the finish line here in the U.S. Senate. Thank you
    for your support.

                              SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS

        Chief Tidwell, I want to shift to Secure Rural Schools. I
    am a co-sponsor of legislation to reauthorize the SRS Program.
    It remains critical to our timber counties in Montana. Just
    last week in these roundtables we had, we had county
    commissioners from counties in Montana that had 90 to 92
    percent of their acreage in their counties that are Federal
    lands.
        The SRS is critical there, of course, because the Federal
    Government does not pay taxes. I hear over and over again that
    we need to extend SRS, and they want Congress to pass strong
    reforms additionally to restore active management to the
    national forests.
        They all rely now on PILT and SRS. They would much rather
    be seeing the revenues coming off our national forests because
    we are actively managing them than having to be dependent on
    PILT and SRS. Having said that, it is the state of affairs that
    we live in today, and we need to reauthorize these programs
    when we simply must address this litigation issue in Montana.
        It is a missed opportunity, and I hope we can bring
    together maybe an SRS long term funding proposal in conjunction
    with long term litigation reforms, where we really start
    solving the problem and what created SRS and PILT in the first
    place.
        The President's budget does not mention SRS. Does the
    administration support reauthorizing this program, and do you
    believe increasing pace and scale management must be a priority
    in addition to this program?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, first of all, I have been up here every
    year talking about the need to increase the pace and scale of
    restoration to be able to maintain and restore our Nation's
    forests. There is no question we need to do that part.
        I want to work with you to find ways to also provide some
    certainty for counties. There is always going to be fluctuation
    in markets. There is always going to be fluctuations in the
    amount of revenue that is generated on any year. That is very
    challenging for counties to be able to budget that way.
        We need to first continue our work to be able to increase
    managing our national forests, but at the same time I want to
    work with you to find a solution that provides some certainty
    for the counties.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Chief.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Daines. Senator
    Udall.

                            QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

        Senator Udall. Before we get into the budget, I would like
    to confirm, Chief Tidwell, that you will continue the long-
    standing practice of responding to the written questions and
    correspondence from both Majority and Minority Members of this
    subcommittee as quickly as possible.
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes.

                                  FIRE FUNDING

        Senator Udall. Great. Thank you. Chief, as I mentioned in
    my opening statement, I am incredibly concerned by this
    budget's failure to adequately fund firefighting.
        It is no secret of the historic method used to budget for
    wildland firefighting. The rolling average of firefighting
    costs is not enough to fully fund actual firefighting needs in
    the most fiscal years and frequently leads to the agencies
    running out of funds and being forced to borrow from other
    programs.
        Yet, your budget fails to request any funding to supplement
    the 10-year average and fails to offer a legislative proposal
    to address the long-term challenges of the fire suppression
    budget.
        Chief, since you know the 10-year average does not cover
    actual firefighting costs most years; can you explain why you
    chose not to request the actual forecasted need? Can we expect
    the administration to support emergency supplemental funding if
    the amounts proposed in the budget prove insufficient to cover
    actual firefighting expenses?
        What is the administration's plan to propose a solution to
    address fire borrowing and the adequacy of the 10-year average?
    Is the disaster cap adjustment proposed by President Obama a
    non-starter for this administration?
        Mr. Tidwell. Senator, first of all, I think everything
    needs to stay on the table as far as all options to be able to
    resolve this. You all have worked so hard over the last few
    years to find a solution to it. I recognize how challenging
    that is. I think all solutions need to stay on the table.
        With our budget request, it does follow the agreement to
    fund the 10-year average, but it also, I believe, provides the
    emphasis that we need to find a solution, and once and for all
    to be able to find a way to be able to cover that.
        It is really now 1 percent of fires that contribute often
    to 20 to 30 percent of our costs. We can easily handle the 98
    to 99 percent of all fires we respond to within a budget.
        It is really impossible for us to forecast what we need in
    fiscal year 2018. I can tell you today, in fiscal year 2017, we
    are somewhere between $1.1 billion to $2 billion. I am 90
    percent confident that is where we will end up this year.
        When you think about next year, with our scientists, what
    they have come up with is a range of $442 million to $1.5
    billion. How do you budget for something like that? Even today,
    here it is June, and we still have almost $1 billion range.
        That is why I think it is essential that if there is
    anything you need, additional information that you need from us
    to be able to help you, but we stand committed to finding a
    solution for this once and for all.
        It goes back to the point that has been raised; over 50
    percent of our budget now is in our fire programs. Earlier in
    my career, back in 1998, it was 16 percent, and yes, we
    forecast it to go to 67 percent by 2025.
        We need to find a solution so that we can be able to
    maintain a program of work that over time we can not only
    reduce the threat to our communities but we do see a severity
    of wildfire on the landscape.
        We have the science. We know what we need to do. It is just
    getting more of that work done, and as long as every year you
    have to put more and more money into dealing with fire
    suppression, it just limits your flexibility to provide for the
    public needs out there.
        Senator Udall. Chief, really, what you are saying is if you
    took those larger fires, that two percent, and you treated them
    like natural disasters, that would really stabilize the budget
    situation?
        Mr. Tidwell. It would. Once again, within the appropriated
    funds, the 10-year average, we can easily handle that 98
    percent of our fires. It is just that 1 to 2 percent, and I
    would be glad to provide the list from last year, but I know
    even the top 10 fires that occurred last year, I think, were
    close to almost $300 million, just with 10 fires. We have 7,000
    fires every year on the national forests.

                      VALUING PEOPLE AND PLACES INITIATIVE

        Senator Udall. Chief, I understand you have launched a
    pilot program called ``Valuing People and Places,'' and that
    you have been doing work on that in New Mexico. How are you
    engaging these unique community groups through your Valuing
    People and Places initiative?
        What have you learned from this and other outreach to
    Tribes, land grants, and acequia, and how can we work together
    to better incorporate the needs of these communities into the
    Forest Service planning process? Do you plan to expand the
    initiative in this new administration?
        Mr. Tidwell. That effort was a program we put into place to
    require our employees to sit down with the various communities,
    and not to come there with a proposal or with an agenda, but to
    actually come in there and listen, to hear from them so that we
    could create a greater understanding of their concerns, their
    values, so that we could do a better job to be able to meet
    their needs.
        Those are the things that have come out of this, and it is
    somewhat unique because normally when we pull people together,
    we ask them to come there, we will have a proposal we want them
    to respond to. This effort was focused just on one thing, and
    that is just to increase our understanding of the importance of
    their values, their concerns, so that we could factor that into
    our management.
        So, this has been an ongoing program. There has actually
    been a lot of good success. This occurred in your State. I have
    heard it directly from our employees the things they have
    learned. Also, how just the communities appreciated it, for us
    just to show up there without an agenda, with one purpose, to
    listen.
        Senator Udall. I have heard the same thing, and very much
    appreciate your effort on this. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall. Senator
    Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member. I
    am pleased to be on the subcommittee this year, so thank you
    very much.

                          PIPELINE PERMITTING PROCESS

        Welcome, Chief Tidwell. I am very happy to hear what you
    are saying. I wanted to go into sort of a different topic.
    During the last Congress, I introduced some legislation that
    was included in our Senate passed energy bill, thanks to
    Senator Murkowski's leadership, that would improve the
    permitting process for interstate natural gas pipelines.
        I am not interested in skipping any of the permitting
    processes. I am interested in more efficient considerations so
    that we can make decisions more quickly that are of national
    interest.
        It is important to a State like West Virginia; we have
    these new proven very large deposits of natural gas reserves in
    the Marcellus and Utica shale place, so we are excited about
    that.
        In West Virginia and elsewhere, the Forest Service is
    frequently a cooperating agency on projects on which FERC is
    the lead agency. Can you explain the priority that the Forest
    Service puts on making sure it efficiently exercises its roles
    in these energy projects, and any other things you might want
    to comment on in terms of the pipeline permitting process?
        Mr. Tidwell. We take our role very seriously, that we want
    to work closely with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    (FERC), so that we are never the impediment or the agency that
    slows down the process. By working closely to raise concerns
    that we may have, to also identify if we need to be able to
    make an amendment to forest plans and to be able to approve the
    construction of the pipeline.
        We work upfront on that, and we work very closely with the
    process. Are there things we need to continue to learn on this?
    Yes. We have a couple of projects actually in your State now we
    are working through. We are learning how we can improve our
    process so that we are more in sync, so that we can get all of
    the work done so that when FERC makes their decision, we can
    quickly follow up with our decisions and the pipelines can be
    built.
        Senator Capito. Right. We have the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
    and we also have the Mountain Valley Pipeline. As we all know,
    these can be quite controversial. At the same time, I think
    they are very achievable, and some of it is just kind of foot
    dragging or it seems the process becomes very, very slow, after
    a lot of input from locals.
        I guess with the FAST Act, there is a FAST-41 list of major
    infrastructure projects. Do you look to that when you are
    looking at this, or do you let FERC be sort of your guideline
    on all of this?
        Mr. Tidwell. We do both. We track the FAST-41 list very
    closely. Also, even with projects that are not on that list, we
    want to be responsive, but definitely that list has priority.

                                RURAL BROADBAND

        Senator Capito. Yes, good. In your statement, you did not
    mention this in your comments, but I was reading through your
    statement, very interested in rural broadband and the
    deployment of rural broadband. Most of us have big rural areas,
    and this is a huge issue for all of us.
        I noticed in your last bullet point, you talk about seeking
    several millions of dollars to manage the growing use of Forest
    Service lands for communications facilities. Is that an
    interagency communications build out you are doing? Are you
    working with communities that are in these rural areas? What
    kind of technologies are you using? I am very interested in
    this aspect of your responsibilities.
        Mr. Tidwell. So, our proposal is to be able to retain the
    fees from these communications sites so that we could actually
    do a better job, to be more responsive, to quickly turn around
    the applications, and to be able to permit the additional
    facilities that need to be built.
        As you can imagine, especially in your State, those
    mountain tops are very valuable when you are dealing with every
    type of communication, and not only for emergency but just
    everything down to cell towers.
        We believe that within 2 years, by retaining those fees, we
    will more than recover that additional revenue back to the
    Treasury. That is the magnitude of the work that needs to be
    done. We also have a lot of sites that not everything is
    currently under permit, and not every permit is up to date.
        It will really allow us to be more responsive because it is
    just essential that we provide those communications, not only
    the emergency, but just everything that is needed just for
    commerce in this country.
        Senator Capito. So, this is a public/private kind of
    partnership thing, it is not just within the Forest Service
    itself?
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes. We issue the permits, and the
    authorization for private companies to build their towers and
    to put their communications lines in.
        They need that high ground, especially, but they also need
    access for cabling and that sort of thing.
        Senator Capito. Do you have a backlog? Is that the issue,
    that you do not have enough manpower at this point and funding
    to move these through as quickly as you would like?
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes, exactly, that is the problem. We receive
    over 6,000 special use applications every year, which goes
    beyond just communications sites. Our employees work very hard
    to be able to respond to the applications, but through this
    legislative proposal, we would be able to increase our
    staffing, and also work with contractors. We could be much more
    responsive.
        I would think the industry would see a significant
    improvement with how quickly their applications can be
    approved.
        Senator Capito. That is something I think I certainly would
    be supportive of, and I think you would find a lot of support
    here to help manage that. Not only are you going through the
    forest, but there is always something on the other side, you
    know, private landowner businesses or whatever, schools, to be
    able to make that connection.
        That is important to those of us in rural America who are
    still on the short end of the high speed Internet and other
    kinds of communications.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Tidwell. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Capito. Senator
    Merkley.

                              SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS

        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
    Chief. I want to echo Senator Daines' comments on secure rural
    schools. There is a piece of that, title III, that people were
    kind of caught in an awkward place by a GAO report in 2012,
    which essentially said the funding for search and rescue has to
    be spent on the actual search and rescue as opposed to
    preparing for the search and rescue.
        Can you work with us to try to remedy and clarify that so
    folks can actually get the equipment they need for the search
    and rescue, and not have these funds stranded?
        Mr. Tidwell. Senator, we would be glad to work with you on
    improving the search and rescue. The intent was to be able to
    provide the funding for all aspects of the search and rescue,
    but it is one of the things we all learned through implementing
    that.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. I would appreciate your support
    on that, and again, I certainly hope we can support the
    continuation of the SRS Program.

                              INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

        Our outdoor recreation economy in Oregon is a very big
    deal, and there is a lot of concern about this massive cut in
    capital improvement and maintenance, from $364 million to just
    $100 million in the President's budget.
        I think what I heard you say earlier was well, we will wait
    for the infrastructure budget to be able to get funding to do
    the basic capital maintenance. Did I understand that correctly?
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes. We are going to focus on maintaining our
    staff and expertise so we are well positioned to respond to an
    infrastructure plan.
        Senator Merkley. Well, I encourage an alternative strategy,
    which is that we actually fund capital improvement and
    maintenance because we do not know what the infrastructure bill
    will look like. The President has talked a lot about public/
    private partnerships in terms of toll roads. Out West, we call
    them ``freeways,'' rather than calling them ``tollways.''
        Really, it is just an ongoing part of making sure that the
    assets that we have are available and in good shape for the
    public. It should not depend upon a once in a decade
    infrastructure bill. I just want to encourage that.

                                SUDDEN OAK DEATH

        We have a big problem in Oregon called ``sudden oak
    death.'' California has it as well. It is a water mold that
    affects a lot of nursery plants, but there is a version of it,
    a North American or NA1 version and a European EU1 version. The
    EU1 version can affect connivers.
        I come from Douglas County which is perhaps maybe grows
    connivers better and faster than any county in the country. We
    are very concerned about this. Can we work with you to find a
    way to find some piece of the programs that we are funding,
    some funds to try to address both the research of taking this
    on and the treatment?
        Mr. Tidwell. Senator, we want to work on that issue along
    with all the other insect and disease and invasive plants that
    are impacting the Nation's forests. As you mentioned, one has a
    significant impact on your part of the country and has the
    potential to spread.
        Those are the things that our research and scientists are
    focused on, to find solutions to be able to address this. We
    will continue to do our work there.
        We have a long list of these issues that we are dealing
    with across the country that we want to make sure that we can
    maintain our progress in finding solutions.

               COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PROGRAM

        Senator Merkley. Thank you. I would appreciate your help on
    that. The threat to both the timber industry and the nursery
    stock industry is massive. We should be trying to wipe it out
    right now rather than risking it spreading across the Nation.
        I want to turn to the Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration Program. We have three of these collaboratives that
    are producing, if you will, a ``truce,'' or a collaboration
    between the environmental side and the timber side, making
    forests healthier while at the same time producing a steady
    supply of saw logs for our mills.
        This program is zeroed out in the President's budget, which
    was quite a shock. We have such division, that when we have a
    successful program of bringing two sides together and staying
    out of the courts, producing jobs and producing healthier
    forests, is that not the type of win-win we should actually be
    doubling down on in this contentious world?
        Mr. Tidwell. The CFLRP projects, as you mentioned, have
    proven to be very successful. This long-term commitment of
    funding for large landscapes at a minimum of 50,000 acres has
    produced that collaborative environment, where people have come
    together and are able to get a lot more work done.
        However, we can continue to do that without the specific
    funding for this program. It is actually the way we should be
    working across the landscape. The challenge we have moving
    forward is these 23 projects that we have had have been very
    successful, and they will now compete along with the rest of
    our projects to be able to have this funding.
        This concept of being able to focus on large landscapes is
    the way that we need to be doing our work. We can continue to
    still address that without having specific funding for the
    program.
        Senator Merkley. My concern is in being in competition with
    a diminishing supply of resources, these programs will be
    damaged. I am hoping we cannot damage a model that really lays
    out a vision for solving a paralysis that has affected so much
    of our public lands.
        I want to turn to the wildfire reform and echo the comments
    of my colleagues who have stressed the need for us to adopt a
    different model. I had not heard the kind of 2 percent strategy
    that you mentioned. Certainly, an interesting way of looking at
    it, budgeting some and having more of a FEMA style response to
    the few really large fires. Any direction we could move on that
    would be great.

                               FIREFIGHTING CREWS

        Last question. When we hire crews--again, coming from
    Douglas County where people are intimately connected to the
    timber economy, we were very disturbed when we got a lot of
    funding for forest restoration, and there was some in the
    stimulus, we have some in our annual budgets, that crews were
    getting the low bid contracts from the Forest Service because
    they were hiring from out of the country, bringing in H-2B
    crews, when there were thousands of Oregonians who wanted these
    jobs, but they were self-certifying that there was no one
    available, a complete fabrication.
        The Forest Service was giving these contracts to the low-
    priced bids with out of country crews because they were less
    expensive. Can you work with us to make sure that when
    Americans want these jobs in the woods, they get full notice
    and opportunity to apply, and the Forest Service just does not
    blindly hire and fund teams that are hiring from outside the
    country?
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes, Senator, you have my commitment to work
    on that. I will look into this issue. As I understand, that is
    a requirement, if there are individuals, local Americans, that
    are willing to do the work, they do the work.
        Senator Merkley. That is a requirement, but it is a self-
    certification that there is no one available, and it is being
    wildly abused. I would like your help in taking that on. Thank
    you.
        Senator Murkowski. Senator Merkley that is a very
    interesting issue. I was not aware there was this process where
    those outside the country, those with H-2Bs, could come in and
    effectively be the fire crews. We have some hot shot crews out
    of our villages, and these villagers, for them, this is their
    job as much as anything in terms of a yearlong source of
    income.
        We have some issues where they say they have not met all
    the criteria, whether it is a Type 1, Type 2, but if we are
    utilizing those with H-2Bs rather than our local crews that
    have clearly developed a level of expertise, that is something
    I certainly am interested in as well. I appreciate your raising
    that.
        Senator Merkley. I might say I have seen less evidence of
    this on the fire crews than on the forest health crews.
        Senator Murkowski. We will look into that. Chief, I
    appreciated the conversation you had with the issue raised by
    Senator Capito about the telecom opportunities and the role
    that the Forest Service can play in helping to facilitate
    better connectivity.
        As you know, in my State, we have a lot of dead zones that
    are out there, and certainly as you and I flew over the Tongass
    a couple of years back, you can look down and see.
        It was interesting, your comments, about needing access for
    more cabling, access for installation of the cell towers or the
    receiving towers. It just kind of caused me to wonder what the
    impact is to an area like the Tongass, where we have the
    roadless rule in place, where once again, we do not have the
    ability to have a road, to either do the install or the
    maintenance, so whether it is limiting our opportunities to
    build out renewable energy resources within the Tongass area or
    communications kind of activities, the roadless rule is, as you
    know, just an extraordinary barrier to us in so many different
    ways, and exactly the reason why we need to roll that back
    within Alaska.

                    ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH TRUST LAND EXCHANGE

        I want to raise a couple of more Alaska specific issues
    with you. You know we just signed into law the Alaska Mental
    Health Trust Land Exchange. That was part of the omnibus this
    past year. I want to thank the Forest Service for working with
    us to make sure that did become law.
        Now, we have to implement it. The law requires that the
    Forest Service complete the exchange of the first 2,400 areas
    within 1 year, by May 5, 2018, and then it has another year to
    complete the exchange.
        What is happening now is the Forest Service and the Trust
    have to select an appraiser and issue appraisal instructions
    within 90 days of passage, by August 4.
        So, the question this morning is whether or not the Forest
    Service is going to be able to meet these time lines, select
    the appraiser, so that they can get out in the field this
    summer, and second to that, whether or not the Forest Service
    has the financial resources to complete this land exchange as
    required by law.
        Mr. Tidwell. Madam Chair, we are on track to get the
    appraisals, the appraiser identified, and get that work done,
    and we are on track to complete the first phase this year. I
    want to first of all thank you for giving us this authority,
    and we are making a commitment to whatever resources are
    necessary.
        I want to use this as a model about how to do land
    exchanges, especially when we are working between a State and
    say the Forest Service. I think we can show that when we are
    dealing with a State agency and the Forest Service, we can have
    a more expedited process that still meets all the concerns of
    the communities and at the same time meets all of our
    requirements, but do it in a much more shortened timeframe.
        Senator Murkowski. If we had waited for the administrative
    solution, we would be waiting a long while here. We would
    appreciate the cooperation there. Do you have the resources
    that you need to do this?
        Mr. Tidwell. We do.

                                LAND ACQUISITION

        Senator Murkowski. Okay. Let me ask about Shee Atika and
    the Cube Cove land acquisitions. In the fiscal year 2018
    budget, I see no money proposed for new land acquisitions, only
    $8.4 million to complete land acquisitions in process.
        As you know, with the Shee Atika, we are in that process of
    kind of completing this. I am told hopefully we are going be
    able to finish the acquisition of another 6,000 acres, but it
    does mean the Forest Service has about another seven tracts
    covering about 9,100 acres, costing another $9 million to
    complete the agreement.
        I am wondering if the purchase of the last seven tracts
    here that the Forest Service committed to back in 2015 is
    considered completion of land acquisitions in process, or are
    these considered new acquisitions that are not eligible for
    funding under the current terms of the fiscal year 2018
    proposal.
        Mr. Tidwell. Madam Chair, we are on track to complete the
    next part of the purchases this year, but following that, to be
    able to finish this acquisition, it will have to be postponed
    until some time in the future when there is additional funding.
        Senator Murkowski. So, why would these not be considered
    land acquisitions in process, since it is effectively the plan
    that was laid down back in 2015? These are not anything new, it
    is just there is a multi-year process for completion.
        Why are you considering them new acquisitions, thus,
    subject to this fiscal year 2018 proposal that says no new
    acquisitions?
        Mr. Tidwell. They are not new, it is just no funding
    available. The limited funds that we have in our fiscal year
    2018 budget request would be to be able to finish up all the
    work that we have implemented with the current funds.
        So, there is not a new project, it is just there would not
    be any funding available to complete the rest of it.
        Senator Murkowski. If it is not a new project and you
    recognize it as something that has been committed to, how can
    we prioritize this so that we complete this land acquisition as
    was laid out over 2 years ago now?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, we have the list of land acquisitions
    that we provided in the fiscal year 2017 budget request. That
    is our priority list, which includes completing the next two
    phases of Cube Cove, and we will finish that work, but without
    additional funding in fiscal year 2018, the rest of it will
    have to be put on hold.
        Senator Murkowski. Right. You can see my concern here. We
    have an administration that has basically said no money for new
    land acquisitions, and we are saying this is not a new land
    acquisition, this is something that was agreed to some time
    ago, we need to complete it. I do not want us to be in this
    category of nothing will be allowed because we have a view
    within the administration that we are just not going to have
    new acquisitions coming forward.
        I am going to continue to press on this and ensure that the
    Forest Service keeps the commitment that was made some time
    ago.
        Senator Udall.

                          FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES

        Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chief, building on
    the previous line of questioning around unique local community
    associations, another area that can always be improved is
    meaningful government-to-government consultation, with the 23
    federally recognized Tribes in the State of New Mexico.
        I have heard from Tribes that it seems like the Forest
    Service does not understand why Tribes may want to protect
    information from the public, like the location of their
    cultural resources and sites, or understand how Tribal
    consultation is different from engagement with other
    stakeholders.
        As you know, federally recognized Tribes are not simply
    stakeholders, they are sovereign governments. What are you
    doing to better inform all Forest Service employees about the
    best practices for engagement with Tribal partners in
    developing management plans that reflect meaningful
    consideration of Tribal input? How is the Forest Service
    working to consult with Tribes in a meaningful way and respect
    their wishes?
        Are there other resources the Forest Service needs in order
    to fully comply and carry out government-to-government
    consultation?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, we have always understood the
    importance of our consultation with our Tribes, and one of the
    things that came out of our Sacred Sites Report that was
    completed a few years ago was a need for us to provide
    additional training.
        We have actually put together some training tools to be
    able to share what we have learned, as we sat down with the
    Tribes across this country, so we could do a better job with
    consultation.
        We are going to continue to implement that training, to
    ensure that our employees understand the significance and
    importance, and also how to do this; to be able to show that
    respect as we do our consultation, and to also understand why
    at times it is probably not going to be shared exactly where
    these places are, where these sites are, because of the concern
    of the Tribes.
        We need to respect that. We need to be able to recognize
    that. That is some of the things that came out of this report
    that we put together over the last few years. It is one of the
    things we are moving forward so we can continue to carry out
    our responsibility to do our consultation with all the Tribes,
    and do it in a way where they definitely feel the respect they
    deserve.
        Senator Udall. Are there other resources that might be
    needed to do this, Chief?
        Mr. Tidwell. This is ongoing work. One of the things we are
    looking at is how to have a better understanding of all the
    consultation. For some of our Tribes, it is just almost weekly
    that we are reaching out to them to consult on our various
    projects.
        We are looking at ways of how can we maybe get better
    organized so that there is less of a burden on them but at the
    same time they are getting the time they need with us, and the
    information they need in our proposals.
        To somehow lessen the burden that we put on our Tribes due
    to this consultation. That is the thing that we are working on.
    It is one of the things that came out of this report. There are
    various Tribes that are just inundated with the amount of
    consultation we are doing.
        We are looking to find a better way to be able to do that
    so it is a more efficient process, but more important, it is
    what the Tribes need. We are working very closely with them as
    we move forward to design some different approaches.

                             ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

        Senator Udall. Thank you, Chief. I have heard, Chief, of
    complaints from stakeholders in New Mexico that when
    consultation is required for an Endangered Species Act on
    national forest lands, rather than coming to the table to work
    through concerns, after the Fish and Wildlife Service has done
    their informal assessment, the Forest Service points the finger
    at the Fish and Wildlife Service and tells constituents to go
    talk to them.
        There is often a sense that the Forest Service does not
    offer any flexibility to work through options and come to a
    reasonable solution for all interests.
        As you and I both know, the process of Section VII
    consultation is best performed through collaborative
    consultation, where the affected agencies and as appropriate
    stakeholders sit down and work through how best to implement
    the recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service to avoid
    jeopardy for a species, keeping local interests in mind.
        We all want to find what is best for the species, the
    forests, and New Mexicans within the law. Can you commit to me
    to helping to steward these issues in New Mexico, and work with
    the region to bring stakeholders together to address ESA
    concerns, not just sending them to another Federal agency and
    passing the buck?
        Mr. Tidwell. Senator, you have my commitment. I will reach
    out to leadership in this agency to ensure that we continue to
    work very closely with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
        In your State especially, we have some great relationships,
    and people are sitting down working together. I understand some
    of the challenges. When I look at the track record, I think we
    have a pretty good track record in our favor. However, I am
    sure there are opportunities for us to improve, so I will look
    into that.
        We are also finding the efficiencies that I believe are
    possible through our consultation when it comes to Section VII.
        We did some work up in the Pacific Northwest in the last
    few years with the Fish and Wildlife Service where the Director
    and I went out and met with our employees together to be able
    to share our commitment about how we need to work together, to
    not only protect the species, provide that habitat, but at the
    same time to get the work done on the ground that in so many
    cases is what protects that habitat.
        That is the sort of thing we need to probably expand, and I
    look forward to seeing what we can do in your part of the
    country.
        Senator Udall. Thank you so much, Chief. Thanks, Madam
    Chair.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall. Senator
    Hoeven.

                                GRAZING PERMITS

        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Chief Tidwell.
    Good to see both of you here, thanks so much for appearing.
        Chief, in your testimony you referenced a legislative
    proposal regarding the extension of grazing permits. Obviously,
    grazing permits are very important to our State. Please tell me
    how that would impact North Dakota grazers.
        Mr. Tidwell. Our request is just so that all grazing east
    of the Mississippi, including the grasslands, would be
    considered.
        Senator Hoeven. You said east of the Mississippi?
        Mr. Tidwell. East of the Mississippi and all of the
    grasslands would be treated the same as the rest of grazing on
    national forests, so that we could continue to renew the
    grazing permits, even when we have not met the rescission
    schedule.
        We just believe we need that. It has worked out well on the
    national forests out West. We are asking just for what I think
    is a technical change so that the grassland permits and grazing
    permits east of the Mississippi would all be treated the same,
    and we can always be able to renew those permits.
        Senator Hoeven. The only thing I would be careful about,
    because I have run into this with natural resources management
    in a variety of agencies and a variety of capacities, not
    everything is the same. The same thing with energy development.
        The way we produce oil and gas, we are bringing it up from
    two miles down, very far from any potable water sources, a lot
    different than they do it in the Utica and other parts,
    Marcellus, for example.
        In the same way, our terrain is different; our climatology
    is different and so on and so forth. You have to have the
    ability to do what makes sense, common sense, on the ground,
    regardless of where you are.
        I am a little concerned about--I sometimes find that
    lawyers in Washington, DC get enamored with consistency across
    the entire United States. It is a big country, more than 300
    million people, and you have to be able to exercise common
    sense and good judgment on the ground depending where you are
    at.
        Mr. Tidwell. Senator, just let me clarify again what we are
    asking for is so that when a grazing permit with an association
    say on the grasslands, it comes up for renewal, that we are
    able to renew that permit even if we have not met the NEPA
    schedule and the rescission plan.
        It is just essential that we are able to always renew those
    permits. We have that authority on the national forests west of
    the Mississippi; we just are asking to have that authority for
    the grasslands and for the grazing in the East.
        Senator Hoeven. I have found that you are an individual
    willing to exercise good judgment. I want to make sure you have
    the flexibility and authority to do so.

                            ACCESS TO SECTION LINES

        In North Dakota, we have a section line law. Actually, I
    think it goes to our constitution. For every square mile, on
    every single section line, we have county roads. Those county
    roads are open to public access unless closed by the county
    commission.
        On some of the grasslands, we are running into situations
    where you and your people are restricting access to those
    section lines. We think that violates our law and constitution
    in the State of North Dakota.
        Mr. Tidwell. Senator, I will have to get back to you on
    that. I am not aware of the status. I know there has been some
    long-standing litigation on this issue. I will have to get back
    to you on that.
        [The information follows:]

        Regarding access to section lines, this matter is currently under
    litigation. At this time, and until resolved, we are unable to provide
    any further details.

        Senator Hoeven. Okay. As usual, and we have had you out
    there a number of times, we may have to have you come out
    again. In the summer, it is always a nice visit for you, is it
    not?
        Mr. Tidwell. It is.
        Senator Hoeven. We love having you. Our cowboys love seeing
    you. They have kind of gotten to know you.
        Mr. Tidwell. Can we go right now, today?
        Senator Hoeven. Yes, actually, that would be great today.
    We may have to have you come back. We may need your help on it.
    In the past, you have been very responsive when these kinds of
    issues have come up, and I appreciate it, but we seem to be
    bumping into this jurisdictional issue, so we may need your
    help again.

                                  FIRE FUNDING

        I apologize, knowing our Chairwoman, she has probably
    already asked you about this, so this could be a redundant
    question but I have to ask you about funding for forest fires.
        Do you have adequate funding for forest fires, and will you
    once again tell me about your thoughts and I hope commitment to
    working with volunteer efforts and helping the State funding
    efforts.
        Obviously, in rural areas, we rely very heavily on our
    State, rural, and volunteer firefighters out there in a lot of
    these places. It is the volunteers that get there and fight the
    fires. They may get reinforcements, but they are first on the
    scene, and we need to make sure we are helping them. So, if you
    could just address that.
        Mr. Tidwell. In the fiscal year 2018 budget request, we are
    asking for full funding of the 10-year average cost of fire
    suppression. However, we also recognize that we need to work
    with Congress to find a solution for the cost of fire
    suppression.
        It is one of the things we are going to need both, the 10-
    year average covers about 98-99 percent of the fires we have
    every year, but it is that 1 to 2 percent of our fires that
    when we have a very active fire season, it goes way beyond our
    capability to handle it within our appropriations.
        It is one of the things we are looking forward too. We need
    your help and ongoing leadership.
        Also, when it comes to volunteers, they are essential. They
    are often the first responders to fires, not only in your State
    but in most of our States. With our budget, we do provide
    funding for State fire assistance. However, it is one of the
    programs that there is a reduction in. I know that is going to
    be challenging. We want to work with the States to be able to
    get as much as we can to provide the support they need, the
    equipment they need.
        Senator, I also just need to thank you for your leadership,
    the meetings that I have attended that you have asked me to
    come out to your State, through your leadership, it has made a
    significant difference. I believe that we have better
    relationships, especially with a lot of our grazing
    associations today, better than ever. I give you the credit for
    taking the time to be there and the way you conduct those
    meetings. Thank you for that.
        Senator Hoeven. I appreciate that, Chief. You know, our
    cowboys there are an independent breed. They are out there come
    any kind of weather taking care of their livestock. It does
    take you coming out to kind of win their approval and
    acceptance, and I thank you for your willingness to do that.
    Appreciate it.

                          FIRE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CUTS

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. The
    discussion about the State fire assistance, that is also an
    area that I would certainly have concerns with. In fiscal year
    2015, when we saw over 10 million acres burned nationally, 5.1
    million of those acres were in Alaska. What we received through
    the State fire assistance and the volunteer assistance
    programs, as you know, Chief, is great support for us.
        When we look at these proposed cuts, we see that it hits
    Alaska pretty hard with regards to that support for fire staff
    in leadership positions, as well as the initial attack
    firefighters.
        I guess the question to you as we are looking at this
    budget proposal is why not propose to make larger investments
    in these programs, again, in order to save the costs up front?
    It just seems to me that when we are talking about how we
    tackle these fires, that money up front is money well spent.
        Mr. Tidwell. Madam Chair, I agree with you about making the
    upfront investment, and with this budget request, we had to
    prioritize what was the highest priority work, and that is the
    work on the national forests, reducing threats to communities,
    and yes, there are some tradeoffs.
        I will point out again when I think of the $156 million
    increase in the 10-year average, if we had a solution to that,
    where you did not have to provide that level of increase in
    funding, it would go a long way to resolve a lot of these other
    issues that we have with our budget.
        These are very difficult reductions that we are proposing
    to very important programs. It is just a matter of priorities.

                                  ROAD FUNDING

        Senator Murkowski. I think you have clearly heard that just
    about every Member who has been here this morning has raised
    this issue. It was again almost the exclusive subject of
    conversation between us as appropriators and me on the
    authorizing side with Senator Cantwell this morning with the
    Secretary. Working with the administration to finally resolve
    this, I think, has got to be key. As I look to your budget and
    the budget proposals, so much of this is really contingent on
    getting a fix, finally resolving this.
        I mentioned the decrease in my opening statement in the
    capital improvement and maintenance road funding. I look at
    this and am really quite concerned as to whether or not you
    have sufficient funding to keep open the roads that you
    currently have throughout the system, and whether or not you
    have sufficient resources to maintain the infrastructure, to
    help facilitate the recreation that we have been talking about,
    the restoration projects, the timber sales, so again, getting
    this right.
        I want to ask specifically on the question of the roads,
    and whether or not you believe you have the funding necessary
    in this budget proposal for the existing roads and keeping them
    open.
        We have a situation in Alaska. This is near Excursion
    Inlet. This is in Northern Southeast. We have a situation where
    there is a bridge there, which is in pretty tough shape, and it
    has caused that bridge to be shut down, apparently,
    indefinitely.
        The problem is that this bridge is the only way to get to a
    water source that is needed by a nearby cannery. This cannery
    employs 600 people there. It is basically the sole source of
    income or revenue generated for this community.
        You have fishermen that are impacted, process workers that
    are impacted, the local government's tax base, and it is all
    because you have a small little bridge here that you all cannot
    seem to maintain.
        We have a situation in that case where the local government
    has found half of the money, an additional $350,000 is needed
    to make the repairs. In this day and age, $350,000 should be
    pretty easy to round up and find, and yet because we have not
    been able to bridge this gap, excuse the pun, you have a local
    economy that is absolutely at risk.
        I look at this as a specific example and say how, given
    this budget and the reduction that you have proposed in the
    capital improvement and maintenance account--how are you
    keeping things open? What are you going to do here out in
    Excursion Inlet?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, with this budget request, we are going
    to focus on maintaining our staffing and our expertise to be
    able to respond to the infrastructure plan, so that we can
    provide that access, maintain the access for not only
    recreation but also all the management of the national forests.
        Senator Murkowski. I need to make sure I understand exactly
    what that means. It means you want to make sure you have
    sufficient staff; correct?
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. If you have sufficient staff but you do
    not have the funding for the staff to work, why do we even need
    to keep the staff? You see my problem here. We have to have
    both. You have to have the manpower, obviously, but you have to
    have the resources to do that operation and that maintenance.
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes. If an infrastructure plan comes together
    and we do not have that expertise, we are not going to be able
    to move forward to implement it.

                              INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

        Senator Murkowski. Are you banking on the President's soon
    to be released infrastructure package to be the end all and be
    all to solve things like a small little bridge maintenance
    issue in Northern Southeast? Are you looking to that to
    basically be your capital projects fund?
        Mr. Tidwell. The infrastructure plan could provide funding
    for that. Your bridge situation is not the only one.
        Senator Murkowski. I understand, and that is the reason I
    raise it, I know it is but one small, small example. Having
    recognized that, it speaks to the much larger problem, and
    again, if the view is rather than including funding in a budget
    proposal that would really help facilitate capital improvements
    and maintenance, instead of funding that, we are going to bank
    on a larger national infrastructure project, my concern is the
    big bridge, wherever it may be, will get that funding, but that
    $350,000 that is going to have an extraordinary ripple effect
    in this small community will be overlooked because it is not
    big enough potatoes.
        I think we all want to see what this infrastructure package
    will yield, but on the same hand, you do not want our
    departments to basically be viewing that as this will be the
    fund and the source for ongoing maintenance and operations of
    our existing infrastructure.
        Do you see my point?
        Mr. Tidwell. I do.
        Senator Murkowski. I am well over my time. Let me go to
    Senator Udall.

                          FIRE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CUTS

        Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair. The State and
    volunteer fire assistance are proposed for cuts of 11 and 23
    percent, respectively. Can you elaborate on the impacts of
    those cuts? How many fewer fire engines or equipment our State
    and local partners will be able to purchase and outfit?
        Mr. Tidwell. Senator, I do not have an estimate on the
    number of engines, but there is no question there will be less
    funding, less grant money available that we provide through the
    States to these volunteers.
        We are going to continue to do what we can to not only
    maintain our relationships but also to provide excess equipment
    to especially our volunteers who rely on that excess equipment
    that we are able to provide.
        It is one of the things that I am hopeful we can maintain
    that level of equipment, but there will be tradeoffs. There is
    just no question. If we make some very difficult choices with
    this budget, these are some of the things that we want to be
    able to be as responsive to the States' needs as we have been
    in the past.

                    LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF)

        Senator Udall. Thank you. I want to work with Chairman
    Murkowski to restore the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
    including funds for both new and continuing acquisitions.
        As you know, Chief, the Forest Legacy Program, part of the
    LWCF, has also been incredibly successful in the 25 years it
    has existed, thanks largely to the work of our Vice Chairman,
    Senator Leahy.
        States submit projects and a selection committee of State
    foresters prioritizes the submissions. All the funds go to the
    States to be cost shared and are responsible so far for keeping
    over 2.6 million acres of non-Federal forest lands from being
    developed into non-forest uses.
        These lands continue to be working for us, providing
    sustainable timber and jobs and all other benefits that come
    from forests. In fiscal year 2017, the first phase of the
    Brazos Cliffs project in New Mexico was funded but it requires
    an additional $2 million in Federal funds to complete
    conservation of the property.
        Why does the budget eliminate such a valuable program, what
    outreach is the Forest Service doing to determine what impacts
    these funding cuts will have on State forest conservation plans
    without Forest Legacy funding or other State or private
    forestry programs eliminated by this budget, how will the
    Forest Service assist the States in preventing the
    fragmentation of environmentally significant forests?
        Mr. Tidwell. Senator, our budget request focuses on
    carrying and maintaining the lands that we currently have
    within the national forests and grasslands. So, that is our
    number one priority.
        Programs like the Forest Legacy and LWCF that have proven
    to be very helpful in the past, to be able to help landowners
    to keep their ranches, farms, forests as working lands has also
    been successful.
        However, with just tough choices, that is one of the things
    we need to focus on, taking care of the lands that we have.
    That is the rationale behind our budget request.
        Senator Udall. Senator Murkowski, I look forward to working
    with you on the Land and Water Conservation Fund and some of
    these projects that are moving along and have been in process.

               COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PROGRAM

        Another proposed elimination I mentioned in my opening
    statement is dedicated funding for the Collaborative Forest
    Landscape Restoration Program. I think you mentioned this,
    Chief, in talking with Senator Merkley.
        This program funds 23 projects across the country. We have
    two in New Mexico, Southwest Jemez and Zuni Mountains. These
    projects have brought together public and private land
    managers, conservationists and Pueblos in a way that benefits
    both forest ecosystems and local economies.
        As you described, this is a really good partnership, good
    collaboration. If this budget were adopted, would current CFLR
    projects receive the funding that was committed to them when
    their agreements were signed?
        Mr. Tidwell. Those projects will have to now compete with
    all the other projects we have, but we can still go forward.
        The other thing I would point out with CFLRP is that where
    it has been very effective in parts of the country where we
    have hazardous fuels issues, we were not able to use that
    program in other parts of the country, whether it is in the
    lake States or places in Alaska where we still have the need to
    be able to make that long-term commitment for large landscapes.
        It has shown us the right way to work, the right way to be
    able to do it, it was limiting to those areas where we needed
    to have a hazardous fuels concern to be addressed.
        So, we are committed to moving forward and using this model
    beyond what we have done in the past. The reality is those
    ongoing projects are going to have to compete, and I suspect
    many of them will be able to compete very well.

                CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM CUTS

        Senator Udall. That is good. Given the President's bold
    statements about supporting rural jobs and building
    infrastructure, one of the most surprising cuts to the Forest
    Service budget is within the capital improvement and
    maintenance program, properly maintain facilities, roads and
    trails are necessary for the public to access and enjoy their
    public lands, not only that forest roads are necessary for
    contractors to implement fuels reduction projects and for
    logging companies to remove merchantable timber.
        I do not understand how a $100 million reduction in road
    construction will allow the administration to maintain the 3.2
    billion board feet level of timber sales that we have seen in
    the last several years, let alone meet many of the agency's
    multiple use mandates.
        Can you tell me what the rationale was for the cut to this
    program which creates jobs and supports the core functions of
    the agency? How do you plan to distribute such a paltry amount
    of funding for these activities? Will you continue to spread
    the funds proportionately across all of the regions, or will
    you focus on specific forests or initiatives?
        Mr. Tidwell. With our budget request, it does provide our
    ability to be able to maintain our staffing and expertise, to
    be able to respond to the infrastructure plan. If that does not
    occur, then we will have to look at our highest priority work
    across the country. There is no question there will be
    definitely less road construction.
        I need to stress that it is not new construction. These
    funds are really focused on maintaining our existing road
    system. We build a few new roads every year, primarily in
    Alaska, but even there, it is very few. This is work to be able
    to maintain the system that provides the access.
        We remain optimistic on the infrastructure plan, that we
    have proven in the past when additional funding has been made
    available to this agency, that we have been able to quickly
    respond, to be able to implement those projects, to be able to
    not only maintain our system but also deal with some of the
    deferred maintenance.
        I also think we can make a very strong case where our road
    system, our infrastructure, our bridges, our facilities, our
    campgrounds, it is a good investment. We have the economic
    information where we can show that by making this investment,
    there is a good return not only to providing the community
    access but also just providing the economic activity.
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Chief. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Chief, you might notice that
    we did not take a break at 10:30 for a vote. It has been moved
    to this afternoon, which is good for us, maybe bad for you. It
    has allowed us to be efficient as we have moved through the
    questions. I just have a couple more.

                           HAZARDOUS FUELS MANAGEMENT

        On the hazardous fuel side of things, we have invested
    significant resources over the years. I am told over $1.4
    billion since fiscal year 2014. Now, what you are doing is
    proposing to move hazardous fuels spending out of wildland fire
    management and into the National Forest Service budget.
        I think you have heard a little bit of the frustration from
    folks here today on the pace and scale of hazardous fuels
    management within the national forests.
        I am a little concerned that the increase for national
    forest management is almost entirely made up of bringing over
    the hazardous fuels from the wildland fire account.
        Walk me through this strategy. Is this a cohesive strategy
    that somehow or another is going to allow us to better manage
    our national forests? Does it make us more efficient, more
    effective? How are we making sure that we are placing a
    priority on those acres that are most in need of hazardous fuel
    reduction?
        Give me the thought behind this, and why it is going to
    make management better.
        Mr. Tidwell. Our thinking behind this proposal is just to
    increase the integration between our hazardous fuels work and
    our forest management work. I will use the Ranking Member's
    State, when we are out there doing a timber sale, thinning out
    those forests, we are reducing hazardous fuels. There is a dual
    benefit.
        It is just to promote strengthening that integration. On
    the ground, when you get down to the ranger district level,
    this is already occurring.
        Our proposal is to be able to try this in a way so that we
    can actually increase the efficiencies and increase the
    integration and actually do a better job to be able to
    establish the highest priority work, and not only to deal with
    hazardous fuels work and wildland-urban interface, but also to
    do hazardous fuels reduction that is beyond wildland-urban
    interface, and at the same time to be able to increase the
    work, accomplishing this through our stewardship contracts and
    through timber sales.
        That is the purpose of this, just to increase our
    integration. I look forward to being able to report back to you
    on increased efficiencies. It is one of the things that we are
    going to track very closely as we move forward, if we get this
    change.
        I am optimistic that it will just strengthen our
    integration and allow us to be able to get more work done, and
    also make it a little easier to do those projects. So many of
    our projects have a combination of reducing hazardous fuels,
    they have timber sales, so as we have talked in the past about
    the regions where we have the pilot authority with the
    Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) program, this will help
    us to be able to gain some of those efficiencies throughout the
    rest of the agency.
        Senator Murkowski. We are all about efficiency and making
    sure things work. I look at it, and call me a skeptic now, but
    if you can demonstrate this actually does get us to the place
    that you have outlined here, efficiencies are good.

                               RECREATION PERMITS

        Let me ask my final question here about recreation funding.
    This summer I am going to be blessed again, as a child of the
    Tongass, to be able to go back to my roots. When I go to
    Wrangell, everybody wants to know where are we on making sure
    that some of these recreation permits are moving through.
        You have a 4 percent decrease in this category here, this
    is less than some of the other decreases, I understand that.
    Again, even that hits pretty hard in some of these communities
    where this is a real big part of their economy here.
        In recent years, we have had some discussions about what we
    have seen within the State of Alaska for their recreation
    funding, and we have seen dollars allocated to Region 10 that
    have generally increased, but we continue to hear concerns
    regarding administration of the specific recreation programs in
    Alaska.
        It is an ongoing problem, unfortunately. I have been
    assured over the years that things were getting better, but I
    am told the Forest Service overall is touting a 31 percent cut
    in the recreation permit backlog, that is what I understand as
    I am talking to folks. They have not seen that yet.
        Making sure the Forest Service is continuing to modernize
    and to really make progress with the demand that is out there
    remains a priority of mine. I would ask for just an update from
    you in terms of how you feel this proposed level funding is
    going to impact the processing of permits, what assurances can
    I give so many in the Tongass that again are relying on an
    expeditious process in advancing these permits?
        Mr. Tidwell. Madam Chair, we made a significant investment
    this year to be able to modernize how we issue our special use
    permits, and the recreation permits are also the land use
    permits.
        We are going through that effort this year. You will start
    to see the real benefits of that starting next year.

                                 MODERNIZATION

        Senator Murkowski. You know how that scares so many of us?
    Because when we hear the term ``modernize,'' what that means is
    it is a central facility located somewhere in Maryland, not
    that Maryland is bad but it is a long way from Wrangell,
    Alaska. That modernization, that efficiency, does not
    necessarily translate well to the person on the ground.
        I do not mean to interrupt you there, but that is a
    concern. I understand we need to get to a more efficient
    system.
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, I will choose a different term in the
    future.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay.
        Mr. Tidwell. The effort is for us to really identify so
    many of our activities really have no impact out there on the
    land, and yet we still require the applicants to go through a
    very lengthy process, so we are identifying those types of
    activities so that we can quickly provide that permit.
        Over time, we are going to be moving to e-permitting, so
    where folks have that connectivity in the future, they are
    going to be able to do this through say the Internet or ideally
    on their telephone for a lot of the permits that take up a lot
    of time.
        Senator Murkowski. It takes me back to that roadless rule
    and how we still cannot get that connectivity on our
    Smartphones in so many places. We will work with you on that.
        Mr. Tidwell. That is what this is about. It will free up
    our staff's time to really focus on the bigger proposals that
    we need to put the time into, do the public comment period, be
    able to sit down with the public.
        That is our effort to basically improve our processes and
    really identify a lot of things that we currently permit. We
    ought to be able to just quickly turn that around and make it
    very easy on the applicants, and then free up our time to
    really work on the more significant proposals that come in.
        Those are the things that we are working on this year. We
    made that significant investment to be able to have the staff
    spend the time on it this year so we can move forward with it
    next year.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

        Senator Murkowski. With the funding cuts in the budget,
    will they impact what you are trying to do there as you are
    modernizing or updating this?
        Mr. Tidwell. There is no question when it comes to
    recreation, we have a tremendous backlog, not only in permits
    but in our facilities, and just being responsive and providing
    those outdoors experiences.
        I am hopeful that the efficiencies we can gain through this
    can offset the reduction we see in the budget. We are also
    expanding our work with partners to be able to get more people
    to come to the table to help us on this work.
        Those are the ongoing efforts. I wish we were in a
    different scenario. The reality of it is what we are trying to
    do is focus on the highest priority work, gain efficiencies
    through our processes so that we can continue to be as
    responsive as possible, and really do a much better job when it
    comes to a lot of our special use permits, and especially with
    the recreation activities.
        It is the number one economic activity off the national
    forests throughout the country, and it is not only the jobs
    that are provided, but it is just that quality of life. People
    want to have access. Groups want to be able to go out. That is
    one of the things we want to really change, how we deal with
    applications for groups that want to go out on the national
    forests, whether it is a church group, a scouting group, a city
    supported program, and to find ways that we are going to be
    much more efficient in being able to process those and actually
    eliminate a lot of the process that these folks have had to go
    through in the past.
        Senator Murkowski. Do not get me wrong. I am supportive of
    greater efficiencies and anything that would allow for an
    easier opportunity to access. I do think that has been
    limiting, and I think it has been unduly burdensome at times.
        Working to get this right is something that I appreciate.
    We have had this conversation before where you have had a
    history in a region of being able to derive and maintain a
    local economy because of the availability to harvest on our
    national forests. Our policies have moved us away from that.
        The Forest Service says look to tourism from our national
    forests, use that as your more sustainable economy. We have
    individuals that go that direction, and yet they are stymied
    with their ability to get a permit to do just that.
        When you are a community like Ketchikan, .03 percent of the
    Ketchikan borough is available as a taxable land base because
    everything else is part of our national forests, you basically
    have been told by your national forest you cannot cut trees, go
    ahead and engage in tourism, but we cannot get you the permits
    to do the tourism. Where do you go as an economy?
        So, this is the frustration. It is nothing new, it just
    continues. When you talk about gaining efficiencies, know that
    I want to work with you on that, but you cannot talk about it
    and say this is the direction we are going, and then reduce
    your budget. It does not allow you to get there.
        We will work with you on that. I have way exceeded my time,
    Senator Udall. Please proceed.

                                QUALIFIED PILOTS

        Senator Udall. Thank you. I just have one final question,
    Chief, and thank you so much for your testimony today.
        This is in regard to aviation and fighting fires from the
    air. Additional planes in the pipeline, converted Coast Guard
    C-130Hs, there is a schedule that is working out there. I
    understand there is some talk about having not enough qualified
    pilots for the number of aircraft you expect to operate when
    you are outfitted with a full complement of your contractor and
    government air tankers.
        Are these concerns legitimate, and do you share them?
        Mr. Tidwell. Senator, I am not aware of concerns. I will
    get back to you on that. I have not heard that.
        [The information follows:]

        The USDA Forest Service does not expect problems in hiring enough
    qualified pilots for its C-130 large airtanker fleet. In the summer of
    2015, the Forest Service published a Request For Information in
    FedBizOpps.gov for the programmed fleet of C-130 large airtank:ers.
    There were five companies that responded they would be able to provide
    the necessary pilots for the program. The responses included companies
    currently under contract with the Forest Service as well as companies
    not under contract. It included different approaches to staffing such
    as taking current airtanker pilots and training them in the C-130 as
    well as hiring experienced C-130 airtanker pilots. We do not expect
    significant changes in industry's ability to provide pilots.

        Mr. Tidwell. As we move forward to bringing on the C-130Hs,
    we are going to contract the operation of those out, and I do
    not expect we are going to have any problems. I know our
    contractors that are providing the large air tankers, they seem
    to have pilots that are capable of flying those aircraft.
        If there is an issue here, I will get back to you, but I am
    not aware of one.
        Senator Udall. Thank you very much, appreciate it. Thank
    you, Madam Chair. I look forward to working with you.
        Senator Murkowski. I do as well, Senator Udall. I
    appreciate it. Chief, I appreciate your time here today. Ms.
    Elliot, we did not ask you any questions. The Chief was able to
    handle himself adeptly, which we appreciate.
        We clearly have a lot of work to do. I think you have
    genuine commitment from this committee as well as others on the
    Energy Committee, and working with the Secretary to address how
    we are going to deal with the issue of fire and fire budgeting.
    We have to get that behind us. I think that will help to
    address some of the concerns that have been raised today.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                    Questions Submitted to Chief Tom Tidwell
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
                            tongass forest inventory
        Question. In the winter of 2015, the Tongass Advisory Committee
    (TAC) recommended the Forest Service complete a comprehensive stand-
    level inventory of young growth and old growth (to come up with bridge
    timber) on the Tongass in order to determine the volume of timber
    available to transition the timber program to young growth in the
    artificial timeframe called for by our last Secretary of Agriculture.
        In July 2015 the State of Alaska and USDA State & Private Forestry
    have entered into a $4 million challenge cost share agreement to
    inventory a sample of young growth (and old growth) on Prince of Wales
    Island. Two and a half million dollars will be used to improve forest
    resource inventory information and $1.5 million will be used to support
    workforce development, improve forest industry infrastructure, and
    support young growth forest management practices.
        It is my understanding that approximately 11,000 acres of young
    growth and 11,000 acres of old growth have been surveyed so far and the
    next field season is gearing up. I want to be clear, I still believe
    this work should have been done before the Tongass Land Plan was
    amended to lock in the last Secretary's transition timeline and I hope
    this administration will wait to move forward with the transition until
    it has this information.
        Given that you have finished more than a third of the 70,000 acres
    that are part of the sample inventory what are the preliminary results?
    Is there any ``fall down'' in the timber availability estimates because
    of timber harvest prescriptions or additional land set-a-sides needed
    to meet current Forest Service environmental standards and guidelines?
        Answer. Preliminary results of the inventory are not yet available.
    The focus of the fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017 field seasons
    has been on the collection of the data (plots) as well as meeting the
    other deliverables in the agreement (workforce development and all
    lands/all hands southeast Alaska-wide engagement). The forest expects
    to post the raw survey data online soon. Verified stream data is
    critical in determining fall down acreages.
        Question. How much additional funding, if any, will the Forest
    Service need to complete the comprehensive inventory called for by the
    TAC of all timber resources (not just this sample study underway) and
    does the Forest Service plan to move forward to accomplish that work?
        Answer. The Tongass Advisory Committee recommended the Forest
    Service ``complete a thorough analysis of young growth inventory at the
    stand level in the first 3 years of the transition to more accurately
    predict the young growth timing and supply to complete the
    transition.'' The stand-level inventory currently being conducted under
    the Challenge Cost Share agreement between the Forest Service and the
    State of Alaska includes both young growth and old growth. The
    information gained from this inventory, along with other existing
    information, is of sufficient scope and depth to plan project-level
    timber sales. We believe that the amount of data being collected during
    2016-2018, as funded by the Challenge Cost Share agreement, will be
    sufficient to complete a comprehensive inventory for the Tongass.
        Question. Do you have enough money in your budget to implement
    another TAC recommendation that the Forest Service fund a ``cut up''
    study to determine if there are products that can successfully be made
    and marketed using the quality of Young Growth that grows in the
    Tongass? Is production of Cross Laminated Timbers (CLTs) for
    construction a likely market for Tongass Young Growth?
        Answer. There is currently sufficient funding in the fiscal year
    2017 budget to complete the remaining layout and conduct all necessary
    plot measurements in advance of harvesting. The ``cut-up'' study is
    being designed by the Pacific Northwest Research station in Juneau.
    Sites have been selected and verified on the ground. The study plan
    calls for harvesting, sorting, transporting, and milling to occur via a
    separate contract in the spring of 2018. Funding early in fiscal year
    2018 would be necessary to ensure implementation during 2018.
        Production of cross laminated timber (CLT) could be a future option
    for Tongass young growth, and would depend on reliability of the timber
    supply; cost of power needed for drying, dressing, laminating, and
    pressing the timbers; and whether the end product can be cost
    effectively transported into the market stream. While demand for CLT is
    growing throughout the United States, with more than 100 CLT buildings
    in planning stages at this time, additional analysis needs to be done
    on supply and demand for CLT to see if it is a viable future option for
    Tongass young growth.
                                hazardous fuels
        Question. Is moving Hazardous Fuels funding out of Wildland Fire
    Management and into National Forest System part of a cohesive strategy
    that will improve management of our national forests and lead to
    healthier ecosystems and less catastrophic fire?
        Answer. Yes. Hazardous fuels treatments will be better coordinated
    with other National Forest System treatments, which should improve
    effectiveness and allow the Forest Service to improve our ability to
    achieve integrated outcomes in a financially constrained reality.
        Question. How will it make the program more effective or more
    efficient?
        Answer. Because hazardous fuels management occurs primarily on
    National Forest System lands, this shift will allow for hazardous fuels
    work to be better coordinated and integrated with other treatments.
        Question. Will the ecological underpinnings of the program be
    maintained as it is moved into a budget system that has a landscape
    level approach?
        Answer. Yes. The Hazardous Fuels program will continue its
    ecological approach to reduce wildfire risk and develop resilient
    ecosystems.
        Question. What is being done to make certain that the highest
    priority acres are the ones that are treated?
        Answer. Assessments of fuels treatment effectiveness show that 91
    percent of treatments were effective in changing fire behavior and/or
    helping to control wildfire in fiscal year 2016. Hazardous fuels
    treatments are prioritized to focus on areas with highly valued
    resources like communities, areas of high fire potential, and areas
    where the agency could alleviate risk most effectively. The agency
    continues to evaluate the risk to communities and monitors the
    effectiveness of fuels treatments to ensure highest priority acres were
    addressed.
        Question. How does the Forest Service plan to prioritize cross-
    boundary treatments?
        Answer. The Hazardous Fuels program emphasizes cross-boundary work
    through efforts such as the Joint Chiefs' Landscape Scale Restoration
    program with the Natural Resources Conservation Service as well as
    selecting projects that reduce wildfire risk where communities are
    actively engaged. The Forest Service will continue to prioritize
    funding where multiple efforts are working to treat the landscape
    across ownerships.
           collaborative forest landscape restoration (cflr) program
        Question. The fate of the individual CFLR projects is unclear in
    the budget documents. Given that CFLR projects historically are also
    funded with dollars outside the CFLR line, does the budget propose to
    eliminate the individual CFLR projects or would it keep the
    collaboratives in place?
        Answer. Although the fiscal year 2018 budget proposal includes the
    elimination of this program, existing CFLRP projects, and the
    collaboratives they support, will remain in place and will be funded
    through other agency programs that do restoration work. The Forest
    Service will continue to promote collaborative forest management and
    landscape scale restoration strategies within our other programs.
        Question. Do you have updated information to quantify how the CFLR
    program reduced unit costs, either for acres treated or per unit of
    wood produced; how CFLR project areas have reduced NEPA costs and
    increased the speed with which NEPA analysis is completed; how many
    actual acres have been treated in CFLR project areas compared with non-
    CFLR acres since 2010; and, how those numbers compare with the unit's
    pre-CFLR performance?
        Answer. The Forest Service does not maintain information on the
    cost per acre or unit of wood sold by CFLR. While the funds
    appropriated through the CFLR authorization cannot be spent on NEPA
    analysis, we have learned that collaboration can result in NEPA
    efficiencies. Agency-wide in 2016, completing the NEPA analysis
    (defined as from Notice of Intent to signed Finding of No Significant
    Impact or Record of Decision), took 730 days for Environmental
    Assessments (EAs) and 1,373 days for Environmental Impact Statements
    (EISs). CFLR projects increased community support for large scale
    projects, reduced number of objections to projects and--for the most
    part--eliminated lawsuits. Preliminary data show CFLR projects
    completing NEPA analyses in less time:
      --In Colorado, the Escalante Landscape Restoration Stewardship EA
            took 192 days.
      --In Colorado, the Dove Vegetation Management Project EA took 615
            days.
      --In Oregon, the Magone EIS took 808 days.
      --In Idaho, the Lost Creek Boulder Creek EIS took 557 days.
        CFLR projects also increased community support for large-scale
    projects, reduced number of objections to projects and--for the most
    part--eliminated lawsuits. The five forests with CFLR projects averaged
    a 43 percent increase in hazardous fuels treatment after starting CFLR.
    As a point of comparison, over the same period, the Region as a whole
    experienced a 10 percent increase, and without the CFLR projects, the
    Region actually declined. The five forests with CFLR projects showed a
    14 percent increase in timber volume sold, compared to a 7 percent
    increase across the Region over the same time period.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Increase in Performance
      Measure Outputs After    Region 6 CFLR Forests      Total Region 6
              CFLR
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hazardous fuels           43 percent increase...  10 percent increase
     treatments
    Timber volume sold        14 percent increase...   7 percent increase
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

             wildland fire management preparedness funding changes
        Question. The Forest Service proposes to move funding for the first
    8 hours of work per day for a firefighter, known as ``base 8'' pay, out
    of fire suppression and into preparedness. This certainly reflects a
    more accurate and disciplined approach for funding firefighter pay and
    puts the agency in-line with practices at other agencies. How will this
    impact the Forest Service? Will switching to this type of accounting be
    seamless or do you anticipate this change causing a significant
    disruption?
        Answer. The Base 8 shift moves the Forest Service to a more
    disciplined budget structure because salaries for all firefighters are
    planned for in full, rather than making assumptions about how often
    during a fire season they will be deployed to an incident. This will
    improve national and regional accountability, as well as budget
    planning to support appropriate levels of firefighting resources. We
    are preparing to implement this change officially starting October 1,
    2017 and do not expect this change to cause significant disruption.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
                       natural resources and environment
        Question. On May 11, Secretary Purdue announced a reorganization at
    USDA, which included moving the Natural Resources Conservation Service
    out of the Undersecretary of Natural Resources and Environment's
    portfolio, leaving only the Forest Service within his or her purview.
    What are the benefits to the Forest Service and its employees in this
    organizational shift?
        Answer. The Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
    will be able to focus attention on the mission of the Forest Service
    and the agency's employees, giving more attention to the crucial task
    of managing our national forests and ensuring Federal land managers are
    good and helpful neighbors to surrounding private land owners.
                           forest and range research
        Question. How will the proposed decreases in the President's budget
    for research related to wildland fire & fuels, invasive species
    recreation, resource management, water, air & soil, and wildlife & fish
    support the fiscal year 2018 budget's stated goal to acquire knowledge
    to better manage forests and expand markets for wood and biomass?
        Answer. Forest Service research will continue to provide the
    foundation to manage forests for resiliency to a variety of forest
    threats, including fire, insects and diseases, and drought. The agency
    will focus research and monitoring efforts on targeted and immediate
    needs of National Forest System land managers so we continue to meet
    management objectives. Research investments that do not contribute to
    immediate National Forest System land management needs will be reduced.
    The Forest Service will continue economic evaluations, data collection,
    and development of management tools necessary for National Forest
    System managers. This enables them to assess and address wildfire risk,
    detect and respond to invasive species, conduct watershed condition
    assessments, write NEPA impact statements, and document air quality
    status and trends as part of the Clean Air Act's New Source Review/
    Prevention of Significant Deterioration program that protects Class I
    Wilderness Areas. The agency will also continue to work with non-
    government organizations and solicit industry input to grow new markets
    and support research on mass timber products.
                            state & private forestry
        Question. Do the proposed reductions and eliminations of State &
    Private Forestry programs represent a retreat from the ``all lands, all
    hands'' focus of previous years?
        Answer. Partnerships are critical in implementing and delivering
    State and Private Forestry (SPF) programs. Through a coordinated effort
    in management, protection, conservation education, and resource use,
    SPF programs help facilitate sound stewardship of lands across all
    ownerships on a landscape scale. Meanwhile, they offer flexibility to
    individual forest landowners to pursue their objectives. The fiscal
    year 2018 President's budget reduces funding for some SPF activities to
    focus resources on maintaining existing national forests and
    grasslands, including elimination of funding for the Urban and
    Community Forestry and Landscape Scale Restoration programs. This
    budget will require greater shared stewardship of the land between the
    Forest Service, other Federal agencies, and State and local communities
    to achieve our goals.
        Question. It is often said that the Chief of the Forest Service is
    the ``Chief Forester for America's Forests.'' And, the role of the
    Forest Service is to apply its direct and indirect role to the
    management, protection and use of all forests, including the 138
    million acres of urban forests. Does the proposed President's budget
    enable the Forest Service to carry out this ``all-lands'' stewardship
    responsibility? If not, what is required of the agency to achieve this
    mission-directed responsibility?
        Answer. While the fiscal year 2018 budget focuses Forest Service
    resources and activities on the maintenance of the National Forest
    System lands, the agency will continue to work with State, Tribal, and
    private partners to the extent possible in support of the all-lands
    approach to sustaining and restoring the Nation's forests. This budget
    will require greater shared stewardship of the land between the Forest
    Service and State and local communities to achieve our work.
        Question. What outreach is the Forest Service doing to States to
    determine the impact of the proposed funding cuts in State & Private
    Forestry on implementing State forest conservation plans?
        Answer. States are in the early stages of updating their State
    Forest Action Plans, which should be completed by 2020. The Forest
    Service is in close, ongoing coordination with State agencies, who are
    aware of the potential impacts of the fiscal year 2018 budget on State
    programs.
        Question. How will the administration fulfill its commitment to
    working more closely with States and assisting them with their forest
    action plans with the President's budget proposal to eliminate the
    Landscape Scale Restoration Program, which funds the top national
    priorities in States' forest action plans?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2018 President's budget reduces funding for
    some activities to focus resources on maintaining existing national
    forests and grasslands. This resulted in the elimination of funding for
    programs on and off National Forest System lands, including the
    Landscape Scale Restoration program. This budget will require greater
    shared stewardship of the land between the Forest Service and State and
    local communities to achieve our forest management goals.
        Question. Community and urban trees can be considered critical
    infrastructure for both rural communities and cities and State
    Foresters utilize the Community and Urban Forestry Program to make
    communities more livable, healthier, energy efficient and vibrant by
    funding seed money for the planning, planting, and long-term care of
    trees. How does the elimination of funding for this program in the
    President's budget advance the administration's goals of building
    infrastructure and assisting states and underserved communities?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2018 budget enables the Forest Service to
    focus on the maintenance of the National Forest System lands. This
    resulted in the elimination of funding for programs off National Forest
    System lands, including the Urban and Community Forestry program. This
    budget will require greater shared stewardship of the land between the
    Forest Service and State and local communities to achieve our work and
    to reach underserved communities.
        Question. Last year, over 80 percent of the Nation's wildfires and
    almost half of the acres burned occurred on State and private lands.
    The State Fire Assistance, Volunteer Fire Assistance, Cooperative
    Forest Management, and Hazardous Fuels programs all provide significant
    resources for non-Federal partners to prevent and suppress fire, which
    knows no boundaries. Will the President's budget's proposed cuts to
    these programs increase or decrease the potential costs of Federal
    firefighting and wildfire devastation?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2018, the budget request proposes $69.4
    million to assist State and local response agencies in providing
    wildland fire response through the State Fire Assistance program.
    Funding at this level will assist State and local agencies in
    implementing pre-fire prevention and mitigation programs and to develop
    and maintain an effective wildfire suppression capability as described
    in a State's Forest Action Plan.
        The fiscal year 2018 budget request proposes $11.6 million to
    provide financial assistance to communities of 10,000 or fewer
    residents to strengthen and maintain fire suppression capacity. Program
    funding helps Federal, State, and local agencies deliver a uniform and
    coordinated response to wildfire by training, equipping, and organizing
    volunteer fire departments. Through this program, the agency provides
    support that helps rural communities prepare for, mitigate, and respond
    to natural and human-caused fires to prevent the fires from spreading
    to lands managed by other jurisdictions.
        Many factors, including increasing temperatures, the
    unpredictability of precipitation, and vegetative fuel accumulation,
    are amplifying the effects and costs of wildfires. It is very difficult
    to predict the percentage of wildfire occurring in a given year on a
    particular land ownership. Further, more development is taking place in
    the wildland-urban interface, leading to increased densities of people
    and infrastructure. This makes management more complex and requires
    more firefighting assets to ensure an appropriate, safe, and effective
    response that protects lives and property.
        Question. Without Forest Legacy funding, or the other State &
    Private Forestry programs eliminated by this budget, how will the
    Forest Service assist States in preventing the fragmentation of
    environmentally significant forests?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2018 President's budget reduces funding in
    some programs to focus resources on maintaining existing national
    forests and grasslands. This resulted in the elimination of funding for
    programs on and off National Forest System lands, including the Forest
    Legacy Program. This budget will require greater shared stewardship by
    States, communities and private land owners to accomplish valuable
    forest management goals, including preventing forest fragmentation.
        The Forest Service will maintain its responsibility to execute and
    monitor Forest Legacy projects funded to date, including 20 projects
    funded through fiscal year 2017. The Forest Service will continue to
    work with States as they update required State Forest Action Plans and
    seek to develop strategies with States to utilize other Federal and
    non-profit funds.
                             national forest system
        Question. The Forest Products budget line is kept at the fiscal
    year 2016 enacted level, which is estimated to allow for 3.2 billion
    board feet of timber. However, every other National Forest System and
    Capital Improvement and Maintenance line item necessary to achieve
    projected forest product outputs is proposed for reduction. How will
    the Forest Service meet its objectives for timber sales with these
    cuts?
        Answer. Building and maintaining roads in support of the timber
    program remains a high priority for the agency. The budget proposal
    requests $75.2 million for roads, which will be sufficient to maintain
    a workforce ready to implement priority work. For the purpose of timber
    harvest, the Forest Service will focus on leveraging mandatory funding
    sources where appropriate, such as Timber Salvage Sales, which can
    offset some of the cost for design and administration of timber haul
    roads.
        Question. What impacts will the reduced funding levels in the
    President's budget have on the ongoing effort to modernize and improve
    the outfitter-guide permitting system? Will these proposed cuts result
    in the elimination of staff positions needed to administer the
    permitting system?
        Answer. Within the fiscal year 2018 request, modernizing and
    improving the outfitter-guide permitting system remains a high
    priority. There will be no impact on this modernization effort. There
    will not be cuts to staff working on permit modernization. As we
    prioritize this work, we will ensure the project has sufficient staff
    to succeed.
                      capital improvement and maintenance
        Question. What is the current dollar total of the Forest Service
    deferred maintenance backlog? Will the President's budget request
    reduce or increase that backlog, and by how much?
        Answer. The current deferred maintenance backlog totals
    approximately $5.5 billion. The budget proposes $99.7 million for
    Capital Improvement and Maintenance. If no other investments are made
    towards the agency's roads, trails, and facilities, the agency's
    deferred maintenance backlog will grow, but the amount of growth is not
    known.
        Question. The Forest Service estimates that recreation on National
    Forests sustains 143,000 jobs and contributes roughly $10 billion to
    the economy. What will be the economic costs in jobs and dollars of the
    proposed cuts to Capital Improvement and Maintenance line items?
        Answer. The Forest Service remains committed to supporting rural
    infrastructure needs which support visitor spending and small
    businesses that depend on recreation. The fiscal year 2018 budget
    proposal allocates $99.7 million for Capital Improvement and
    Maintenance, $11.7 million for facilities, $12.7 million for trails and
    $75.2 million for roads. This requested funding will maintain a
    workforce to perform critical work and improvements.
        We will work to maximize the use of our $60-70 million collected
    annually in recreation fees, but the use of these fees is
    circumscribed--95 percent of fees must be used on the forest where they
    are collected, and fees are limited to uses relating to improving the
    recreation experience. We are already using these fees, and collections
    are relatively flat.
        Question. How will the elimination of the Legacy Roads and Trails
    program impact the Forest Service's statutory responsibility to protect
    water quality on National Forest lands and how will the Forest Service
    ensure the impacts on water quality from roads continue to be
    addressed?
        Answer. Maintaining water quality and quantity remains an important
    priority for the agency. The Forest Service remains committed to doing
    priority work under our regular (non-Legacy) roads and trails programs,
    including maintenance and decommissioning of roads and trails as
    appropriate. The Forest Service will prioritize roads and trails work
    based on managing existing infrastructure and maintaining public safety
    and needed access, and defer other projects as needed, including those
    impacting water quality.
        Question. What programs besides Legacy Roads and Trails are
    uniquely designed to address the impacts on water quality from forest
    roads?
        Answer. We do not have another program uniquely designed to address
    water quality issues resulting from roads. However, under our multiple
    statutory authorities to protect clean water, we will continue work to
    restore degraded and at-risk watersheds and address road-related
    impacts to water quality. In addition we will continue work to maintain
    or improve the condition of those watersheds in good or better
    condition. These efforts are supported by a number of Forest Service
    programs, such as maintaining and decommissioning roads through our
    Roads program. We will also address water quality impacts through the
    Hazardous Fuels, Vegetation and Watershed Management, and Wildlife and
    Fish Habitat Management programs.
                                land acquisition
        Question. Why is the Forest Service proposed for zero funding for
    Land Acquisition, apart from $7 million in acquisition management, when
    the Interior bureaus did receive program funding for inholdings,
    emergencies, and hardship projects?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2018 President's budget focuses resources
    on maintaining existing National Forests and Grasslands, rather than
    acquiring new Federal lands or interests in lands. Based on that
    rationale, the budget proposes completing land acquisitions that
    Congress previously appropriated. The Forest Service and the Interior
    bureaus have different missions and rationale for their budgets and the
    Forest Service cannot comment on another bureau's decisionmaking
    process.
                            wildland fire management
        Question. How will the increase to the 10-year average and the
    commensurate reductions to management programs that reduce wildfire
    suppression costs over the long term further exacerbate the risk of
    catastrophic wildfire?
        Answer. Due to the shift of base 8 funding (the first 8 hours per
    day worked by a firefighter) from Preparedness to Suppression in the
    fiscal year 2018 President's Budget, the 10-year average cost of fire
    suppression decreased. As a whole, however, Wildland Fire Management
    costs now consume greater than 50 percent of the Forest Service budget.
    The ongoing shift in resources necessary to fund wildland fire
    management has had an impact on many aspects of land management,
    including capital investment, deferred maintenance, and forest
    restoration projects that help reduce the risk of future fires. These
    are dollars lost to the fire program before a single fire even starts
    and cannot be regained through transfer repayment. They are permanently
    shifted to fire and away from essential land management activities that
    could be accomplished.
        Question. What changes need to occur now and in the near future to
    stop the increasing proportion of the Forest Service budget that is
    devoted to wildland fire management? What is the current leadership of
    the agency doing to effect that change?
        Answer. The administration recognizes budget challenges for
    ensuring sufficient resources to fight fire. The administration is
    committed to finding a solution that addresses the growth of fire
    programs as a percent of the agency's budget, and also ends the
    practice of transferring funds from non-fire programs when suppression
    funds fall short before the end of the fiscal year. We are reviewing
    potential administrative actions and legislative options to address
    longstanding wildland fire funding concerns. Principals at USDA and the
    Department of the Interior will work with the Office of Management and
    Budget to develop a responsible approach that addresses risk
    management, performance accountability, cost containment, and the role
    of State and local government partners in ensuring adequate funds are
    available for wildfire suppression without undue disruption to land
    management operations.
        Question. What aspects of the President's budget will assist the
    Forest Service in implementing the National Cohesive Wildland Fire
    Management Strategy, including using fire as an ``essential ecological
    process'' and to ``actively manage the land to make it more resilient
    to disturbance?''
        Answer. The foundation of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire
    Management Strategy (Cohesive Strategy) is that the active involvement
    of all levels of government and non-government organizations, as well
    as the public, is necessary to seek national, all-lands solutions to
    wildland fire management. The fiscal year 2018 President's budget
    supports several programs and authorities that assist the agency in
    implementing the Cohesive Strategy, including (but not limited to):
      --A robust Preparedness program will ensure that fire management
            assets, such as large air tankers, helicopters, hot shot crews
            and smokejumpers, are available to support response operations
            on National Forest System, other Federal, State, and private
            lands. These response efforts will reduce threats to life and
            values at risk, promote ecosystem integrity, and be consistent
            with land management objectives laid out in the Cohesive
            Strategy.
      --The State Fire Assistance Program will continue to provide
            financial assistance through partnership agreements with State
            Foresters to help homeowners and communities in fire-prone
            areas take responsibility for fire protection. The program
            contributes to the Cohesive Strategy, ensuring strong
            collaboration among government and non-government organizations
            to seek all-lands solutions to wildland fire management. This
            is important because first responders on almost 75 percent of
            wildfires are local fire departments or State agencies.
      --The Volunteer Fire Assistance VFA program will continue to provide
            technical and financial assistance to qualifying local
            volunteer fire departments that protect communities with
            populations of 10,000 or fewer. Volunteer fire departments play
            a key role in educating constituents about fire adaptation and
            the need for mitigation, and they help meet expanded fire
            protection needs within the wildland-urban-interface in the
            context of the Cohesive Strategy.
      --The Hazardous Fuels program is a key component of the Cohesive
            Strategy. In fiscal year 2018, the program will continue to
            contribute to restoring and maintaining resilient landscapes,
            creating fire adapted communities, and improving response to
            wildfires.
        Question. How does the President's budget enable the Forest Service
    to adequately address the pace and scale necessary to restore America's
    forests and begin reducing the dominating focus of the Service on fire
    suppression?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2018 President's budget focuses resources
    on maintaining national forests and grasslands and reduces funding for
    other activities. The administration recognizes budget challenges for
    ensuring sufficient resources to fight fire; it is committed to finding
    a solution that addresses the growth of fire programs as a percent of
    the agency's budget, and also ends the practice of transferring funds
    from non-fire programs when suppression funds fall short before the end
    of the fiscal year. Principals at USDA and DOI will work with the
    Office of Management and Budget to develop a responsible approach that
    addresses risk management, performance accountability, cost
    containment, and the role of State and local government partners in
    ensuring adequate funds are available for wildfire suppression without
    undue disruption to land management operations.
        Question. The current Wildland Fire Management program has two
    primary components: operations, focused on preparedness and
    suppression; and a hazardous fuels program that has strong ecological
    and natural resource management components. Given the real concern of
    the Forest Service becoming the Fire Service, why purposefully isolate
    fire operations functions by transferring the hazardous fuels program
    to the National Forest System appropriation?
        Answer. Hazardous fuels treatments will be better coordinated and
    integrated with other National Forest System treatments, which should
    improve effectiveness and allow the Forest Service to achieve
    integrated outcomes.
        Question. The fiscal year 2018 budget proposes to pay for
    firefighters' base salary and benefits within the Preparedness program
    rather than the Suppression program. Why is this change being made?
        Answer. The base salary and benefits shift moves the Forest Service
    to a more disciplined budget structure because the salaries for all
    firefighters are planned for in full, rather than making assumptions
    about how often during a fire season they will be sent to an incident.
    This will improve national and regional accountability, as well as
    budget planning to support appropriate levels of firefighting
    resources. We are preparing to implement this change officially
    starting October 1, 2017.
                                other operations
        Question. What is the purpose of moving the Hazardous Fuels
    reduction program to the National Forest System appropriation? Does
    this proposal in any way change the emphasis or the distribution of
    funds for the fuels program?
        Answer. Because hazardous fuels management occurs primarily on
    National Forest System lands, hazardous fuels treatments will be better
    coordinated with other National Forest System treatments, which should
    improve effectiveness and allow the Forest Service to improve our
    ability to achieve integrated outcomes. The intent is to improve
    coordination and integration and we don't anticipate any change in
    emphasis or distribution of funds at this time.
        Question. Why does the budget move only the Hazardous Fuels
    program, but not the other research or grants programs created by the
    National Fire Plan, that have also been funded within Wildland Fire
    Management over the last 15 years?
        Answer. Because hazardous fuels management occurs primarily on
    National Forest System lands, hazardous fuels treatments will be better
    coordinated with other National Forest System treatments, which should
    improve effectiveness and allow the Forest Service to improve our
    ability to achieve integrated outcomes in a financially constrained
    reality. The National Fire Plan Research and Development program
    conducts research to support management of fire-affected landscapes to
    sustain forest health, reduce the risk of fire, and ensure public and
    firefighter safety. The State Fire Assistance and Volunteer Fire
    Assistance programs provide financial assistance to State and
    qualifying volunteer fire departments to protect Federal, State, and
    private forestlands threatened by wildfire and to ensure an all-lands
    approach to wildland fire management. These programs are closely
    aligned and coordinated with the Preparedness and Suppression programs
    that continue to be housed within Wildland Fire Management.
        Question. State and Volunteer Fire Assistance are proposed for cuts
    of 11 and 23 percent respectively. How many fewer fire engines or
    equipment will State and local partners be able to purchase and outfit?
        Answer. State Fire Assistance funding is allocated to the State
    forestry agencies and they use it, among other purposes, for the
    purchase of engines, dozers, equipment, training and hiring of
    personnel for their State forestry agencies. Of the portion of the
    funds spent on engines (which are generally replaced on a 5-6 year
    cycle), a Type 3 engine generally costs $280,000 and a Type 6 engine
    generally costs $150,000 each, so the number of engines going
    unpurchased would be based on the needs of States and cannot be
    quantified for this response.
        Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) funding supports volunteer fire
    departments (VFDs). VFDs do not purchase new engines with VFA funding
    but use the funding to convert surplus military trucks into wildland
    engines at a cost of approximately $30,000 each. At this cost,
    approximately 45 fewer surplus trucks would be converted for service in
    2018.
        Question. The budget zeroes out the Joint Fire Science program,
    which is a partnership between Forest Service and the Interior
    Department, stating that it is duplicative of other fire research.
    However, Interior does not eliminate their funding for this program.
    Will the Forest Service provide other funds to this joint endeavor, or
    will it rely on Interior to pay for it all
        Answer. The President's budget proposes to eliminate the Forest
    Service's participation in the Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP). The
    agency will complete existing JFSP-funded projects but will not
    contribute additional funds to the program. Out of its appropriation,
    the Forest Service will continue management-driven fire research that
    is similar to or complements JFSP research.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
    mark twain national forest--collaborative forest landscape restoration
                                    program
        Question. Mr. Tidwell, I have previously communicated with you
    regarding the management of the Mark Twain National Forest (MTNF) and
    specifically actions taken under the Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration Program (CFLRP). In recent years, management actions
    performed at MTNF have seemed to focus almost exclusively on
    environmental restoration and less on collaborative approaches with
    input and involvement from local communities. Unfortunately, this lack
    of cooperation has led to decreased forest health and less
    opportunities for the forest products industry workforce. One such
    example can be seen in the fact that MNTF experiences annual hardwood
    mortality equivalent to 200 million board feet. These are resources
    that our forest products industry and local communities can and want to
    harvest in a sustainable manner. Unfortunately, because of misguided
    programs and bureaucratic inefficiencies, MNTF has only seen a maximum
    of 70 million board feet of timber harvested a year or 1/3rd of the
    total mortality volume alone. I am encouraged that your budget calls
    for the elimination of the CFLRP.
        Can you elaborate on the decision to propose the elimination of
    this program?
        Answer. CFLRP outcomes and outputs were duplicative with other
    Forest Service programs. By eliminating CFLRP, the fiscal year 2018
    budget proposal reduces duplication among Federal programs and
    refocuses how the Forest Service is managing national forests and
    grasslands. The Forest Service can work collaboratively on projects
    without a separate CFLR program and will continue to promote
    collaborative forest management and landscape scale restoration
    strategies within our other programs.
        Existing CFLRP projects, and the collaboratives they support, will
    remain in place, and will be funded through other agency programs that
    do restoration work. The Forest Service will continue to promote
    collaborative forest management and landscape scale restoration
    strategies within our other programs.
        Question. Can you describe how eliminating this program will reduce
    duplication with other Forest Service programs?
        Answer. Other Forest Service programs also do restoration work on
    National Forest System lands, including the Integrated Resource
    Restoration (IRR) program, which includes the Forest Products program,
    the Hazardous Fuels program, and activities funded under the Vegetation
    and Watershed Management and Wildlife and Fisheries Management
    programs. While existing CFLRP projects can be funded at the forest,
    regional and national levels, we will continue to promote collaborative
    forest management and better integration in pursuit of outcomes across
    all our programs.
                            forest products program
        Question. The fiscal year 2018 budget request call for bolstering
    the Forest Products Program with a planned sale target of 3.2 billion
    board feet of timber. I believe it is important to not only set a
    reasonable sale target for this year, but to also take actions that
    reinforce the timber sale pipeline to take full advantage or future
    increases in timber sales.
        Can you tell me any actions the Forest Service is taking, or
    planning to take, to strengthen the timber sale pipeline?
        Answer. The agency is taking a number of steps to build capacity
    and address other issues that have hindered our efforts to reach higher
    output levels.
        Greater utilization of the Good Neighbor Authority will help
    leverage our capacity without adding additional permanent positions. A
    total of 95 Good Neighbor agreements in 29 States have been used to
    perform a variety of restoration services.
        The Forest Service has developed and is implementing a strategy to
    address the issue of timber sales that receive no bids. Regions are re-
    evaluating the logging and haul costs to develop more accurate data.
    Regional Office appraisal specialists are reviewing a higher percentage
    of appraisals prior to advertisement and working with the forests to
    develop feasible timber sales.
        The Forest Service is addressing mill capacity by reviewing
    available mill locations and increasing restoration investments there.
    We are encouraging local industry to participate in the NEPA/sale
    planning process and coordinating with entrepreneurs who are looking to
    invest in infrastructure (shavings plants, pellet manufacturing) that
    could help absorb some of the low value material on some timber sales.
    Industry across the country is investing in new products/markets such
    Glulam and cross laminate beams.
        Question. Do you foresee the potential for an increase in the sales
    target in coming years?
        Answer. Yes. The agency is taking a number of steps to increase our
    capacity and ability to achieve greater timber outputs over the next
    several years. We are investing in Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite
    Quantity (IDIQ) contracts to increase NEPA and sale preparation
    capacity. Training courses are being developed for NEPA, Stewardship
    Contracting, and the use of other Farm Bill authorities, including
    Designation by Prescription which increases the efficiency of timber
    sale preparation. We expect to continue utilizing all of the Farm Bill
    authorities, including Good Neighbor, Stewardship Contacting, and
    Insect and Disease Designations to increase our ability to reach higher
    output levels.
                          public private partnerships
        Question. Public Private Partnerships are a key feature of many of
    the administration's infrastructure and transportation proposals.
    Looking at how the Forest Service interacts with industry, I think
    there is an opportunity to explore expansion of public private
    partnerships through stewardship agreements, timber sales, or other
    innovative initiatives. Utilizing the private sector can provide dual
    benefits of improving forest management while creating jobs and
    increasing economic activity.
        Is the Forest Service currently working on any new initiatives that
    would allow the Forest Service to better utilize the private sector for
    forest management or other functions?
        Answer. The Forest Service is exploring the potential use of
    innovative financing mechanisms, such as partnerships to protect
    critical water sources through on-the-ground forest management and
    restoration, the potential for performance bonds linked to water
    security and wildfire/flood prevention benefits, and possible ``pay for
    success'' models to fund sustainable infrastructure. We are in the
    feasibility and site scoping stage of piloting some of these models.
        Question. Are there existing programs that can be strengthened to
    allow the private sector to perform management activities that the
    Forest Service has not had the resources or ability to address?
        Answer. The Forest Service is looking closely at how we can
    continue to build on private sector partnerships to achieve an array of
    mutually beneficial outcomes. Healthy forests can reduce costs to
    municipalities, utilities, and water-dependent companies and provide
    jobs in rural areas. We are actively exploring the use of innovative
    financing mechanisms to fund restoration work and are in the
    feasibility and site scoping stage of several promising models. The
    Forest Service has also seen success with more traditional
    partnerships, such as with the Coca Cola Company that has replenished
    over 1 billion liters of water within watersheds near bottling and
    production facilities around the country.
        We continue to explore and use existing programs that strengthen
    our ability to perform beneficial activities using existing authorities
    like the Tribal Forest Protection Act, Stewardship Contracting, and
    Wyden Authority. Successful partnerships and collaborative efforts have
    led to the restoration of millions of acres of terrestrial habitat, and
    thousands of miles of streams.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Steve Daines
                              cottonwood decision
        Question. Senator Tester and I have introduced legislation (S. 605)
    to statutorily reverse the disastrous Ninth Circuit Court decision in
    Cottonwood Environmental Law Center vs. U.S. Forest Service. According
    to the Obama Administration, this decision has the ``potential to
    cripple'' Federal land management across Ninth Circuit states. Citing
    the Cottonwood decision, courts have already halted four forest health
    projects in Montana.
        Does the Forest Service support the bipartisan effort to
    statutorily reverse this decision?
        Answer. Yes. The Department, working with the Office of General
    Counsel, provided language to resolve the Cottonwood decision in
    response to legislative drafting requests. Briefings have occurred with
    Senate and House committees as well as individual Congressional staffs.
        Question. Can you elaborate on the existing and potential negative
    impacts of the Cottonwood decision across Ninth Circuit States?
        Answer. The Forest Service Regions conducted an analysis of
    potential impacts of the decision and identified 80 vegetation
    management projects (timber sales, pre-commercial thinning, fuels
    treatments, prescribed burns, etc.) in the Northern Region (R1), Rocky
    Mountain Region (R2), and the Intermountain Region (R4) that could be
    litigated and/or possibly enjoined.
        Projects enjoined by these lawsuits account for approximately 29
    percent of R1's planned fiscal year 2017 timber volume. The Stonewall
    project injunction could affect 23 timber sales on 19,459 acres,
    producing 246.5 million board feet under contract, and planned in
    fiscal year 2017. All but three sales are in Montana. More than 72,000
    acres across three States and over 100 million board feet of timber
    could be enjoined. The decision could potentially affect more than 50
    percent of the agency annual offered volume.
        R1 has broad exposure from a potential blanket injunction due to
    strategic programming and partner investments in these landscapes. The
    State of Montana has invested $290,000 over 2 years into three projects
    in lynx critical habitat. These projects surround or are adjacent to
    the communities of Missoula, Whitefish, and Red Lodge. In excess of $5
    million of supplemental hazardous fuels funding has been invested on
    Federal, private, State, county, and city lands adjacent to projects
    with lynx critical habitat. These investments could be at risk if the
    Forest Service is precluded from implementing vegetation treatments in
    lynx critical habitat until consultation is completed. Potential
    affected communities include Missoula, Helena, Superior, Red Lodge,
    West Yellowstone, communities along the I-90 corridor, and others.
        Question. To be clear, do the potential impacts extend beyond just
    vegetation management projects in areas with lynx critical habitat?
        Answer. Yes. The, 9th Circuit decision in Cottonwood Environmental
    Law Center v. Krueger substantially increases Endangered Species Act
    (ESA) compliance procedural requirements while providing few or no
    benefits to listed species. The decision has broad implications that
    could force the agency to re-consult at programmatic levels (Forest
    Plans, agency rules) whenever an ESA trigger occurs: new information
    about a current species is received, critical habitat is designated, or
    there is a new listing. This new standard discounts project-level ESA
    compliance, adds 6-8 months of additional regulatory compliance, and
    may force the agency to re-consult any time new information (or other
    ESA triggers) is received (such as through a comment period on a
    project National Environmental Policy Act comment period).
        The number of lawsuits relying on this 9th Circuit decision is
    likely to increase to not only timber sale projects, but other agency
    activities in lynx habitat (e.g., grazing). There are seven lawsuits to
    date (five in 9th Circuit). The latest litigation is Native Ecosystems
    Council v. Erickson (17-0053) (Smith Shields Forest Health Project) and
    Native Ecosystems Council v. Marten (17-00047), both filed in April,
    2017. The agency has also received four additional Notices of Intent to
    sue (NOIs), which raise issues similar to those in Cottonwood for bull
    trout. We expect this trend to extend to other species such as the
    Northern Spotted Owl. This may affect projects across California,
    Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
        Question. Do you agree that the Cottonwood repeal legislation would
    still be needed even after the Forest Service completes the ongoing re-
    initiation of consultation concerning lynx?
        Answer. Yes. As stated above, we anticipate this litigation trend
    to continue and spread to other species affecting numerous programs and
    activities across the Forest Service. Based on litigation related to
    Cottonwood, the Forest Service has begun the process of reinitiating
    consultation on the Bull Trout Critical Habitat.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                                 tree mortality
        Question. California's historic 5-year drought killed over 102
    million trees across the State, and the impacts will continue to be
    felt for years to come. Due to the drought, bark beetles proliferated
    at much higher rates, and the weakened trees could not fend them off.
    Even with record rains this past winter, trees will continue to die,
    and fire risk will continue to grow unless the pace and scale of
    hazardous fuels removal projects is accelerated.
        Additionally, the record-setting precipitation has only added to
    safety hazards, with oversaturation increasing the risk of dead trees
    falling on people, roads, critical infrastructure, and into rivers and
    streams. According to the Forest Service, it typically takes one to 3
    years after an above-normal precipitation year before trees regain
    their natural defenses against bark beetles.
        Forest Service Region 5, has stated there are 90,000 NEPA-ready
    acres in high hazard zones ready for hazardous tree removal projects.
        How do you plan to address California's tree mortality crisis?
        Answer. The agency's focus remains on mitigating hazards in areas
    where dead trees threaten life and property (high hazard zones). We
    also continue to focus on fuel break maintenance for fire protection.
        In fiscal year 2016, the agency redirected $43 million to remove
    dead and dying trees to help protect the public and employees from
    falling trees and wildfire risk in high hazard areas near communities,
    in recreation sites, along roads and trails. In fiscal year 2017, the
    agency will direct about $37 million to continue to address dead tree
    removal in and around communities, recreation sites, along roads,
    trails, and other values at risk. For fiscal year 2018, the Forest
    Service will remove dead trees within the NEPA-ready acres in high
    hazard areas on the Sequoia, Sierra, and Stanislaus National Forests as
    funding is identified.
        Question. Will you provide or reprogram additional resources to
    ensure Region 5 can begin tree removal work on the 90,000 NEPA-ready
    acres, which I understand is estimated to cost $90 million?
        Answer. The agency will look for opportunities to identify and
    provide additional funding to complete the remaining 90,000 NEPA-ready
    acres in the high hazard acres on the Sequoia, Sierra, and Stanislaus
    National Forests.
        Question. Will additional resources be provided for the Tree
    Mortality Task Force to complete essential work to reduce fire risk and
    also improve forest health?
        Answer. The Forest Service has committed to keeping tree mortality
    response as one of the Region's top priorities in California. Working
    alongside our partners on the Governor's Tree Mortality Task Force, we
    will continue to focus and work together to help address the health and
    safety concerns posed by dead trees in California. Building on the work
    we completed using funding provided in fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year
    2017, we will continue to look for opportunities to apply additional
    resources towards this work.
        The second phase of the agency's tree mortality response will be
    challenging. We will need to concurrently focus on felling hazard trees
    as well as ecological restoration of our forests to improve forest
    health, protect critical watersheds, and rebuild forest resilience.
                   lake tahoe restoration act implementation
        Question. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act was enacted last December
    and renews the Federal commitment to restoring and preserving this
    national treasure and its basin.
        With $415 million authorized over 7 years, Federal agencies will
    continue to play an important role in the historic partnership between
    nonprofit, private sector, State, and local entities committed to
    combating invasive species, reducing fire risk and managing forests,
    managing stormwater pollution, and other important restoration goals.
        How do you plan to implement the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act and
    provide the funds necessary to make necessary advances in restoring
    Lake Tahoe?
        Answer. The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) will seek
    opportunities to leverage non-Federal contributions and continue to
    move ahead with fire risk reduction projects and utilize the
    categorical exclusion to reduce forest fuels, as identified in the Act.
    The LTBMU's program of work remains aligned with regional priorities on
    ecological restoration and the projects identified within the Lake
    Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program. Agency funds received to
    invest in the LTBMU, including from appropriation, the Southern Nevada
    Public Land Management Act, and other sources, will continue to treat
    five- to seven-thousand acres of hazardous fuels annually. These funds
    will support the ecological projects underway, which have been
    identified as priorities for future planning, design, and
    implementation.
                      lake tahoe western side tree removal
        Question. I have been visiting Lake Tahoe since childhood, and I
    was recently there in May. I was alarmed at the amount of dead and
    dying trees, especially on the western shore of the lake. As you know,
    California is experiencing a historic tree mortality crisis, and the
    Lake Tahoe Basin is no exception.
        What efforts is the Forest Service undertaking to remove hazardous
    dead trees, especially on the western shore of the lake near people and
    infrastructure, where we have previously seen serious wildfires?
        Answer. The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) is addressing
    tree mortality and the removal of hazard trees through a variety of
    efforts and partnerships. The Forest Service, along with the Tahoe Fire
    and Fuels Team and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, has established
    the Lake Tahoe Basin Tree Mortality Task Force for coordination of tree
    mortality response between multiple stakeholders. Fuels reduction and
    forest health projects are continuing around Lake Tahoe, and within
    those projects we are removing dead and dying trees. Additionally, a
    Decision Memo was recently signed approving the West Shore Wildland
    Urban Interface (WUI) Fuels Reduction and Forest Health project. This
    project will implement fuels and forest health treatments on 4,975
    acres along the west shore and will also include the removal of dead
    and dying trees. The LTBMU has been working to secure funding to
    implement that project.
        In April of 2017, the LTBMU completed inventories of all developed
    recreation sites within the Tahoe Basin for hazard trees. Prior to
    opening these sites, permits were issued and trees were removed by
    concessionaires and partners. In addition, Forest Service crews have
    removed hazard trees at recreation sites not managed under permit. With
    assistance from the Tahoe Rim Trail Association, the LTBMU is
    inventorying hazard trees along forest trails on the Nevada side of the
    Tahoe Basin; this effort will expand to the California side, should
    funding become available.
        Crews are patrolling National Forest System roads and inventorying
    hazard trees, prioritizing them for removal. Agency fire crews are
    removing hazards along those roads with the help of partners, such as
    the California Conservation Corps and Calaveras Healthy Impact Product
    Solutions (CHIPS)--Washoe Tribe Crew, both crews paid for with Forest
    Service tree mortality funding. The LTBMU is also removing hazard trees
    along forest boundaries adjacent to private lands as notifications are
    received from private parties. We are currently working with Caltrans,
    Liberty Energy, Nevada Energy, and Pacific Gas and Electric on tree
    removal projects along State highways, including State Route 89 along
    the west shore, and several utility corridors.
        Question. How is Forest Service addressing this threat to Lake
    Tahoe communities?
        Answer. The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) has been a
    focus of the Pacific Southwest Region, along with other forests
    experiencing tree mortality in the region. Of the additional funding
    that has been reallocated in support of the region's tree mortality
    efforts, the LTBMU has been able to initiate agreements with partner
    organizations to increase a local response. Additionally, the Forest
    Service continues to coordinate and actively support California's
    statewide tree mortality task force. As additional resources are made
    available, priority projects, including those in Lake Tahoe, will be
    considered.
        Additionally, in 2016, in collaboration with the National Forest
    Foundation, the California Tahoe Conservancy, and other partners, the
    Forest Service launched the Lake Tahoe West Large Landscape
    Collaborative (referred to as ``Lake Tahoe West''). Lake Tahoe West is
    a stakeholder-informed collaborative effort, utilizing the best
    available science to develop a Landscape Resiliency Assessment,
    Landscape Restoration Strategy. It will also produce an environmental
    analysis for a series of restoration projects specifically designed to
    improve the resiliency of the west shore landscape to disturbances
    including, fire, insects and diseases, and drought.
                            expanding mill capacity
        Question. One of the recurring issues that are currently impeding
    dead tree removal work in California is the lack of sufficient mill
    capacity to process all of the dead trees.
        How is the Forest Service working with local mills in California to
    increase capacity and accelerate transportation of harvested National
    Forest material to local mills as quickly as possible?
        Answer. The Forest Service is taking a multi-faceted approach to
    remove unprecedented volumes of dead and dying trees:
        1.  Statewide Wood Products Industry Opportunity Study.--A
    statewide study funded by the Forest Service was completed in 2015 to
    explore and define feasible technology and markets that could absorb
    more forest thinning and non-saw log material. Results helped focus
    both regional Forest Service grants and State Tree Mortality Task Force
    market development efforts. Subsequently, Forest Service Wood
    Innovation Grants were awarded to study feasibility of an oriented
    strandboard plant to lease harvest and transport equipment and to
    perform product testing for biochar.
        2.  Accelerate Transportation.--Removing the trees in a timely
    manner will help preserve the tree value enough to help defray costs of
    harvest and transportation. National forests are using all NEPA tools,
    including NEPA streamlining authority provided in the Farm Bill Insect
    and Disease provision, to shorten environmental review and still comply
    with laws and regulations. Industry has also brought up the issue of
    insufficient loggers, logging equipment, and trucks due to reductions
    in overall timber sales and uncertainty about biomass power plant
    contracts.
        3.  Biomass Efforts.--The Forest Service has a strong interest in
    biomass development efforts and provided millions of dollars in grant
    funds to accelerate development of small biomass plants closer to
    forests. Under the State of California BioMAT (Biomass Market Adjusting
    Tariff) program, one plant is under construction in North Fork, near
    the epicenter of the tree mortality in the Sierras, and others are
    being developed in Wilseyville and Mariposa.
        In addition, newly awarded 5-year biomass power contracts require
    annually increasing amounts of biomass to be sourced from CAL FIRE high
    hazard zones, much of it from national forests. Two of these are near
    the highest concentration of tree mortality: Rio Bravo Fresno (Fresno)
    and Pacific Ultrapower (Jamestown).
        Question. What funds is Forest Service dedicating to reducing the
    cost of transporting material to mills once harvested from Federal
    lands?
        Answer. The Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region estimates it
    would require $31-37 million in transportation subsidies for each of
    the next 5 years to move about 250 million board feet, or 50,000
    truckloads, of dead wood from CAL FIRE designated high hazard zones on
    national forests.
        The Federal Government assists with transportation costs via the
    USDA Farm Agency's Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) matching
    payments, but funds were reduced nationwide from around $12.5 million
    in 2014 to $1.5 million in 2016 and 2017. Nationwide, BCAP facilitated
    the removal of over 288,000 dry tons (approximately 65 million board
    feet) of forest residue from national forests between 2014 and 2016.
    Fully-funded BCAP matching payments would allow that amount to increase
    to roughly 625,000 dry tons per year (approximately 153 million board
    feet).
        In addition to transportation subsidies through BCAP, the Forest
    Service is able to provide support for transportation costs using
    stewardship contracts and agreements. Where low-value forest products
    must be removed, their transportation costs may be offset by the
    inclusion of higher value forest products and/or the addition of
    appropriated funds and stewardship retained receipts.
        Investments made by the Forest Service in technologies and
    businesses that can absorb lower value logs and biomass, such as small
    biomass power plants, are expected to reduce transportation costs since
    they are located closer to the forest, though not to the extent of
    sawmills or the larger industrial biomass power plants.
        Question. Is the Forest Service willing to enter into stewardship
    contracts longer than 10 years in order to incentivize the creation of
    additional mill capacity?
        Answer. Yes, we would. However, current stewardship contract
    authority allows for a 10 year maximum.
                               blue-stained wood
        Question. I understand from Forest Service studies that the blue-
    stained wood resulting from bark beetle infestations, is equally as
    strong as a live tree if harvested within the appropriate time-frame.
        What, if any, actions is Forest Service undertaking to promote the
    use of ``blue-stained'' pine, both commercially and by consumers?
        Answer. Blue stain wood has been an issue for the Forest Service
    and industry since at least the 1920s. Recently, the Forest Service has
    taken a number of steps to encourage more use of blue-stain lumber,
    both nationally and in California.
        Mass Timber.--The Forest Service is active in supporting
    development of cross-laminated timber (CLT) and mass timber veneer to
    increase the markets for dimension lumber. Thirteen Forest Service 2017
    Wood Innovation Grants were awarded to encourage technology and market
    development, including one to a university to further test
    incorporation of blue stain dimension lumber.
        Other examples from California include:
      --A pilot project to design and utilize blue stain lumber for basic
            conference room furniture, wall displays, and interpretive
            displays to be promoted inside the agency and to partners.
      --Two Wood Innovation Grants, one awarded to a local non-profit to
            better assess the blue stain market and increase sales of
            strongly differentiated blue stain wood, and another to a
            small, portable mill collaborative to increase use of blue
            stain lumber and better service small, non-industrial
            landowners. Previous Forest Service grants have supported
            animal bedding, mulch, and pallet operations that can use blue
            stain trees.
      --The Forest Service is working with CalTrans to incorporate blue
            stain ponderosa pine as an acceptable species to be treated and
            used for sign posts and potentially to be tested for use as
            highway guardrail posts and blocking.
                            good neighbor authority
        Question. The Good Neighbor Authority allows the Forest Service to
    enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with States to allow
    States to perform watershed restoration and forest management services
    on National Forest System lands. Congress has passed two laws expanding
    Good Neighbor Authority: the fiscal year 2014 Appropriations Act and
    the 2014 Farm Bill.
        How is Forest Service utilizing the Good Neighbor Authority in
    California to address the tree mortality crisis and reforest areas that
    have previously burned?
        Answer. In February 2016, under the 2014 Farm Bill authority, the
    Forest Service in California signed a broadly focused ``Master
    Agreement'' under Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) with the California
    Natural Resources Agency (CANRA). It allows for Supplemental Project
    Agreements (SPAs) to be signed at the national forest-level with any of
    the CANRA associated State agencies to carry out authorized forest,
    rangeland, and watershed restoration. To date, two SPAs have been
    signed, both with CAL FIRE.
        The best example of GNA being used to address tree mortality is
    with the Sierra National Forest and CAL FIRE in and around the High
    Sierra Ranger District where an executed SPA allows for CAL FIRE crews
    to remove standing dead trees that are a hazard to public safety
    (hazard trees) on National Forest System lands. Combined with a
    complementary Wyden Authority Agreement, which allows Forest Service
    crews to work on private and State lands, the Forest Service and CAL
    FIRE can work collaboratively on all lands, leveraging their strengths
    and resources over the next 5 years to treat insect and disease tree
    mortality areas to reduce fire risk, maintain public safety, and
    improve forest health. There are no funds transferred between the two
    agencies as part of this SPA. Only the first year's activities were
    defined and subsequent work will be defined as needed, including
    potential reforestation of areas.
        Additionally, the Eldorado National Forest and CAL FIRE have
    established a GNA to implement parts of the South Fork American River
    (SOFAR) and Fire Adapted 50 projects addressing fuels reduction and
    fire breaks for surrounding communities. The Lake Tahoe Basin
    Management Unit, along with the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and
    the Bureau of Land Management- Nevada State Office, are in the final
    stages of negotiating a Master Agreement with the Nevada Department of
    Conservation and Natural Resources, Nevada Department of Wildlife, and
    Nevada Department of Agriculture. At least two other forests are
    working with State CANRA agencies to negotiate additional Good Neighbor
    Agreements this year.
        In addition to areas that have been previously burned, the Forest
    Service's Tree Mortality Response Team is currently identifying tree
    mortality areas where the GNA could be used to work across boundaries
    and treat larger landscapes in cooperation with our partners.
                             wildfire budget reform
        Question. Over the last several years, the Forest Service has
    repeatedly sounded the alarm on the rising percentage of budgetary
    resources dedicated to the wildland fire management account due to
    longer fire seasons driven by climate change, more people living in the
    Wildland Urban Interface, and other factors.
        There have been previous legislative proposals to create a budget
    cap adjustment, as well as other mechanisms, that would free up
    additional resources so that the Forest Service can devote more of its
    funding to forest health and mitigation, rather than expensive
    suppression activities.
        As the Forest Service's own analysis shows, for every $1 decrease
    in preparedness, suppression costs rise by $1.70 on average. In the
    face of this challenge, the budget proposes a $937 million decrease in
    the Forest Service budget with no proposal to fix the current problem
    of both the rising 10-year suppression average and fire borrowing.
        How does the Forest Service plan on being able to fulfill its
    mission while requesting a 16 percent cut to its budget?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2018 President's budget focuses resources
    on maintaining existing national forests and grasslands and has reduced
    duplicative efforts. We will also maximize use of our mandatory
    programs. This budget will require greater shared stewardship of the
    land between the Forest Service and State and local communities to
    achieve our work.
        The fiscal year 2018 President's budget does not propose funding
    for the FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund. There are
    inefficiencies in operating between two accounts for one purpose;
    therefore the budget proposes to fully fund the 10-year average for
    Suppression and not request funding in the FLAME account to maximize
    operational and administrative efficiencies.
        The administration is committed to addressing the growth of fire
    programs as a percent of the agency's budget and ending the practice of
    transferring funds from non-fire programs when suppression funds fall
    short before the end of the fiscal year. Principals at USDA and the
    Department of the Interior will work with the Office of Management and
    Budget to develop a responsible approach that addresses risk
    management, performance accountability, cost containment, and the role
    of State and local government partners in ensuring adequate funds are
    available for wildfire suppression without undue disruption to land
    management operations.
        Question. Why didn't the Forest Service request legislative
    language for the wildfire budget fix, as the previous administration
    did?
        Answer. The administration is reviewing potential administrative
    actions and legislative options to address longstanding wildland fire
    funding concerns. Principals at USDA and DOI will work with the Office
    of Management and Budget to develop a responsible approach that
    addresses risk management, performance accountability, cost
    containment, and the role of State and local government partners in
    ensuring adequate funds are available for wildfire suppression without
    undue disruption to land management operations.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
        Question. During the proposed budget for fiscal year 2017, the
    Forest Service expressed its support for Congressional reauthorization
    of the Secure Rural Schools and Self-Determination Act. The agency
    emphasized that SRS supported economic opportunities for local
    communities, and that Title II funds increased local participation in
    forest management. As we consider the budget for fiscal year 2018, SRS
    still hasn't been reauthorized and the Forest Service has not included
    a recommendation to reauthorize in its budget proposal.
        Does the Forest Service continue to support Congressional efforts
    to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Self Determination Act in a
    way that provides funding commensurate with fiscal year 2015 levels?
        Answer. The Forest Service is committed to working to find ways to
    provide more certainty to counties and the agency is willing to work
    with Congress to address this.
        Question. What role does the Forest Service plan to give to
    Resource Advisory Committees without reauthorization of the SRS
    program?
        Answer. Title II of the Secure Rural Schools Act provided for the
    establishment of resource advisory committees (RACs) to review and
    recommend projects to forest supervisors. RACs are chartered for title
    II purposes only. RACs have until September 30, 2017 to recommend title
    II projects from fiscal years 2014-2015. The Forest Service has not
    determined whether to re-charter RACs for other purposes if the SRS Act
    is not reauthorized.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        A lot that we need to do within our national forests. We
    appreciate your leadership, and we stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., Wednesday, June 7, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

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

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2017

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

        The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski (Chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Murkowski, Udall, Merkley, Alexander,
    Daines, Van Hollen, Capito, Leahy, Tester, and Hoeven.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    STATEMENT OF HON. RYAN ZINKE, SECRETARY
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            OLIVIA BARTON FERRITER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET,
                FINANCE, PERFORMANCE, AND ACQUISITION
            DENISE A. FLANAGAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Good morning. The subcommittee will come
    to order. I would like to welcome the Secretary of the Interior
    before our subcommittee, our subcommittee here this morning. We
    are going to have an opportunity to review the fiscal year 2018
    budget requests for the Department of the Interior.
        This morning we have Secretary Zinke. He is accompanied by
    Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget, Finance, Performance,
    and Acquisition, Olivia Ferriter, as well as the Director of
    the Office of Budget, Denise Flanagan. We welcome both of you.
        I had an opportunity to have the same panel before me
    yesterday in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, so it
    is not a redo for me certainly because I have more questions,
    but a great opportunity for the rest of the Interior
    Appropriations Subcommittee to make inquiry on this budget
    proposal.
        We will adhere to the early bird rule this morning. I will
    look forward to 6 minute rounds of questions. Hopefully, we
    will have a chance to ask more than one round as Members.
        Turning to the budget request, it is $10.6 billion for
    programs within the jurisdiction of the Interior Subcommittee.
    This is $1.6 billion below the enacted level, a reduction of 13
    percent. And as with every President's budget request, there
    are portions of the budget that I support and other areas that
    raise concern.
        Last year at the Department's budget hearing I pointed out
    to the previous secretary that the President's request included
    numerous budget gimmicks to provide additional spending for
    popular programs without any offsets. But, Mr. Secretary, the
    budget that we are looking at now, in my view, does not use
    gimmicks, but it does propose some real cuts to the programs.
    So I welcome the opportunity to look carefully at all the
    programs that receive appropriations in the Interior bill to
    evaluate whether the choices your budget makes are worthwhile.
        We should consider whether reforms could help improve
    efficiency, whether some activities may be better performed by
    the States, and whether there are duplicative programs that can
    be streamlined. I am not in favor of the wholesale elimination
    of or drastic reductions to programs simply to hit a budget
    number.
        And I have told many of your predecessors that the
    Secretary of the Interior is oftentimes referred to as Alaska's
    landlord. When we were up in the State together, you referred
    to us as being partners. I certainly prefer that relationship
    to being a landlord, but I think we recognize that when a
    Department has authority over 220 million acres in a State like
    mine, and that does not include the millions of acres of the
    Outer Continental Shelf waters, it certainly puts you in a
    unique position as Secretary. And so we want to make sure that
    you have got the resources that you need to meet the
    Department's responsibilities.
        So some of the proposed reductions, as I have mentioned to
    you, I find troubling. For example, the State of Alaska and
    Alaska Natives are still waiting for the Department to convey
    title to millions of acres of their lands more than 50 years
    since statehood. So it is tough for me to accept a 34 percent
    reduction to the Department's programs that issues conveyances
    to those who have waited so long to get title to their lands.
        Alaska also has one-half of all federally recognized
    Tribes. The BIA provides essential programs for Alaska Natives
    that are fundamental to the Federal Government's legal
    obligations to our first people. So I am concerned by many of
    the proposed reductions to the BIA, particularly the
    elimination of the Tribal Courts Program for which I secured
    funds for the first time in fiscal year 2016. This program
    provides critical resources to Tribal courts in some of the
    most remote villages in our State which are confronting
    widespread domestic violence, sexual assault, and substance
    abuse. So this is an area that I want to go in further with
    questions.
        Finally, I know my western colleagues share my concern with
    the proposed reduction for the PILT program of $68 million.
    This is a 15 percent reduction. PILT is absolutely essential
    for our rural areas to support roads, schools, and police.
        And while there are many program reductions that trouble
    me, I am pleased that your request made hard choices and
    provided some programs with strong funding levels. The budget
    provides full funding for contract support costs in BIA by
    maintaining the indefinite appropriation language that I first
    included in the fiscal year 2016 Appropriations bill. This has
    helped provide certainty for Tribes and protected other BIA
    programs in case additional funds are needed to meet the
    Government's legal obligations.
        I am also pleased that the request includes full funding
    for the 10-year average for wildland firefighting. This is
    something that the previous administration did not do. And
    while the budget does not include any type of fix for fire
    borrowing, it does acknowledge the problem. It expresses the
    administration's willingness to work with Congress on a
    solution.
        We had the Chief of the Forest Service before this
    subcommittee 2 weeks ago and we talked about the need, the
    imperative to work together on this. And I think a new
    administration and folks that are working earnestly to address
    this will hopefully allow us to finally resolve the problem of
    fire borrowing.
        There are a number of policy proposals in the budget that I
    strongly support such as the opening of the 1002 area in ANWR
    for energy development. In Alaska today, the Department of the
    Interior will hold an offshore lease sale in Cook Inlet. I
    think this is good news for us, but it reminds me that the last
    administration excluded some of the most promising areas in
    Alaska's Arctic OCS from its 5-year leasing plan. The
    Department's budget request commits resources to rewriting this
    plan so that important areas in Alaska and elsewhere in the
    lower 48 will receive proper consideration.
        So, Mr. Secretary, I know you have just been on the job for
    a short while here, but I greatly appreciate that you have
    taken the time already to come to Alaska, to spend time, to
    listen to Alaskans, to not only focus on resource issues, but
    to meet with so many of our native leaders, and to understand
    some of the considerations that relate to our people. These are
    challenging times when we have to make choices with budgets,
    but know that I look forward to working with you as we work to
    identify the highest priorities and making sure that you have
    the resources that you need to fulfill your goals for the
    Department.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Senator Lisa Murkowski
        Good morning everyone. The hearing will come to order.
        Today, we will review the fiscal year 2018 budget request for the
    Department of the Interior. I'd like to welcome our witnesses this
    morning: Secretary Zinke, who is accompanied by Deputy Assistant
    Secretary for Budget, Finance, Performance & Acquisition, Olivia
    Ferriter, and the Director of the Office of Budget, Denise Flanagan. I
    chaired a budget hearing yesterday in the Energy and Natural Resources
    Committee with the Secretary so I appreciate the opportunity to discuss
    the details of the budget request with you further this morning, Mr.
    Secretary.
        As a reminder, we'll adhere to the ``early bird rule'' for
    recognizing Members for questions. I will call on Members in the order
    they arrive, going back and forth between the majority and the
    minority. We'll do 6-minute rounds of questions. It's my hope that
    we'll be able to do 2 to 3 rounds of questions in an effort to give
    everyone an opportunity to address the issues they wish to raise.
        Turning to the budget request for the Department of the Interior--
    it is $10.6 billion for programs within the jurisdiction of the
    Interior subcommittee. This is $1.6 billion below the enacted level, or
    a reduction of 13 percent. As with every President's budget request,
    there are portions of the budget that I support and other areas that
    raise concern.
        Last year at the Department's budget hearing, I pointed out to the
    previous Secretary that the President's request included numerous
    budget ``gimmicks'' to provide additional spending for popular programs
    like the centennial celebration for the National Park Service without
    any offsets. By contrast, your budget doesn't use gimmicks--it proposes
    real cuts to programs. This is a refreshing change, and I welcome the
    opportunity to carefully examine all the programs that receive
    appropriations in the Interior bill to determine whether the choices
    your budget makes are worthwhile. We should consider whether reforms
    could help improve efficiency, whether some activities may be better
    performed by the States, and whether there are duplicative programs
    that can be streamlined.
        However, I am not in favor of the wholesale elimination of, or
    drastic reductions to programs simply to ``hit a budget number.'' I've
    told many of your predecessors that the Secretary of the Interior is
    often called ``Alaska's Landlord.'' This is not an overstatement--the
    Department has over 220 million acres in Alaska under its jurisdiction
    and that doesn't include the millions of acres of Outer Continental
    Shelf waters. The unique position of the Secretary in Alaska requires
    that you have the resources available to meet your Department's
    responsibilities.
        That's why some of these proposed reductions are troubling. For
    example, the State of Alaska and Alaska Natives are still waiting for
    the Department to convey title to millions of acres of their lands more
    than 50 years since Statehood. So it's hard for me to accept a 34
    percent reduction to the Department's program that issues conveyances
    to those who have waited so long to receive title to their lands.
        Alaska also has one-half of all federally recognized Tribes. The
    Bureau of Indian Affairs provides essential programs for Alaska Natives
    that are fundamental to the Federal Government's legal obligations to
    our First Peoples. I'm troubled by many of the proposed reductions to
    the BIA--particularly the elimination of the Tribal Courts program for
    which I secured funds for the first time in fiscal year 2016. This
    program is providing critical resources to Tribal courts in some of the
    most remote villages in our State--confronting widespread domestic
    violence, sexual assault, and substance abuse.
        Finally, I know my western colleagues share my concern with the
    proposed reduction for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program of
    $68 million, or 15 percent. PILT is absolutely essential for our rural
    areas to support roads, schools and police.
        While there are many program reductions that trouble me, I am
    pleased that your request made hard choices and provided some programs
    will strong funding levels. The budget provides full funding for
    Contract Support Costs in the Bureau of Indian Affairs by maintaining
    the indefinite appropriation language that I first included in the
    fiscal year 2016 appropriations bill. This has helped provide certainty
    for Tribes and protected other BIA programs in case additional funds
    are needed to meet the Government's legal obligations.
        I'm also pleased that the request includes full funding for the 10-
    year average for wildland firefighting--something the previous
    administration did not do. While the budget does not include any type
    of ``fix'' for fire borrowing, it acknowledges the problem and
    expresses the administration's willingness to work with Congress on a
    solution. As I told the Chief of the Forest Service 2 weeks ago, this
    is an issue that we must work on together. The change of administration
    offers a unique opportunity with new leadership to finally resolve the
    problem of fire borrowing in a fiscally responsible way.
        There are a number of policy proposals in the budget that I
    strongly support such as opening of the ``1002 area'' of the Arctic
    National Wildlife Refuge for energy development. In Alaska today, the
    Department of the Interior will hold an offshore lease sale in Cook
    Inlet. This is good news, but it reminds me that the last
    administration excluded some of the most promising areas in Alaska's
    Arctic OCS from its 5-year leasing plan. The Department's budget
    request commits resources to re-writing this plan so that important
    areas in Alaska and elsewhere in the Lower 48 will receive proper
    consideration.
        Mr. Secretary, you have been on the job for only a short time, but
    I deeply appreciate that you have already traveled to Alaska to learn
    more about our State. You have made several policy decisions that will
    help improve our economy and the lives of all Alaskans. There is
    genuine optimism that your leadership can make a real difference as we
    face a challenging economy.
        This year's budget will require the subcommittee to make tough
    choices. I am optimistic that we will be able to address many of the
    highest priority needs of Members of this subcommittee--including some
    of those that were not included in the President's request. Mr.
    Secretary, I look forward to working with you and your staff to
    identify your highest priorities so that we can ensure that you have
    the resources you need to fulfill your goals for the Department.
        Thanks to all the witnesses for being here this morning. Now I will
    turn to my colleague and Ranking Member from New Mexico, Mr. Udall.

        With that, I will turn to my Ranking Member for his
    comments and then we will hear from you, Mr. Secretary.
        Senator Udall.

                         STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM UDALL

        Senator Udall. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski.
    Good to see you again, Secretary Zinke.
        Mr. Secretary, you are being asked to do a tough job by
    defending this budget request. I appreciate your willingness to
    come before this subcommittee to answer our questions this
    morning. I would like to thank Olivia Ferriter and Denise
    Flanagan from the Department. Really, appreciate you both being
    here. I recognize that the President's budget request is only a
    starting point for the fiscal year 2018 budget process, but I
    want to make it clear how concerned I am by the priorities
    expressed in this document.
        In my view, a budget that cuts $54 billion from non-defense
    programs is anything but balanced. Balanced means fair and
    equitable, but there is nothing fair or equitable about this
    budget request. Instead, what we have before us today is a
    proposal to slash more than $1.5 billion from the Interior
    Department's budget. This budget claims to take care of the
    agency's core functions by focusing on existing Federal lands
    rather than grants or new land acquisitions.
        The result is a budget request that cuts the payment in
    lieu of taxes program by 15 percent. It cuts 84 percent from
    land acquisition and State grants funded through the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund. Grants and science programs are
    slashed. And in the end after all the other hard choices, the
    budget still guts the budgets of the bureaus that care for
    existing Federal lands.
        Funding to operate national parks is cut by almost $200
    million. BLM operations are cut by more than $130 million. And
    the budget takes another $100 million from the Fish and
    Wildlife Service operations. These cuts would have undeniable
    impacts to the landscape and to the ability of the public to
    access and enjoy our public lands.
        I am equally troubled by the reductions in this budget for
    Tribal programs. Funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs is
    cut by 13 percent with nearly every program on the chopping
    block. Indian education is cut by $100 million. BIE school
    construction is zeroed out. Tribal natural resources, law
    enforcement, social services, and water settlement programs are
    slashed. Even contract support costs, payments that allow
    Tribes to run their own programs, get cut by 13 percent. We
    need to do better and I think this subcommittee will do better
    when it comes time to write our appropriations bills. And I
    look forward to working with you, Madame Chair, on that.
        But even if Congress restores these budget cuts, that is
    not the end of the story. There are a number of policy and
    management issues that still need to be addressed. Secretary
    Zinke, I was troubled to learn of the Department's recent
    decision to stay provisions of the BLM methane rule despite the
    fact that efforts to block the rule legislatively and in the
    courts have failed. I simply do not understand why it is a
    bridge too far to ask the oil and gas industry to implement
    common sense measures to ensure that natural resources from our
    Federal lands are not being wasted.
        I am also very concerned about the hostile position that
    this administration has adopted towards national monuments,
    including two monuments in New Mexico that are important
    economic engines for the region, Rio Grande Del Norte and the
    Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks. It is no secret that I am
    disappointed by your recent recommendations for the Bears Ears
    National Monument as well as the process you followed to
    develop the interim report. I am very concerned by your
    decision, Mr. Secretary, to spend only one hour with Tribal
    members while other stakeholders received substantially more of
    your time.
        I am also disappointed that your report ignored most of the
    1 million comments you received from the public, the majority
    of which supported the monument designation as it stands today.
    I am concerned about the message that is being sent to Indian
    Country about how this administration views Tribal sovereignty
    and how the fulfillment of the Federal trust and treaty
    responsibilities will be handled by the Department going
    forward.
        And finally, I am troubled by a number of recent personnel
    decisions that call into question the Department's commitment
    to its workforce and to keeping Congress informed of major
    changes to the day to day operations of the Department. These
    include the decision late last week to shuffle dozens of the
    Department's most senior career staff between bureaus. And your
    announcement just yesterday that BLM has started planning to
    reduce its workforce by more than 1,000 positions despite the
    fact that this subcommittee has not yet acted on your budget
    and we are months away from enacting a final bill to set
    funding levels for the Bureau's programs.
        We obviously have a lot to discuss this morning, Secretary
    Zinke, but even though I just laid out a number of areas where
    we disagree, I also know that this subcommittee has a
    longstanding tradition of working closely with your Department
    no matter who is in charge and look forward to that
    relationship continuing. And thank you again for joining us
    today.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall.
        Secretary, good to have you before the subcommittee. We
    would welcome your comments about the budget proposal in front
    of us. Welcome.

                      SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. RYAN ZINKE

        Secretary Zinke. Thank you, and it is a high honor to
    testify today in support of the President's 2018 budget for the
    Department of the Interior. I request permission to submit my
    entire statement for the record.
        The budget. This is what a balanced budget would look like.
    Now, I say that again. This is what a balanced budget looks
    like. It is a starting point and obviously as a former
    Congressman, it is a starting point to negotiate back and
    forth. I understand many Members have different priorities and
    I certainly respect that. But if we are going to have an honest
    and frank discussion about our budget in the United States and
    continuing borrowing, this is what a balanced budget would look
    like in our view.
        I fully appreciate and understand the Department of
    Interior touches the lives of more Americans than any other
    Department. In fact, nearly every American that lies within an
    hour of our public lands enjoys them and those of us in the
    west especially live in the legacy of Roosevelt. We deliver
    water to the west. We manage the national parks and wildlife
    refuges across the country and provide energy development on
    shore and offshore.
        In fact, as you know, the Department of Interior covers
    roughly about 20 percent of our Nation's lands and covers 12
    time zones. The President's budget proposes $11.5 billion and
    saves the taxpayers about $1.6 billion. We have made strategic
    investments to ensure that the Nation's energy and national
    security are met and there are many, many difficult choices.
        The President's budget is an all of the above energy
    strategy and does not favor coal, oil, gas over alternative
    energies. It is all of the above. We have a prudent focus on
    boosting revenues through legislative proposals to raise about
    $5.8 billion.
        Revenues. Everyone is focused on the $1.6 billion in cuts.
    Let me for a moment talk about revenues. In 2008, the
    Department of the Interior made $18 billion alone just in
    offshore revenue. Last year, we made $2.6 billion. That is a
    drop of $15.5 billion a year in revenue just in offshore
    revenue. When you add onshore timber production and the rest of
    the extraction and revenue sources, it gets even worse.
        There was a comment about the parks. We are $11.5 billion
    behind in deferred maintenance and repair. That is a priority,
    but we would have made that up in scale in 1 year and had $3
    billion of additional funds to invest, invest in our schools,
    invest in our treaty obligations, invest in making sure that
    our parks remain world class.
        In pursuit of that, one of my first duties as a Department
    of Interior Secretary is I established the Royalty Policy
    Committee to look at revenues across the board. That includes
    mining, oil and gas, anything that has to do with public lands.
    I want to ensure the public, the taxpayer has an interest in
    it. We are the stakeholders, and should make sure we have
    appropriate revenue. That revenue should not be arbitrary. It
    should be in a good, best faith, Ronald Reagan way, trust but
    verify, but ultimately it should reflect the values and
    importance of the public land and public interest being served.
    When it comes to infrastructure, we did reduce LWCF in land
    acquisition because clearly we need a plan to take care of what
    we have now before we invest in other lands.
        Since I have been Secretary, I have been to Utah, Wyoming,
    Montana, California, Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire,
    Massachusetts, to name a few, including the territories. What I
    have seen is deteriorating infrastructure, especially to the
    front line, whether it is in our national parks, Bureau of
    Reclamation, or fish and wildlife refuges. Our front line is
    short people while the headquarters and middle management seems
    to be just fine and we are shifting priority.
        As a former commander, the front line makes a difference.
    If the front line is healthy, the force is healthy. In my
    judgment, the front line, has been through cost cutting
    measures before that have stripped authority, and have stripped
    resources. We are looking at a plan to push resources from
    middle management and headquarters back to where they belong
    and are most effective, to the front line.
        The budget calls for a $35 million increase for a total of
    $766 million for national park infrastructure and that includes
    $18 million for the first phase of repairing the Arlington
    Memorial Bridge. A surprise as an Interior Secretary, is the
    things that Interior is responsible for outside of parks, to
    include the Memorial Bridge at $262 million. I own gateways and
    roads. About a third of our roads are outside our parks, and
    about a third of our roads, when you look at the level of
    maintenance and repair, it is significant.
        We fully fund fire suppression at a 10-year average. Fires
    in Great Smoky Mountain National Park and out west have cost up
    to $2 billion a year. The Forest Service, which is not under
    the Department of Interior, has 71 million acres of dead and
    dying timber to remove. That is a cost.
        We found savings by reducing Federal land acquisition
    programs, eliminating some programs, and allowing States, local
    communities, and private partners to take the leads in the
    others.
        At the end of the day, the budget represents a balanced
    budget. It is a starting point, but it is a reflection of a
    balanced budget. I hope we can work together to create income
    streams that we can rest against some of our more priority
    projects which include infrastructure and making sure we honor
    our treaty obligations. We can and will maintain our assets. I
    want to make sure we have a world class experience in all our
    public lands and deliver savings to the taxpayers and encourage
    public private partnerships, and which there are many
    opportunities, encourage responsible energy development, and
    organize and reorganize the workforce to make sure that we look
    at what Interior should be doing in the next 100 years.
        I am happy to work with you and I am thrilled to take your
    questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Ryan Zinke
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of the
    subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the
    2018 President's budget for the Department of the Interior which
    provides $11.7 billion for Interior's programs. The budget also
    requests $123.9 million of discretionary Department of Defense
    appropriations to be transferred to the Department of the Interior to
    support enactment of the 2010 Compact Review Agreement with Palau.
        Of Interior's total request, $10.6 billion is within the
    jurisdiction of this subcommittee, a decrease of $1.4 billion or 12
    percent compared to the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution, and a
    decrease of $1.6 billion or 13.4 percent below 2017 enacted. Because of
    the timing between enactment of the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus
    Appropriations Act and submission of the fiscal year 2018 President's
    budget, my statement compares requested funding to the fiscal year 2017
    Annualized Continuing Resolution unless otherwise noted.
                             2018 budget priorities
        The 2018 budget for the Department of the Interior features
    targeted investments to further the administration's America First
    national energy goals. At the same time, this budget reflects the
    President's commitment to fiscal responsibility--proposing sensible and
    rational reductions and making hard choices to reach a balanced budget
    by 2027.
        Across Interior's diverse mission, this budget emphasizes the
    Department's crucial role in promoting economic growth. America's lands
    hold tremendous job-creating assets. Visitors to our parks spend more
    than $18.4 billion in local gateway communities, supporting
    approximately 318,000 jobs and contributing $34.9 billion into the
    national economy according to the 2016 National Park Service Visitor
    Spending Effects Report.
        In 2016, Interior's energy, mineral, grazing, and forestry
    activities resulted in $8.8 billion in revenue to the American people,
    including direct revenue payments to States, Tribes, and local
    communities. These same activities supported $136 billion in economic
    output. In addition, direct grants and payments to States, Tribes, and
    local communities provided an estimated $10 billion in economic output.
        The Department's 2018 budget reflects the administration's
    commitment to strengthen America's economic and energy security, focus
    on the Nation's infrastructure, be responsible stewards of magnificent
    lands, encourage public access for outdoor recreation, and strengthen
    tribal sovereignty and support self-determination.
                                america's energy
        The Department of the Interior is the steward and manager of
    America's natural resources including oil, gas, coal, hydropower,
    minerals and renewable energy sources. The Department has a critical
    role to play in the future energy security of our Nation as well as our
    overall economic well-being. American energy resources create jobs and
    generate significant revenue both to the U.S. Treasury and States. This
    budget proposes $791.2 million in current and permanent funding for
    energy related programs across the Department, an increase of $16.3
    million from 2017. Interior's 2018 budget supports an ``all-of-the-
    above'' energy development strategy, increasing funding for onshore and
    offshore oil and gas, strengthening coal management activities, and
    sustaining the current pace of renewable energy development.
        The budget reflects the importance of offshore energy production to
    America's economic and energy security. The 2018 budget shores up
    offshore oil and gas programs with appropriated funding to continue a
    strong offshore program. The request for the Bureau of Ocean Energy
    Management features a $10.2 million increase to update the Five-Year
    Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, consistent with
    the President's Executive Order Implementing an America-First Offshore
    Energy Strategy to expand offshore oil and gas exploration and
    production. The 2018 budget for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
    Enforcement includes a $1.2 million increase to focus on workforce
    training, permitting, and information technologies to better permit
    exploration, development, and production operations.
        Onshore, the budget requests a $16.0 million increase for the
    Bureau of Land Management's oil and gas management program, providing a
    total of $75.9 million in appropriated funds focused on improving oil
    and gas permit application processing, streamlining leasing, and
    modernizing practices. The budget also includes $19.0 million for the
    BLM coal management program, an $8.0 million increase to reduce
    administrative processing times, simplify the lease application
    process, and improve the timeliness to complete lease sale fair market
    value determinations.
        The 2018 budget includes $78.1 million for Renewable Energy
    programs both on and offshore. Although a reduction from prior years,
    this funding level will sustain the current pace of development at a
    level consistent with anticipated project interest.
        To ensure the public continues to receive the full value of natural
    resources production on Federal lands, in April, I signed a charter
    establishing a Royalty Policy Committee of 28 local, Tribal, State, and
    other stakeholders to advise me on the fair market value of and revenue
    collection from Federal and Indian mineral and energy leases, including
    renewable energy sources.
                          the nation's infrastructure
        Interior plays an important role in maintaining and improving the
    Nation's infrastructure. Interior's national role includes managing
    significant real property assets as well as conducting reviews and
    processing permits to support national infrastructure development as
    part of a balanced multiple land use strategy.
        Interior's 2018 budget maintains the 2017 level of $98.8 million
    for Fish and Wildlife Service planning and consultation activities.
    This level maintains the FWS capability to meet its legal consultation
    requirements and avoid logjams that could delay infrastructure projects
    and associated economic benefits. The BLM budget also directs base
    funding to address siting for energy transmission projects, and
    proposes an increase in the oil and gas management program to
    facilitate rights-of-way associated with energy development projects.
        Interior manages an infrastructure asset portfolio with a
    replacement value exceeding $300 billion, ranging from elementary and
    secondary schools serving Indian children, to highways and bridges
    serving the daily commuting needs of the Washington, D.C., metropolitan
    area. Interior owns approximately 43,000 buildings, 100,000 miles of
    road, and 80,000 structures--including iconic landmarks, as well as
    dams, bridges, laboratories, employee housing, and irrigation and power
    infrastructure. Taking care of this significant asset portfolio is a
    persistent challenge. Interior's deferred maintenance backlog has grown
    to over $15 billion in 2016. Construction and maintenance funding
    across the Department totals $1.4 billion in 2018, not including the
    Bureau of Reclamation.
        From my first day on the job, one of my top priorities has been to
    prioritize efforts to address the National Park Service maintenance
    backlog. Our National Parks have 73 percent of Interior's deferred
    maintenance backlog while hosting 324 million visitors last year. The
    2018 budget for NPS includes $236.3 million for construction and
    deferred maintenance projects, an increase of $21.0 million from 2017.
    Total estimated funding for NPS maintenance and construction needs
    including estimated recreation fee revenue is $765.7 million, an
    increase of $34.7 million from fiscal year 2017. This increase will
    support targeted and measurable upgrades to a number of the NPS'
    highest priority assets including the first phase of repairs to the
    Arlington Memorial Bridge project.
                                america's lands
        In my first days in office, I issued two Secretarial Orders to
    expand access to public lands and increase hunting, fishing, and
    recreation opportunities nationwide. The 2018 budget includes $4.4
    billion for Interior's land management operations in the NPS, FWS, and
    the BLM, a reduction of $354.3 million from 2017. This includes funding
    for operational programs as well as management and maintenance of the
    national parks, national wildlife refuges, and BLM's network of
    national conservation lands. Within land management operations, the
    budget prioritizes funding to protect and conserve America's public
    lands and natural resources, provide access to public lands for the
    next generation of outdoor enthusiasts, and ensure visitor safety.
        To support land management priorities, funding for lower priority
    activities, such as Federal land acquisition projects, is reduced. The
    2018 budget emphasizes taking care of our current assets, rather than
    adding more by purchasing new land. Accordingly, the budget for land
    acquisition programs is $54.0 million, $129.1 million below 2017. A
    small amount of funding is maintained in each bureau for emergencies or
    acquisition of inholdings needed to improve management of established
    areas or to increase public access.
        To better manage and balance these responsibilities, the Department
    relies on its front-line land managers, field scientists, and partners
    to monitor, assess, and collect information about the status of
    resource conditions. Interior's U.S. Geological Survey is the Nation's
    leading source of expertise in earth and natural sciences and works
    closely with other Interior bureaus and State, local, Tribal and other
    Federal partners to help resource managers adapt to changing conditions
    on the ground. The 2018 budget includes $922.2 million for USGS
    programs, to focus on core science activities including land and water
    resources, energy and minerals, mapping, ecosystems, invasive species,
    natural hazards, and environmental health.
        The 2018 request budgets responsibly for the Payments in Lieu of
    Taxes program. The budget includes $397 million for these payments as
    part of the discretionary request, to ensure continued support to the
    communities neighboring Interior and other Federal lands without
    assuming enactment of separate legislation. The 2018 level for PILT is
    reduced 12 percent below the 2017 CR level, consistent with the total
    reduction in the Interior budget.
        A key component of Interior's land stewardship is management of
    wildland fire. The 2018 budget provides $389.4 million for wildfire
    suppression--the full 10-year average of suppression expenditures. This
    level of funding is projected to be sufficient to meet fire suppression
    needs in an average fire season without the risk of needing emergency
    transfers from other departmental accounts.
        The 2018 budget also continues efforts to address the challenges of
    water availability and drought conditions. Within the jurisdiction of
    the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, the budget invests $1.1
    billion in Reclamation water resources to ensure millions of customers
    continue to receive the water and power that are the foundation of a
    healthy economy.
                        america's trust responsibilities
        Interior maintains strong and important relationships with Native
    and insular communities, helping to promote efficient and effective
    governance and to support nation-building and self-determination. The
    Department provides services directly, or through contracts, grants or
    compacts, to 567 federally recognized Tribes with a service population
    of nearly two million American Indians and Alaska Natives. The budget
    prioritizes support for programs serving the broadest service
    population and proposes reductions in initiatives that are more
    narrowly focused. The President's budget maintains the administration's
    strong support for the principle of Tribal self-determination, and
    efforts to strengthen Tribal communities across Indian Country. The
    budget includes full funding for Contract Support Costs and Tribal
    Grant Support Costs that Tribes incur from managing Federal Indian
    programs.
        The 2018 budget request includes $786.4 million to continue support
    for core Indian education programs, including formula funding and
    operation and maintenance funding for elementary and secondary schools,
    and support for post-secondary programs. The 2018 budget continues to
    meet Federal responsibilities outlined in enacted land and water rights
    claim settlements with Indian Tribes, and includes $160.8 million for
    authorized settlements and technical and legal support involving Tribal
    water rights, to maintain the Department's ability to complete these
    settlement requirements within the statutory timeframes.
        In recognition of the importance of the Nation's relationship with
    Palau and the Pacific national security strategy, the budget requests
    $123.9 million of discretionary Department of Defense appropriations to
    be transferred to the Department of the Interior to support enactment
    of the 2010 Compact Review Agreement with Palau.
                             management and reform
        As part of the President's March 2017, Executive Order on a
    Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch, the
    administration launched a government-wide effort to create a leaner,
    more efficient, and more responsive government. The Order directs
    agencies to begin planning to operate at the funding levels in the 2018
    budget and develop a broader Agency Reform Plan to address long-term
    workforce reductions. Interior is moving prudently with implementation
    and has put in place hiring controls to enable limited hiring,
    prioritizing filling field positions rather than office positions, and
    limiting hires in the Washington, D.C., and Denver, Colorado, areas.
    This process enables the Department to continue to fill important
    positions as work is underway to develop a comprehensive and thoughtful
    agency plan.
        The 2018 budget reduces lower priority programs $1.6 billion below
    2017 and supports 59,968 full time equivalents. This represents an
    estimated reduction of roughly 4,000 full time equivalent staff from
    2017. To accomplish this, the Department will rely on a combination of
    attrition, reassignments, and separation incentives. Actual attrition
    rates and acceptance of separation incentives will determine the need
    for further action to reduce staffing.
        Reducing Interior's physical footprint and seeking ways to
    consolidate space and resources will continue to be management
    objectives going forward. Efforts will build on several multi-year
    actions to reduce Interior's nationwide facilities footprint and
    improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its information technology
    infrastructure and financial reporting capabilities. Ensuring
    Interior's cybersecurity strength continues to be a priority. The 2018
    budget maintains $10.0 million in the appropriated working capital fund
    to continue the Department's remediation of its cybersecurity systems
    and processes.
                               bureau highlights
        Bureau of Land Management.--The 2018 request for the BLM is $1.1
    billion, a decrease of $162.7 million below the 2017 CR level and
    $180.5 million below the 2017 enacted level. The budget proposes $963.2
    million for Management of Lands and Resources and $89.8 million for
    Oregon and California Grant Lands, BLM's two primary operational
    appropriation accounts.
        The BLM request features increases in oil, gas and coal management
    programs reflecting national energy security priorities. The budget
    proposes $75.9 million for Oil and Gas Management to support permitting
    and rights-of-way processing, streamline leasing, and modernize
    practices. The budget also includes $19.0 million to strengthen BLM's
    Coal Management program, an increase of $8.0 million from 2017.
        To maintain the BLM's land stewardship responsibilities, the budget
    includes $67.8 million for Rangeland Management and $70.7 million for
    the Wild Horse and Burro Management program. As part of a broader
    effort to consider all necessary options to manage the unsustainable
    growth of this program, the budget proposes to eliminate current
    appropriations language restricting the BLM's ability to use the tools
    provided in the Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act and enable
    BLM to manage on-range herds more effectively and humanely. The budget
    also proposes $47.2 million for Recreation Resources Management and
    $27.7 million to continue support for the National Conservation Land
    areas.
        The budget includes $89.8 million for the Oregon and California
    Grant Lands programs. At this level, the budget prioritizes offering
    the allowable sale quantity in new resource management plans.
        Mineral development on Federal lands is important to the national
    economy. However, a long-standing challenge is to provide a fair return
    to taxpayers for the use of these natural resources without
    discouraging development. To meet this challenge, the Department will
    conduct a study starting in 2017 to evaluate the production and
    development of hardrock minerals from Federal lands. The review will
    include an analysis of revenue recovered by other entities, including
    other countries, which permit mining on their land. The Department will
    also consult with other appropriate agencies, such as the Department of
    Agriculture. The findings will be considered as part of ongoing efforts
    to improve agency management and streamline permitting related to
    natural resources produced from Federal lands.
        Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.--The 2018 President's budget for
    BOEM is $171.0 million, slightly above the 2017 CR level, including
    $114.2 million in current appropriations and $56.8 million in
    offsetting collections from rental receipts and cost recoveries. The
    budget maintains a level program by increasing appropriated funding by
    $35.5 million to address a commensurate shortfall in estimated
    offsetting rental receipts and cost recoveries. The 2018 budget
    features a $10.2 million increase to support the development of a new
    Five-Year Plan for the OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
        Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.--The 2018
    President's budget request for BSEE is $204.9 million, slightly above
    the 2017 CR level, including $112.0 million in current appropriations
    and $92.9 million in offsetting collections from rental receipts, cost
    recoveries, and inspection fees. The budget maintains a strong offshore
    safety and environmental enforcement program by increasing
    appropriations and estimated inspection fee revenue to address
    anticipated shortfalls in offsetting rental receipts and other cost
    recoveries. The 2018 budget includes a $1.2 million increase for
    technical training to expand staff development efforts for BSEE's
    inspector, engineer, and geoscientist workforce, and $12.7 million for
    oil spill research, a reduction of $2.2 million from 2017.
        Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.--The 2018
    budget request for OSMRE is $129.4 million in current appropriations,
    $110.7 million below the 2017 CR level. The majority of this reduction
    reflects the elimination of $89.9 million for Abandoned Mine Lands
    Economic Development Grants. Although beneficial, funding for this
    pilot program overlaps with existing mandatory Abandoned Mine Lands
    grants which continue without any proposed changes. The budget includes
    $60.2 million for State and Tribal regulatory grants, a level
    consistent with anticipated State and Tribal program obligations.
        U.S. Geological Survey.--The 2018 budget request for the USGS is
    $922.2 million, $137.8 million below the 2017 CR level. The budget
    includes $70.9 million for satellite operations, which supports
    continued development of the Landsat 9 ground systems, supporting a
    launch date in early fiscal year 2021 to replace the Landsat 7
    satellite, which is reaching the end of its usable life.
        The request emphasizes energy and mineral development, supporting
    essential hazards monitoring, and providing scientific information to
    support decisionmaking by resource managers and policy makers. The
    budget maintains support for nationwide networks of more than 8,000
    streamgages and nearly 3,000 earthquake sensors. The request provides
    $17.3 million for nationwide efforts to counter invasive species and
    wildlife diseases such as white-nose syndrome and highly pathogenic
    avian influenza, and the budget maintains $17.3 million for 40
    cooperative research units that support State-specific needs,
    particularly related to fish and game species. It continues acquisition
    of modern elevation data for Alaska and the 3-year cycle of topographic
    map updates for the contiguous United States.
        The 2018 request proposes to realign the 2018 budget structure to
    create a new Land Resources activity to reflect focused science related
    to on-the-ground land management and adaptive management challenges. As
    part of this request, the budget proposes $17.4 million for the
    National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers, reflecting
    the proposed consolidation of eight regional centers to four.
        Fish and Wildlife Service.--The 2018 President's budget requests
    $1.3 billion for FWS programs, a decrease of $202.9 million from the
    2017 CR level. The budget includes $1.2 billion for FWS operations, a
    decrease of $85.3 million below 2017. Within Resource Management, the
    budget prioritizes funding to maintain operations and maintenance for
    the National Wildlife Refuge System ($470.1 million) and the National
    Fish Hatchery System ($51.9 million). Funding will continue operations
    for all refuge areas and hatchery sites.
        The budget includes $225.2 million for Ecological Services programs
    with an emphasis on species recovery and planning consultation
    activities. Consistent with efforts to focus adaptive management
    related science within the USGS, the request proposes to eliminate
    funding for Science Support at $17.0 million and Landscape Conservation
    Cooperatives at $13.0 million.
        The budget is $118.6 million for FWS conservation grants including
    $52.8 million for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, $33.6 million for
    the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, $19.3 million for the
    Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, $9.0 million for the
    Multinational Species Conservation Fund, and $3.9 million for
    Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation. Consistent with decreases in
    other land acquisition programs across the Department, the request
    proposes to eliminate funding for Cooperative Endangered Species
    Conservation Fund land acquisition grants.
        National Park Service.--The 2018 President's budget request for NPS
    is $2.6 billion, $296.6 million below the 2017 CR level.
        The budget proposes $2.2 billion for NPS operations. Within this
    account, funding is prioritized for the care and maintenance of
    existing resources. The budget includes $99.3 million for repair and
    rehabilitation projects, which addresses the deferred maintenance
    backlog, as well as $112.7 million for cyclic maintenance projects,
    which ensures maintenance is conducted in a timely fashion to avoid
    increasing the deferred maintenance backlog.
        The budget proposes $226.5 million for Construction projects, an
    increase of $34.0 million to help address deferred maintenance and
    allow for targeted and measurable upgrades to a number of the NPS's
    highest priority assets. Within this request is $18.2 million for phase
    one construction requirements for the Arlington Memorial Bridge. Also
    included in the request is $15.0 million in appropriated funds for the
    Centennial Challenge program to provide the Federal match to leverage
    partner donations for signature projects and programs. An additional
    $15.0 million from fee revenue is also anticipated for 2018 to support
    Centennial projects.
        The request provides $37.0 million for National Recreation and
    Preservation programs to support local community efforts to preserve
    natural and cultural resources. The budget assumes savings of $18.8
    million from the proposed elimination of payments to National Heritage
    Areas. The 2018 budget includes $51.1 million for the Historic
    Preservation Fund core grants-in-aid programs. The budget proposes to
    shift support for Land and Water Conservation Fund State Grants from
    appropriated to mandatory funding comparable to an estimated $90
    million the program will receive from oil and gas activities from
    certain Gulf of Mexico offshore leases.
        Indian Affairs.--The 2018 President's budget request for Indian
    Affairs is $2.5 billion, $303.3 million below the 2017 CR level.
    Funding for Operation of Indian Programs totals $2.1 billion, a
    decrease of $181.1 million below 2017. In 2018, priority is given to
    programs serving the broadest audience rather than initiatives or
    pilots. Within this total is $786.4 million for Bureau of Indian
    Education programs where funding focuses on direct school operations
    and full funding for Tribal Grant Support Costs. The main operating
    account also includes $349.3 million for Public Safety and Justice
    programs and $277.5 million for Trust Services programs, which includes
    the elimination of the Tribal Climate Resilience program.
        The budget fully funds Contract Support Costs at $241.6 million,
    $35.4 million below 2017, which will cover all anticipated requirements
    at the requested program funding level. The budget requests $143.3
    million for Construction programs. The 2018 budget prioritizes dams,
    irrigation projects, and irrigation systems which deliver water to aid
    economic development as well as protect lives, resources, and property.
    The budget prioritizes funding within education construction for
    operations and maintenance of existing facilities. The budget also
    includes $14.0 million to provide payments to ongoing Indian Land and
    Water settlements and $6.7 million for the Indian Guaranteed Loan
    Program.
    Departmental Offices
        Office of the Secretary.--The 2018 budget request for Departmental
    Operations is $123.9 million, $596.5 million below the 2017 CR. The
    majority of this reduction is $451.1 million associated with the shift
    of the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program which was appropriated within
    Departmental Operations in 2017. In 2018, the budget proposes to fund
    PILT as discretionary funding within Department-wide Programs. The
    budget also reflects the proposed transfer of $140.3 million associated
    with the Office of Natural Resources Revenue to a new appropriation
    within Department-wide Programs. The proposed transfer of ONRR funding
    will increase transparency in the budget for the Department's energy
    revenue programs. The 2018 request for remaining Office of Secretary
    programs reflects a reduction of $4.0 million from central program
    management activities across the Office of the Secretary organization.
    Of this, $2.6 million is associated with reductions to the Office of
    Valuation Services consistent with the proposed Department-wide
    decrease for new land acquisition.
        Office of Insular Affairs.--The 2018 OIA budget request is $84.3
    million, $19.0 million below the 2017 CR. In addition, the majority of
    OIA's budget proposal reflects a request to fully fund the renegotiated
    Compact with Palau by transferring $123.9 million from the Department
    of Defense, rather than $13.1 million in extended incremental annual
    payments. The Compact is an important element of the Pacific national
    security strategy.
        Office of the Solicitor.--The 2018 budget proposes $65.7 million
    for the Office of the Solicitor, the same as the 2017 CR level, to
    provide legal counsel, administer the Department's ethics program, and
    help resolve legal issues among bureaus and offices as they fulfill
    their duties.
        Office of Inspector General.--The 2018 budget proposes $50.0
    million for the Office of Inspector General, the same as the 2017 CR
    level, to continue support for audit and investigations across the
    Department.
        Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians.--The 2018
    budget requests $119.4 million for OST, $19.4 million below the 2017 CR
    level. The budget proposes a $3.7 million reduction below 2017 in Field
    Operations reflecting prioritization of services to continue operations
    at the beneficiary call center. A reduction of $3.1 million is proposed
    within Historical Trust Accounting in expectation of reduced
    requirements. Smaller additional reductions are taken across the
    organization.
    Department-wide Programs
        Payments in Lieu of Taxes.--The 2018 budget proposes $396.9 million
    in discretionary funding for PILT, a decrease of $54.3 million from the
    comparable 2017 CR level of $451.1 million appropriated in Departmental
    Operations in 2016. This is a reduction of 12 percent, commensurate
    with the Department of the Interior's overall reduction from 2017 CR
    budget levels.
        Office of Natural Resources Revenue.--The 2018 budget request
    includes $137.8 million for ONRR's receipts management programs, a
    decrease of $2.5 million below the comparable 2017 CR level of $140.3
    million. The 2018 budget request proposes to transfer ONRR's receipts
    management program from the Office of the Secretary's Departmental
    Operations account to a separate appropriation within Department-wide
    Programs to increase transparency of the program. The request includes
    $3.5 million for anticipated contract cost increases for the Minerals
    Revenue Management Support System.
        Central Hazardous Materials Fund.--The 2018 budget requests $2.0
    million for the Central Hazardous Materials Fund, $8.0 million below
    the 2017 CR. The budget request funds program management and legal
    staff. The program will fund the highest priority remediation projects
    based on the availability of recoveries and focus resources on
    remediation projects with potentially responsible parties.
        Wildland Fire Management.--The 2018 budget request for the Wildland
    Fire Management Program is $873.5 million. The total request represents
    a decrease of $118.3 million from the 2017 CR level for the Wildland
    Fire Management and FLAME accounts. At this level the request provides
    $389.4 million for Suppression Operations to fully fund the 10-year
    average. To streamline financial management processes and improve the
    efficiency in allocating suppression funding, the Department proposes
    to fund all suppression activities in the Wildland Fire Management
    account and eliminate the separate FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve
    Fund account once all current balances in the FLAME account are drawn
    down. The request also includes $322.2 million for Preparedness
    activities, essentially level with 2017, and $149.5 million for Fuels
    Management, $20.2 million below 2017.
        Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration.--The 2018
    request for NRDAR is $4.6 million, a decrease of $3.2 million below the
    2017 CR level. The budget includes funding needed for ongoing damage
    assessments and restoration activities.
        Working Capital Fund.--The 2018 budget proposes $59.5 million for
    the appropriated portion of the Department's Working Capital Fund, a
    decrease of $7.5 million from the 2017 CR level. The reduction is from
    funds requested for the Financial and Business Management System which
    is proposed at $46.3 million. The request maintains $10.0 million for
    Department-wide Cybersecurity needs.
                             legislative proposals
        Bureau of Reclamation Title Transfer.--The administration is
    developing a proposal to better facilitate title transfer of
    Reclamation facilities to non-Federal entities when such transfers are
    beneficial to all parties. This proposal will allow local water
    managers to make their own decisions to improve water management at the
    local level, while allowing Reclamation to focus management efforts on
    projects with a greater Federal nexus.
        Cancel Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act Account
    Balances.--The budget proposes legislation to cancel $230.0 million in
    unobligated balances from the Southern Nevada Public Land Management
    Act program over a 3 year period. This would redirect a portion of the
    program balances to the Treasury for broader taxpayer use. The SNPLMA
    program is not proposed for elimination and viable conservation efforts
    will continue to be supported.
        Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act Payments.--The administration
    proposes to repeal revenue sharing payments to four coastal States--
    Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas--and their local
    governments, which are currently set to expand substantially starting
    in 2018. This proposal will ensure the sale of public resources from
    Federal waters owned by all Americans, benefits all Americans.
    Mandatory funding for LWCF State Grants would continue, but this
    legislative proposal would replace GOMESA's complicated allocation
    formula with a fixed annual appropriation of a comparable dollar
    amount, starting at $90.0 million in 2018 and increasing to $125.0
    million in 2022 and remaining at $125.0 million each year thereafter.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund.--The LWCF receipts authorization
    expires at the end of fiscal year 2018 and the administration will
    review options for reauthorization, including consideration of a range
    of conservation-related investments that could be funded through the
    LWCF.
        Oil and Gas Leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.--The
    administration will propose legislation to allow oil and gas leasing in
    the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge also known as
    the ``1002 area.'' The budget assumes lease sales would begin in 2022
    or 2023, allowing adequate time for the completion of appropriate
    environmental reviews and an updated assessment of the State of the oil
    and gas market and lease bidding potential prior to scheduling specific
    lease sales. An additional lease sale or sales would be held in 2026 or
    2027. Lease sales in the ANWR are estimated to generate $3.5 billion in
    bonus bids to be split between the U.S. Treasury and the State of
    Alaska. The proposal is estimated to generate a net of $1.8 billion in
    new revenue to the Treasury over 10 years.
        Reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act.--The
    budget assumes permanent reauthorization of FLTFA's land sale
    authority, allowing Interior to dispose of lands with low conservation
    value and use the proceeds to acquire lands with higher conservation
    values, consistent with the original FLTFA mandate.
        Recreation Fee Program.--The budget proposes to permanently
    reauthorize the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which
    currently expires in September 2018. As a precaution, appropriations
    language is also submitted with the budget proposing a 1 year extension
    through September 2019. The revenues collected by Interior from these
    recreation fees--nearly $290 million annually--are an important source
    of funding for land management operations, maintenance, and
    improvements to recreation facilities on public lands.
        Termination of EPAct Geothermal Payments to Counties.--The budget
    proposes to restore Federal geothermal leasing revenue allocations to
    the historical formula of 50 percent to the States and 50 percent to
    the U.S. Treasury by repealing Section 224(b) of the Energy Policy Act
    of 2005.
                        offsetting collections and fees
        Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Offshore Inspection
    Fees.--The budget includes appropriations language to amend the current
    fee structure for BSEE inspection fees to better align with BSEE's
    inspection practices and program costs. The language structures fees
    charged for the inspection of offshore facilities to distinguish
    between those ``without processing equipment'' or ``with processing
    equipment'' and incorporate consideration of the number of wells and
    water depth. These changes to the fee structure are estimated to
    generate $65.0 million in 2018.
        National Wildlife Refuge Damage Cost Recovery.--The budget includes
    appropriations language to authorize the FWS to retain recoveries from
    responsible parties to restore or replace damages they cause. This is
    similar to authorities provided to the NPS for damages to national
    parks and monuments.
                                   conclusion
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President's 2018
    budget request for the Department of the Interior.
        In closing, this is a responsible budget to help balance the
    Federal budget by 2027. It maintains core functions important to the
    American people, including providing the public the unique American
    experience that comes from visiting our parks, refuges, and public
    lands. It reflects tough choices to prioritize and focus limited
    resources where investments have the most impact, but continues to
    deliver access and services which are critical to Americans. I thank
    you again for your continued support of the Department's mission. I
    look forward to answering questions about this budget. This concludes
    my written statement.

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        We will now turn to questions. I am going to defer to
    Senator Alexander who has another commitment very shortly. So,
    Senator Alexander, if you want to kick off the questions.
        Senator Alexander. Madame Chairman, I greatly appreciate
    your courtesy. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Secretary,
    welcome. It is good to see you.

                            FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET

        Respectfully, may I disagree with you about a balanced
    budget? This is not a balanced budget. Our budget is $4
    trillion. And I think all of us know that it is--we cannot
    pretend to balance the budget on the back of national defense,
    which you were so indispensably part of in your service to our
    country, national parks, national institutes of health,
    national laboratories. That spending is all under control.
    Since 2008, it has been flat. And it is projected by the
    Congressional Budget Office to be flat for the next several
    years just barely rising with inflation.
        The whole budget is $4 trillion. The part that is out of
    control is the mandatory spending and we need to work together
    to bring that under control or national defense, national
    parks, national laboratories, the national institutes of health
    will be squeezed into nothing.

                               CHIMNEY TOPS FIRES

        But let me ask my questions quickly. In your confirmation
    hearing you said that you would pay close attention to the
    individual fire review for the 2016 Chimney Tops Fire in the
    Smokies, in an area you know well. What is the status of the
    review of the Park's response to the wildfires?
        Secretary Zinke. We owe you a report. We are late on it. I
    expressed my priority to get it to you by the week's end, but
    we are overdue on that report. I have talked to Representative
    Poe as well and he shared the same concerns.
        Senator Alexander. Right.
        Secretary Zinke. I had the same concerns, of why that
    report is not submitted to you.
        Senator Alexander. I would appreciate your focus on it
    because that was a traumatizing event for the people in
    Tennessee and North Carolina. We lost lives. It destroyed half
    the economy of Gatlinburg and we would like your assistance in
    learning the lessons that we need to learn in order to avoid
    something like that happening again.

                      JAMES K. POLK SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY

        On a more positive note, the Department has supported and
    recommended the second step on making the James K. Polk home in
    Tennessee a unit of the National Park Service. The Department
    supported a special resource study. It was in the energy bill
    that Senator Murkowski offered last year. I would think you
    would have a special interest in it because when James K. Polk
    was President the United States acquired a lot of the land that
    is now Montana. So my question is does the Department continue
    to support the special resource study for the James K. Polk
    home?
        Secretary Zinke. The Department's position on it is we
    follow Congress. We do support it and testified in favor of it,
    but it is a congressional authorization. Certainly if this body
    authorized it, we would be glad to take it in to our holding
    and go forth from there.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The Land and
    Water Conservation Fund, in the 1960s the Rockefeller
    Commission recommended it. Congress enacted it. The idea was to
    take an environmental burden and turn it into environmental
    benefit. And for 50 years we have tried to do that in this
    country with some spectacular success.
        In the mid-1980s, I was chairman of President Reagan's
    Commission on Americas Outdoors. We recommended permanent
    authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Last
    year Congress appropriated $400 million for it. Should have
    been $900, but it was $400. Your budget recommends $64 million.
    I thought I heard you say earlier that you supported the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund. What is your position on the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund today?
        Secretary Zinke. I do support and remain supportive of the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund. As you know, when you drop
    from $18 billion to $2.6 billion in revenue, the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund is funded primarily by offshore. I would like
    a permanent fix to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The
    fund itself, as I understand, has about $20 billion, and
    structurally it goes from offshore into Treasury. Then it needs
    to be appropriated before we can actually expend the funds.
    That appropriation process has not been particularly smooth.
        Senator Alexander. Right.
        Secretary Zinke. The fund keeps on building. It is the same
    with the Reclamation Fund. There is money that was intended to
    do great things in reclamation and yet that fund, over the
    course of time, has ``accumulated'' about $18 billion.
        Senator Alexander. Right.
        Secretary Zinke. We need to look at using those funds as
    they were intended.

                      GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK

        Senator Alexander. If I may ask one more in my time. I
    agree with you about the permanent fix to it, but it does not
    help to have the annual appropriation drop to $64 million when
    there ought to be $900 million. I have mentioned to you, we are
    very proud of our western parks and, you know, we are proud of
    the Smokies. Still we have the situation where the Smokies,
    which was given to the country, has twice as many visitors each
    year as the Grand Canyon, Rocky Mountain, Yosemite, and
    Yellowstone, but has less appropriation and no fee because when
    the Smokies was given to the country, part of the deal with the
    United States was that there would not be an entrance fee.
        I hope you will continue to work with me and others from
    Tennessee and North Carolina to see that the Smokies receives
    at least the same appropriation as the western parks,
    especially when its total number of visitors is twice as much
    and when it does not have fee revenue available to help.
        I want to thank Chairman Murkowski for her courtesy in
    allowing me to ask these questions.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Alexander. Appreciate
    the direction there.
        Senator Udall.
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair.

                            CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRIES

        Secretary Zinke, before we get to substantive issues, I
    wanted to raise a process concern. It is a longstanding
    practice for Members of this subcommittee of both parties to
    request information from your Department. Can you please
    confirm that you intend to continue the longstanding practice
    of responding to written questions and correspondence from both
    majority and minority Members of this subcommittee as quickly
    as possible?
        Secretary Zinke. Absolutely. And, in fact, on the House
    side, and I would offer the same thing with the Senate side, is
    I meet with House Members in a roundtable on both sides of the
    aisle quarterly. I intend to be the most transparent Interior
    Secretary in my lifetime, but I would offer the same thing to
    Members of the Senate in a roundtable form so we can discuss
    issues of significance and to be absolutely transparent and
    responsive. I think we should work together. That should be a
    policy. Public lands and the stewardship that it requires is
    not a partisan issue. It is an American issue.
        Senator Udall. And you will answer written questions from
    both minority and majority Members.
        Secretary Zinke. I look forward to it.
        Senator Udall. Okay. Well, as a follow up, I have not
    received answers to 11 letters that I have sent to the
    Department. Will you commit to reviewing those letters and to
    responding as soon as possible?
        Secretary Zinke. I will commit to reviewing them. If the
    requests are predecisional and involve executive privilege, I
    will talk to you about it personally, but I will be responsive.
        Senator Udall. You know, well, as far as I know, none of
    these have to do with executive privilege and they are overdue.
    You committed to answering them.
        Secretary Zinke. I will commit to answering if they do not
    involve predecisions or executive privilege. If I cannot answer
    them in writing, I will call you directly, sir, and be glad to
    discuss it with you.

                                 REORGANIZATION

        Senator Udall. Thank you. Secretary Zinke, I would like to
    talk about your proposals to reorganize the Department and
    reduce your workforce. This subcommittee has an important role
    in shaping any future changes to the Department's organization
    and yet we have been left in the dark with regard to what your
    plans are.
        I was very troubled to hear reports late last week that
    dozens of the Department's senior career staff including BLM
    State Director for New Mexico, the Southwest Regional Director
    for the Fish and Wildlife Service, and newly installed Director
    of the Bureau of Indian Affairs have been directed to take new
    assignments in other bureaus or regions of the country. To make
    matters worse, we found out about these changes from the
    ``Washington Post'' rather than hearing from your Department
    directly.
        It is my understanding that the scale of these changes is
    virtually without precedent. These staff members appear to have
    been transferred with no clear plan regarding how or whether
    their current positions will be filled. And I have heard that
    many of these changes are set to take place quickly,
    potentially by the end of the months. That means almost no
    notice to the affected staff or the affected programs, let
    alone to affected States or Tribal governments.
        I mentioned the BLM State Director, Amy Lueders, as an
    example of these staff members whose work impacts my State on a
    day to day basis. Amy has served as our BLM straight director
    for the past 2 years and she has been incredibly engaged and
    responsive. Quite frankly, I do not want New Mexico to lose her
    and I am very concerned about the impacts of the other changes
    as well.
        These senior executives have expertise specific to their
    current bureaus and they manage some of the most sensitive
    issues that affect New Mexico and Indian Tribes, yet we have no
    idea why these positions were selected for reassignment or how
    moving these individuals out of their current positions
    improves the management of the Department. We also do not know
    how these changes fit into the larger workforce plan for the
    Department that you have been directed by the OMB to assemble.
        Mr. Secretary, President Trump promised to run the
    Government like a business, but some of these personnel moves
    just do not make sense. It is like taking your head of
    marketing and putting them in charge of accounting. That is a
    bad business decision. Your workforce deserves better and the
    Congress deserves to know more about what is happening at the
    Department, so I would like to get some answers from you today.
        First, I would like to ask you to provide for the record a
    list of all positions that are impacted by these reassignments
    and a justification for why these positions have been selected,
    including any input from the senior executive services
    executive resources board by close of business on Friday, June
    23. I recognize that is a tight timeframe, but if these changes
    are taking place quickly this subcommittee needs to know what
    is happening. Will you commit to providing the information?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, first let me address the issue. The
    SES is far from unprecedented in moving people. The SES by
    definition gets moved. Secondly in the movements, we went full
    board in shifting people to either an area where their skills
    are better suited or getting people out of headquarters and
    moving them to the field.
        We had 330 million visitors through our parks last year. It
    is time maybe we look at a more Powell Pinchot model of
    reorganizing according to ecosystems and watersheds. Clearly
    the importance of making sure watersheds are effectively
    managed, wildlife corridors and trail systems match, and being
    a holistic approach because, within the Department of Interior
    and our sister bureaus, if you have a trout and a salmon in the
    same stream and that stream has irrigation or a dam on it, you
    have NOAA, through NMFS. You have Fish and Wildlife. You have
    Bureau of Reclamation. And you have the Army Corps of
    Engineers. If it runs past Tribal lands, you have BIA.
        There are five bureaus in one stream that are likely to
    have opinions that are unreconcilable. We need to look at our
    side to make sure we can manage our forest and our rivers more
    effectively. We are looking at pushing more resources out of
    Washington, out of our major centers of regions the way they
    are, and aligning them to work jointly.
        As far as the decisions go, I cannot give you a list
    because I do not know who is going to go because they have a
    choice. They were given notification through a board process
    lining up. They are given a choice and there is a privacy issue
    until they have made that choice. After they make the choice, I
    would be glad to give you a list, but until that time, until
    they make that decision, then I am going to honor the privacy
    part of it, which is part of our procedures and I believe it is
    under law.
        Senator Udall. Yes. So you will commit to giving me
    information?
        Secretary Zinke. I will commit to give the information as
    soon as they go through the privacy part of it, as soon as they
    make the decision. Then I would be glad to give you a list. But
    the list I can tell you----
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Zinke [continuing]. The move was not
    unprecedented.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall.

                                OCS 5-YEAR PLAN

        Mr. Secretary, I mentioned in my opening statement that
    BOEM is holding a lease sale in Cook Inlet this morning. It
    prompts discussion for potential for the Chukchi and the
    Beaufort. The previous administration issued a draft 5-year
    plan for leasing in the OCS, January 29, 2015. It included
    areas in the Arctic OCS, one sale in the Chukchi, one in the
    Beaufort. Ten days after the election on November 18, the
    administration issued its 5-year plan which of course excluded
    these areas.
        So question for you this morning, the budget indicates that
    there will be resources to rewriting this 5-year plan, which we
    appreciate. Can you give me any kind of an update? You have to
    rewrite the entire plan. You cannot simply amend the existing
    one. So where do you see this in terms of timelines, in terms
    of resources, that will be required to process this review? Do
    you have an update for me on where we are with the 5-year lease
    sales?
        Secretary Zinke. I do. We looked at rearranging and rather
    than having the standard everything in sequence, which pushes
    the time out, we can do things simultaneously in many cases. We
    think the process will be about 2 and a half to 3 years, which
    will be less than the 5 years. We are taking the first step,
    which is the Federal Register Notice, asking for information
    and comments. It is going to be a very transparent process.
        In regards to the lease sale that is coming up, there is a
    gap of trust that has occurred. I will give you an example on
    the North Shore. When Shell commits $3.5 or $3.1 billion to a
    lease and the Fish and Wildlife moves them out to unproductive
    waters and they dig a dry hole, there is a little lack of trust
    there. When compensatory mitigation forces companies to pay
    millions of dollars of money to get a permit outside of that
    permit process, there is a little bit of breach of trust in
    that.
        We have to make sure that as partners we hold industry
    accountable, that we are transparent in what we are doing, but
    there is a reason why our revenue went from $18 billion to $2.6
    billion, and not all of it is oil and gas price, although that
    is some of it. A lot of it is we were not a good partner. Our
    rules became arbitrary. Permits were difficult to deal with. At
    the last minute, something else would be thrown in,
    compensatory mitigation. In some circles, it is known as
    extortion. That had a real chilling effect in our ability to be
    good partners. I am working very hard in making sure industry
    is held accountable, that we are transparent, but also we need
    to work with people rather than work against.

                                 TRIBAL COURTS

        Senator Murkowski. Appreciate that. Let me ask about BIA
    Tribal court funding. Alaska is a Public Law 280 State and
    prior to fiscal year 2016, Public Law 280 States like Alaska
    did not receive Tribal court funding. We were able to include
    that in the budget, which was greatly welcome. There were some
    issues with rollout, but I think the program is on track.
        So, again, seeking an update here. You have proposed to
    completely eliminate a program that is getting off the ground
    in these Public Law 280 States, getting results, so I am a
    little bit confused about why there would be a specific
    reduction in this area where again the need is so great, so
    great. Also, to understand how we are doing with the initial
    $10 million that was allocated in the fiscal year 2016.

                              TRIBAL CONSULTATIONS

        And I know that with fiscal year 2017, we are just a little
    more than a month into this, but hoping to understand if Tribal
    consultation has begun, when it will begin, when the additional
    $10 million will be distributed. So a little bit of an update
    in terms of what we have laid down in 2016 with the funding
    there, and now 2017 with the consultation, but would really
    hope to get your commitment that this is a significant
    priority, again, in States particularly like Alaska where
    Tribal courts can offer a means of enforcement in areas where
    we simply have none and where the local Tribal leadership can
    be an extraordinary assist for us.

                                 TRIBAL COURTS

        Secretary Zinke. Well, in regards to 2016, I think we have
    executed about 97 percent of the funding and we are consistent
    on that same funding level in 2017. You are correct. This
    budget eliminates funding for the pilot programs for Tribal
    courts. I will work with you on it because I see great value
    with it, in my experience with the Tribes in Montana. I will
    work with you on it and I would be glad to do so.

                              TRIBAL CONSULTATION

        Senator Murkowski. I would love to introduce you to some of
    our Tribal court judges. How about the Tribal consultations
    that are required as part of that fiscal year 2017? Have those
    consultations begun?
        Secretary Zinke. They have. I think we are on consistent to
    execute it as we did in 2016.
        Senator Murkowski. Great. Thank you.
        Senator Van Hollen.

                                     BUDGET

        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Madame Chair and Ranking
    Member. And Secretary, welcome you and your team. And I had
    planned to plunge right into some questions regarding the
    Department of Interior, but I do want to take a moment given
    your comment at the outset about this is what a balanced budget
    looks like because I also serve on the Budget Committee.
        We had testimony from the Director of OMB, Mick Mulvaney,
    and it became very clear in the course of that hearing, number
    one, that this budget is not balanced. This is a budget that
    would make Enron accountants blush. The reality is the
    administration used incredibly unrealistic projections
    regarding future growth. They were unsubstantiated, which we
    would all like to see, but there was no basis for it to reach
    that claim.
        And to follow up on Senator Alexander's point, there are
    many components to the budget. Are you aware of what the
    Congressional Budget Office classified as the largest area of
    expenditures in the budget?
        Secretary Zinke. I am, sir. I was a Congressman.
        Senator Van Hollen. I know.
        Secretary Zinke. And I have an MBA in finance and look at
    it as well, but you are right and Senator Alexander, is that it
    is the non-discretionary side.
        Senator Van Hollen. Well, not only non-discretionary, but
    if you look at the non-discretionary side, tax expenditures,
    meaning special breaks and exemptions that are given to
    organizations more on the power they are lobbying than on the
    merits of their case are by far the largest even within
    mandatory expenditures. In other words, we spend more on tax
    expenditures than we do on social security on an annual basis.
    And yet this budget does not eliminate a single tax break, not
    for hedge fund owners who get a better break than the people
    who work for them, or anybody else. Not one penny of reduction
    and tax expenditures to help reduce the deficit.
        It is done very harshly on the side that relates primarily
    to our investment in our jobs and quality of life, national
    parks, and that kind of thing. So I really hope you will, as
    part of an administration, think of that going forward.

                                 CHESAPEAKE BAY

        Now, the Chesapeake Bay is an incredible natural resource.
    And the States on a multistate basis and a bipartisan basis,
    Republican Governors, Democratic Governors, have over the years
    formed compacts to protect the Chesapeake Bay. In fact, the
    Department of Interior is a signatory to the 2014 Bay
    Agreement. The largest Federal agency involved in supporting
    Bay cleanup efforts is the EPA. This administration's budget
    wipes out entirely the EPA portion of Chesapeake Bay cleanup.
        But another important component and a critical glue to the
    process is funding by the U.S. Geological Survey. About $12.5
    million that is invested in scientific monitoring of the
    various aspects of the health of the Chesapeake Bay, essential
    information for all the other players.
        This budget cuts that in half. And my question is how do
    you expect your scientists, and you have a really good team
    there, to do their job and help protect the Bay with half the
    money?
        Secretary Zinke. First of all, I look forward to seeing the
    Senate version of the tax bill. Secondly, I have spent a lot of
    time, as you know, as a former SEAL in and out of the waters of
    the Chesapeake and I absolutely agree with you, it is a
    treasure. The USGS, which, as a geologist, I think is a
    terrific group of talented people. Within that, we did reduce
    some repetitive programs and their reduction was consistent
    across-the-board. You are correct that the budget includes
    about a $17 million cut for Chesapeake Bay activities. I will
    work on it with you.
        Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that.
        Secretary Zinke. I do look at the budget as a starting
    point and it also allows me as a Secretary to have meaningful
    dialogue with you on the Senate side. I know the House side
    much better.
        Senator Van Hollen. Okay.
        Secretary Zinke. But a dialogue in the Senate side to see
    where the priorities are and where we can work together, I
    think is important.
        Senator Van Hollen. No, I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary,
    because it is an essential component, the Department of the
    Interior funding to the health of the Bay. And there are a
    couple of other accounts I will not go into now. I will have
    some follow up questions.

                            ATLANTIC SEISMIC TESTING

        But let me ask you about drilling in the Atlantic and
    seismic testing because the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
    BOEM, did a study a little while ago looking at the economies
    of the Eastern Shore of Maryland and other States on the mid
    Atlantic seaboard there and looking at Ocean City, concluded
    that 90 percent of the jobs there were as a result of tourism.
    People coming from all over Maryland, all over the region to
    Ocean City.
        And the Ocean City Chamber of Commerce has written to our
    Governor, Governor Hogan, a Republican Governor, and others
    expressing incredible alarm about the plan to fast track an
    effort for seismic testing and open this area potentially for
    drilling.
        The Obama administration, based on the Bureau of Ocean
    Energy Management report concluded it would be too great a risk
    to the livelihood of this area to open up that area for
    drilling and now this administration seems headed down a fast
    track effort to do it.
        My question to you and my request is, number one, to have a
    conversation about whether that makes sense, but second, as you
    proceed down this track, can you work with us to ensure that
    the public is engaged? Right now not a single public hearing is
    scheduled as part of the effort to engage in seismic testing.
        Secretary Zinke. A couple of things. I absolutely
    appreciate the East Coast. I spent time recently with a
    fisherman in the great State of Massachusetts. They are
    concerned about wind and their livelihood. Tourism is a part of
    certain fisheries, the energy potential offshore, so the East
    Coast has a lot of potential.
        Seismic, as a geologist part of my job as Interior
    Secretary is also to do an inventory of what we have. It is not
    my decision whether or not to go forward on drilling, per se,
    but I would like to know and I think we all would like to know
    what the assets are to include Alaska on 1002. It is not my
    decision whether or not to go forward with production, but it
    is my assessment that will give a better clarity of whether it
    can be mitigated or worth the effort. From a geology point of
    view, I do not know whether there are fields there or not. I do
    not know. A seismic test would give us a better clarity whether
    there is, whether there is gas or not. I think it is probably
    in our best interest to know so we can make a decision either
    way.
        Senator Van Hollen. Well, Mr. Secretary, I know my time is
    running out. I would like to pursue that conversation.
        Senator Murkowski. We will have an opportunity for a second
    round here.
        Senator Van Hollen. All right. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Senator Daines.

                                     BUDGET

        Senator Daines. Thank you, Madame Chair. Secretary Zinke,
    welcome back. I can tell you the significance of your
    leadership at the Department of Interior to our great State of
    Montana cannot be overstated as well as your service to our
    Nation. And it is refreshing to have a Secretary of Interior
    who understands the importance of returning and restoring
    balance to multiple use on our public lands and the important
    role of fostering the government to government relationship
    with our Indian Tribes. You also understand the critical
    importance of setting priorities within spending constraints.
    Yesterday we talked about national parks. Today I would like to
    explore other important areas in your budget.
        As I said yesterday, I am happy to see your prioritization
    of energy development on public lands. We know in Montana how
    much our State relies on Federal coal, oil, and gas for good
    paying jobs, for tax revenues to support our infrastructure,
    teachers, schools, and our State. You mentioned yesterday that
    it was important to obtain a fair return for taxpayers. I
    sponsored a bill, an amendment in this very subcommittee last
    year to reinstate the royalty policy committee. I am very
    pleased that you have reinstated this committee and have
    included a request for implementation of that committee in your
    budget. I am hopeful we will support that request because I
    think this committee is a common sense way to ensure the
    taxpayer gets a fair return, the process is transparent and
    ensures our States, our Tribes, and our other stakeholders are
    part of the process to ensure the return is both fair and
    economical.
        Secretary Zinke, I have been noticing how much time you are
    spending out in the States, out on the front lines. It is your
    instincts to get out on the front lines with the folks, Federal
    employees who are serving this great Nation and serving the
    people, but importantly, out in the States to make sure the
    voice of the States and our Tribes is heard in these processes,
    and that is a breath of fresh air in the Department.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        Part of facilitating public use and land use in Montana is
    facilitating access to our public lands. The LWCF is critically
    important. It is a tool that ensures that access and other
    common sense land management solution occurs.
        I understand your budget does not include any funding for
    new acquisitions, but does mention interest in working towards
    reauthorization. I will tell you I plan to work with this
    subcommittee to continue to fund this program in a meaningful
    way as we complete our appropriations. When Congress enacted
    the latest Omnibus Appropriations bill, incidentally what a
    tragedy to think we are 7 months into the fiscal year before
    Congress puts in place a spending bill. I hope we can do what
    we must do better this year.
        But when Congress did enact the latest Omnibus
    Appropriations bill to fund this fiscal year, we included some
    report language to direct fellow agencies to continue to
    prioritize projects. So my question, Mr. Secretary, is will you
    work with me on a path forward for this program, LWCF, and also
    ensure projects move smoothly and expeditiously through the
    prioritization process?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, I thank you, Senator, and
    absolutely. I will work with you. I think the long-term fix on
    the LWCF is in the interest of us all to give clarity in the
    out years.
        And to your point, I have spent a lot of time in the front
    line and I view Interior as being a large command and the place
    that the commander should be is in the front line. There are
    some observations. One is the front line is too thin. Our job
    satisfaction among even Park Service, we are at the bottom. Of
    land management organizations and bureaus, we rank 15 out of
    15. That is the Park Service. You would think the Park Service
    would be the greatest job ever.
        This is job satisfaction from employees. It bothers me we
    are not number one. I am a competitive person, but whether it
    has been micromanaged, the authority has been stripped from the
    front line, whether the resources have been regionalized up.
    There are a lot of reasons why. Too, in some places we have a
    culture of sexual discrimination and harassment. That has got
    to end. Zero tolerance. But I want to be number one in our Park
    Service and Fish and Wildlife and Department of Interior and I
    think as a steward of our public lands, I should demand that.
        But on land acquisitions, you point out the budget zeroes
    land acquisitions. When we are $11.5 billion behind in taking
    care of what we have, it is hard for me to justify additional
    land acquisitions unless we prioritize catching up on our
    maintenance.
        Senator Daines. Secretary Zinke, by the way, thanks for
    your comments on the issue of international parks. As the
    Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources
    for our national parks, the very first hearing that I conducted
    was regarding the sexual harassment and bullying that is
    occurring right now within our national park systems, the
    employees there. And I applaud your leadership, using the word
    zero tolerance. As a SEAL Team 6 member in your past, you know
    that leadership starts at the top and I appreciate your
    leadership in that important area.

                           BLACKFEET WATER SETTLEMENT

        I want to--my last question here as I am running out of
    time is regarding the Blackfeet Water Settlement. Upon your
    confirmation, I wrote you urging full funding of the Blackfeet
    Water Settlement that we worked hand in hand as a delegation
    last Congress to get across the finish line. I asked for $100
    million in fiscal year 2018. We were able to authorize $4.8
    million for implementation this year. As you know, the full
    funding must be appropriated by 2026. The question is will you
    work with us this year to plus up implementation of this
    settlement for this year and in the coming years?
        Secretary Zinke. I look forward to that. And a couple of
    comments. The $4.8 million, as you know, was authorized,
    unfortunately not appropriated. And then I have concerns about
    access to the account until it gets fully funded in 2026
    because if you do not allow access to the water projects, over
    time they could become more expensive. If it is part of their
    plan, as they develop their plan, is money becomes available
    and appropriated through the different sources. The Bureau of
    Reclamation has $10 million. I would be supportive of having
    the Blackfeet and other water compact Tribes to have access to
    those funds so they can get busy on the projects.
        Waiting in the out years until the fund is fully funded
    only assures it is going to be more expensive and it is going
    to be delayed. To me, it is better to put the working capital
    on the front line as soon as we can and give some flexibility
    to the Tribes to execute that plan.
        Senator Daines. All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I will
    note that the Secretary was out in Yellowstone Park recently
    driving a snowplow getting the roads opened up here. So talk
    about the front lines. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Well service.
        Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Madame Chair, and
    welcome, Mr. Secretary.

                                SUDDEN OAK DEATH

        We have a water mold pathogen in Oregon, referred to as
    Sudden Oak Death, and it is a huge threat to our nursery
    industry. It involves about 18,000 acres of BLM land that has
    been quarantined and there is a mutation of it that is very
    threatening to our conifers, the Douglas fir trees and others.
    And so both the nursery industry and the forest industry is
    very concerned about this. Can I work with you to try to
    identify places where perhaps through the Forest Development
    Program is probably the likely place for BLM lands? I think we
    can get some funds to try to make this quarantine actually work
    effectively before it becomes a factor that either starts
    destroying our BLM forests or eliminates the ability to export
    nursery stock from some of the key ports in Oregon.
        Secretary Zinke. Thank you and go, Ducks. I was unaware of
    this, but you have my commitment to get on it. I am very
    concerned, as well as you are, about invasive species across
    the west, whether it is zebra mussels, pine beetles, white pine
    beetles, or this one. I look forward to working with you on it.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Secretary Zinke. Because I understand the importance of it.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. Two of our key
    industries are very concerned about this. We have a bipartisan
    working group of experts, about 30 people, just immersed in
    holding meetings, but we need some Federal help, and thank you.

                                FIRE SUPPRESSION

        The second thing I wanted to raise was in regard to the
    Fire Suppression Fund. And it is funded, as you pointed out, at
    the 10-year average which means half the time statistically we
    are going to engage in fire borrowing where we shut down so
    many programs in order to address the forest fires. We would
    like to have a buffer in that world. Is that something you
    could consider examining and supporting?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, as you know, the budget prioritizes
    the removal of dead and dying trees and fire suppression. I
    think those that live in the west understand that and
    understand the ramifications of having too many dead and dying
    trees, but I will work with you on it. I think part of the
    solution is to go back to a healthy forest, and we can define
    through Congress what a healthy forest should look like. But
    you are right. Every time we get a forest fire, the magnitude
    we are getting, and we borrow to fight it.
        We have gotten a lot better fighting forest fires. There is
    some good news in there. The Joint Firefighting Unit out of
    Boise has done a good job between the bureaus, and that is a
    good model going forward.
        Senator Merkley. Well, I will continue the discussion with
    you. It is simply a situation where when we do exceed the
    account and have to shut down other programs, then even the
    removing the dead and dying trees, well, the prevention side
    gets robbed to pay the fire suppression side.

                    WESTERN OREGON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

        I wanted to turn to the Western Oregon Resource Management
    Plan. We have resource management plans, RMPs, that look to cut
    about 278 million board feet, but under this budget reductions,
    only about 200 million board feet would be possible to plan for
    and harvest. We would like to see meeting those RMPs. And I
    guess I really do not need a lot of comment from you. I just
    wanted to point out that it is a concern of having the
    resources to plan and operate the timber sales as envisioned.
        Secretary Zinke. I agree. And, obviously 270 million board
    feet is not a whole lot compared to what Oregon has had in the
    past, so being able to review accessibility to our timber
    industry would be helpful. You are aware it is about stock in.
    These smaller mills, they do not have the availability of stock
    and yet we have the catastrophic forest fires. I think we need
    to work together to make sure we have access to responsible,
    sustainable yield production and give these guys an operating
    chance with stability of timber coming in the door.
        Senator Merkley. Yes. Our mills really are depending on the
    public trees because the private trees are being exported to
    Japan and to China. The log decks that exist on the Columbia
    River and on the coast are frighteningly large and I just wish
    we could figure out a way to get all of those logs processed in
    our mills rather than them going out as raw resources.

                                  METHANE RULE

        I wanted to turn to the methane rule 2 year, I think,
    postponement that you have enacted. That rule on both flaring
    and methane leaking was one developed through about 300,000
    public comments, 8 public forums, 5 years, and was sustained by
    the Senate. And is it your sense that--do you feel like you
    have the legal authority to simply set that rule aside?
        Secretary Zinke. I am not setting the rule aside. I intend
    to fully enforce the rule. We did put a notice to suspend on
    it, per the law, on it, but to be clear, my intent is to
    rewrite the rule because I think we both agree that flaring is
    wasteful. As the steward of our public lands, I just do not
    like to waste things. I do not know what the BTU wastes a year,
    but it is a lot. I would rather capture it, but you have to
    incentivize capture systems. You have to incentivize use. You
    have to incentivize injection. There are a lot of ways to
    capture it without it just being flared in the atmosphere and
    wasted.
        Senator Merkley. So I heard two things in that sentence
    that I am confused about. I heard fully enforce and I heard
    suspend. Clarify.
        Secretary Zinke. I would have registered it as a suspend,
    but until that time I am going to follow the law, sir.
        Senator Merkley. I see. Thank you. My time is expired.
    Thank you very much.
        Senator Murkowski. Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Madame Chair. And welcome and
    thank you for your service, Mr. Secretary.

                     CANAAN VALLEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

        As I think most of us have issues within our State, so I am
    just going to go State specific on you. I would like to talk to
    you to ask to enlist your help regarding a priority of mine,
    which is the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge. First and
    foremost, I would love for you to come and visit. I know you
    have been out and around. It is a quick, easy hop here from
    Washington DC.
        But as you are probably aware, or at least I know the
    Department is aware, we are in desperate need of a new
    visitor's center there. This is not just my opinion or desire.
    It has been a priority of the regional director and has been
    high up on the priority list for the last several years. We
    know that the refuge is a special place, but the visitor's
    center is really in an undesirable condition after earthquakes
    and fire. It is in an older kind of building and we get quite a
    few visitors there.
        But it looks as though in the budget that you are cutting
    the construction funds within the Fish and Wildlife. And so I
    guess I would like to enlist your help here. It could be part
    of an infrastructure package. It is way beyond time to try to
    make a new commitment here at the visitor's center, so I would
    just like some comment on that and also your comment on the
    cuts on the construction part of your budget.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, on the infrastructure side, I think
    we were net positive on it. I would love to work with you to
    find a path of either onshore or looking at offshore and new
    monies to have a sustainable influx of revenue to address
    infrastructure. We dropped $18 billion to $2.6 billion in
    revenue. That is $15.5 billion. On scale, we would have caught
    up everything plus had about $3 billion worth of investment.
        I am aware of the visitor's center and I am also aware that
    across the board our infrastructure is lacking. For those in
    DC, I invite you to go look at Arlington. It is hallowed ground
    up on top Lee's former home and is part of the national park
    system. It is a national disgrace. We let that building go
    through years of neglect. The shutters are in disrepair. The
    garden is in disrepair and it is hallowed ground. That is a
    reflection of where we are across our board.
        I am prioritizing infrastructure to fix what we have and I
    am excited to work with you to make sure we have a revenue
    stream to address it. The infrastructure package from the
    President is aware of that and that will be part of the
    priorities as I understand.
        Senator Capito. Good. Thank you. Thank you so much.

                             U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

        The other question--another question I have is on the
    reductions on the U.S. Geologic Survey, particularly on the
    ability to help predict and monitor flood, particularly fast
    flood events. On Friday, we will have the first anniversary of
    very tragic event in our State of West Virginia. We had a
    really quick devastating flood where we lost over 20 lives and
    countless destruction. It just--I was just visiting Clendenin,
    one of the communities on Monday and it is still rather jarring
    to see even a year later.
        How are you seeing that in terms of how it might impact the
    ability to use this data to predict floods? Do you see it as
    that part of it as endangered by cutting the budget or what is
    your perspective on that?
        Secretary Zinke. The USGS, it is amazing what we give
    grants to and what we do not give grants to. We are looking at
    every grant. We give on scale about $5.5 billion worth of
    grants and payments at the Department of Interior. Some of that
    money comes from USGS. We are going through painstakingly each
    of those grants and prioritizing public safety and shifting
    money to where we believe is the best bang for the buck, as
    well as reducing some of the redundant programs. There is
    duplication across it.
        And then focusing on core tasks and public safety at USGS
    as well as we are going to ask, no doubt, for a survey on our
    precious metals, do an inventory, and do straight stick geology
    101, field geology, because we are behind on it. We have to do
    an inventory and some of it will be in the great State.
        Senator Capito. Right.
        Secretary Zinke. Looking at what our inventories are
    offshore with seismic, onshore with what our precious metals
    and actually what the energy potential is in this country and
    where it is at. We believe that is an important core component
    of the USGS.

                                PRECIOUS METALS

        Senator Capito. I am glad to hear that because I think that
    has great promise as my understanding is we are not producing
    those special metals, even though we know they exist in our
    country and we are importing at great cost. And also I think we
    are going to be--at some point could be held hostage in terms
    of being able to secure those resources.

                  WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY

        Just additionally, since I am running out of time, I did--
    on the flood issue, I did want to mention that the National
    Fish Hatchery in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia did
    suffer significant damage and it has been rebuilt amazingly
    quick. They still have some needs there to be able to get back
    and operating, but I just wanted to call your attention to the
    great work that those folks did to help their neighbors.
    Neighbors are helping neighbors in West Virginia. But also to
    the ability to get that hatchery back up and running again is
    appreciated and any additional help would be welcomed.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Zinke. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        Senator Tester is next in line, but I think it has been
    agreed that Senator Leahy has a time crunch and so he will be
    given deference to go next if I understand correctly.
        Senator Leahy. And I apologize to Senator Tester. This is
    the second time this has happened. One thing of being vice-
    chairman of the overall committee, this happens. Senator
    Tester, if you had to go, you go ahead.
        Senator Tester. No, I will go later.
        Senator Leahy. Mr. Secretary, you are no stranger to
    Capitol Hill from your earlier----
        Secretary Zinke. Unfortunately, that is true.
        Senator Leahy. Well, fortunately or unfortunately. I think
    you know that on this subcommittee there is a lot of
    bipartisanship and a commitment to protecting our Federal lands
    and sometimes increasingly fragile natural resources.

                                 CLIMATE CHANGE

        We also have challenges posed by climate change. And I
    think this budget actually--proposal--and I realize we are
    cutting all over the place, but this fails in all these areas.
    I think it is going to endanger our Nation's natural and
    cultural resources.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        Let me give you a couple of examples. The Land and Water
    Conservation Fund, the LWCF. For more than 50 years in States
    across the Nation, including my own of Vermont, the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund has been an important funding source
    for State and local outdoor recreation facilities. City parks
    serve as critical green infrastructure. Acquisition of public
    floors, wildlife refuges, park plants. We have benefitted from
    this LWCF in Vermont, but we have a lot more to accomplish.
        We have to protect important inholdings. We have willing
    sellers who want to sell to buffer the Appalachian National
    Scenic Trail, Vermont's long trail. We have to create and
    expand close to home parks without recreation facilities, not
    only for our young people, but for the next generations.
        During your confirmation process, you said that you wanted
    our parks to serve and inspire all Americans. I think every one
    of us agree with that. You said you would work with Congress to
    accomplish that goal. But with these budget cuts, how does that
    accomplish the goal to serve and inspire all Americans, all
    parts of the country, not just some.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, I appreciate the question and I
    appreciate being from the beautiful State of Vermont.
        On the LWCF, what was zeroed was additional land
    acquisition. It did not affect conservation, easements, et
    cetera. Because the position is that as long as we are $11.5
    billion behind in maintenance and backlog, we need to take care
    of what we have.
        Having said that, I have been a long supporter of the LWCF.
    I think there is a structural problem with it because the fund
    itself has about $20 billion or so and every year we do not
    appropriate the amount that was the intention of the law, and
    is a little different than what has occurred. Having stability
    for the LWCF program long-term, certainly I look forward to
    working with you.
        Senator Leahy. Will you--if it has not been used adequately
    in the past, are you going to be taking steps to make sure it
    is? I mean, there are some who would like it not to be used.
    They would rather be exploiting some of these lands. Will you
    give this your own personal attention?
        Secretary Zinke. Sir, I will because I am a steadfast
    admirer of Roosevelt and Pinchot and as the steward of our
    greatest lands, I take that responsibility very seriously. I
    think our public lands, particularly within Interior are our
    greatest treasures. I want to make sure that we not only
    protect them, we preserve them for generations to come. I think
    that is not a partisan issue. That is an American issue.

                    INDIAN AFFAIRS PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE

        Senator Leahy. Let me go into another issue that does not
    often come up. Senator Crapo and I joined together a few years
    ago to reauthorize the Violence Against Women's Act. It was a
    good act, but it did not reflect adequately the needs of today.
    We added the LGBTQ community, we added Native Americans, and we
    added the sexual trafficking of children. It passed heavily in
    the Senate and then was taken up in the House and it was one of
    those that passed in the House without changing a word of it.
        Now, rates of domestic violence against Native women in
    Indian Country are among the highest in the United States. Both
    Senator Crapo and I, as bipartisan as you can get, wanted to
    confront this. I am deeply concerned that this budget cuts
    public safety and justice programs at the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs by more than $36 million from the fiscal year 2017
    enacted level, including a $23.5 million cut from Tribal
    courts.
        If you make these cuts how are we going to address the
    problems, the public safety problems, that continue to plague
    Tribal communities that come about through--long before your
    administration--but decades of underfunding for the Tribal
    criminal justice programs?
        Secretary Zinke. The budget does zero out the pilot
    program, but I will work with you. Again, the budget is an
    example of what a balanced budget would look like. It is a
    starting point. I certainly understand the importance of having
    a Tribe have flexibility within the structure to address some
    of the significant issues, to include education, to include
    drug enforcement.
        Many of the Tribes, the most effective treatment is within
    the Tribe itself rather than sending, if the Tribes are on a
    reservation, rather than sending individuals off the
    reservation, but have communication----
        Senator Leahy. But some of the stories of domestic and
    sexual violence are horrendous. I was a prosecutor. I do not
    remember--I remember seeing some pretty bad cases, but not as
    bad as some of the ones that came out in the testimony that
    Senator Crapo and I received.
        Secretary Zinke. There has been probably, examples of at
    least if not the most violent, certainly competitive, in the
    great Crow Nation recently. Recently the Cheyenne with
    Assiniboine Sioux, which I am proud to be an adopted member.
    Some of it is socioeconomic. Some of it is drugs. A lot of the
    Tribes are matriarchal, so when the mother and grandmother are
    involved with drugs, that sends the kids over to the aunts and
    uncles, which has another series of problems.
        You are right. In some of our Tribes the social fabric has
    been disrupted, and in many cases, near destroyed. I do think
    it is a community approach more than one size fits all.
        Senator Leahy. We are not looking for a one size fits all,
    but we want to have the remedies we had in the Violence Against
    Women Act that we all voted for to be there. And these cuts are
    going to make it difficult, so you and I should probably chat
    more.
        Secretary Zinke. And I look forward to working with you
    because I understand the importance of it.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Leahy. Know that I
    certainly support you in that endeavor and happy to work with
    you as well.
        Senator Hoeven.

                                     ENERGY

        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madame Chairman, Mr. Secretary.
    And to all of our guests today, thank you for being here and
    for your good work in the President's fiscal year 2018 budget
    proposal.
        Mr. Secretary, you proposed $791 million in funding for
    energy related programs across the Department. And that is an
    increase of about $16 million versus fiscal year 2017. So for
    traditional energy sources in the 2018 budget, there is an
    increase of $16 million. For the oil and gas program, an $8
    million for the coal management program to approve the
    application process, it says.
        So I am just wondering how are you intending to use these
    funds and, you know, what actions are you taking to kind of
    improve and streamline the regulatory process in regard to both
    oil and gas and the coal management?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, one of the reasons why the budget
    looks at energy is the President has said energy dominance.
    There is a lot of reasons why that is important. For Interior,
    one of the many reasons is revenue. We dropped $15.5 billion a
    year in revenue. While people are focused on $1.6 billion in
    savings, our revenue picture across the board needs to be
    shored up.
        Our park system entrance fees we are looking at, royalties
    across the board, whether it is oil, gas, wind. Anything that
    is commercially developed on public land, we are looking at
    royalties to make sure the taxpayer gets a fair value for it.
    The increase in energy looks at the permit process. The
    permitting process has too many loops in it where arbitrariness
    can either approve or disapprove a permit. We have to make sure
    that process is fair and transparent and trustworthy.
        A lot of the emphasis on energy has been simply to gain
    revenue so we can afford to pay for the infrastructure backlog.
    It is a question of just simply a balance sheet. You have
    revenues, expenses. When you look at cuts or savings in
    programs, not very many people like it, but the balance of it
    is when you have money in the bank then you can afford to spend
    money in the programs that we think are important.

                        REVENUE AND DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

        Senator Hoeven. So are you indicating then--I know you have
    a deferred maintenance backlog. I think for Interior, it is
    about $15 billion and national parks have 73 percent of that
    deferred maintenance. Are you saying that some of that revenue
    then can be used to help with some of your deferred maintenance
    challenge?
        Secretary Zinke. We are working with Members on both sides
    of the House to look at revenue streams, new money to carry
    over and directly pay for the infrastructure backlog. Yes, sir,
    we are. We think that is an opportunity. We are looking at
    public-private partnerships as part of it. I do not give
    judgment. The last administration did not look at revenue as
    the priority that I would and we are looking at that side of
    the balance sheet much more closely.
        Like you, I love clean air, clean water, and a lot of the
    programs that have savings in this budget, we think are
    valuable. With more revenue, we can afford to fund those.

                              VENTING AND FLARING

        Senator Hoeven. Sounds like some, you know, good thinking
    in terms of creative solutions and that is much appreciated.
    Talk for a minute about the BLM flaring rule. The Senate came
    very close to passing a CRA provision that would have rescinded
    it. That did not happen, so I know that you are undertaking
    review of that rule. Can you just give us a status update on
    that?
        Secretary Zinke. We have noticed to suspend, although I am
    going to follow the law, and as a former Congressman and former
    Naval officer, I do follow the law. But upfront, I think the
    rule should have been in a CRA. It would not have been easier
    to rewrite it. My intent is to go through the process, although
    it is going to be painstakingly slow. I am going to go through
    the process of rewriting it to make sure we incentivize
    capture, we incentivize use, and de-incentivize waste.
        As a public steward, I think it is wasteful to flare, but
    you have got to give incentives to make sure there are capture
    systems and it can be used for beneficial use. I look at it as
    a holding on public land and it is better to provide incentives
    either to inject, to move, to store, rather than just to flare
    and the rule will march along that line.
        Senator Hoeven. Do you have any estimated timeframe?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, I got sued six times in the first
    morning I was in the Department of Interior, so I would imagine
    I am going to be in Court over it. What should take 6 months
    will probably take a couple of years, but we will go through
    the process. We will do it legally and be transparent. There
    are going to be a number of periods, as there should, of public
    comment. I think that is a valuable part of our Democracy.

                       APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS TO DRILL

        Senator Hoeven. There is something like 3,000 APD,
    Applications for Permit to Drill, on BLM lands pending. Are you
    willing to work with us to try to address that, streamlining
    that process?
        Secretary Zinke. I am and overall some of it is because we
    do not have personnel and there is additional budget to address
    that. Some of it is just a process and when the process becomes
    arbitrary, when you request a permit in the same basin where it
    has been consistently done before and that permit is viewed as
    a new start, that is probably not appropriate. We are looking
    at making sure that the process is fair, it is transparent, it
    is appropriate.
        I am a Boy Scout. I make sure I leave the campground in as
    good or better condition than I found it. If you are going to
    operate on public lands, I expect a reclamation project and a
    plan to restore those lands to its condition and I think that
    is part of being a steward of our public lands.
        Senator Hoeven. Right. And in a lot of these cases, BLM has
    a minority interest of the surface acres, so in a lot of cases,
    particularly with directional drilling, you may not even be
    disrupting surface acres. And again, that goes to what you are
    talking about, that this can be done with very good
    environmental stewardship.
        A final note I would point out just to kind of--from an
    anticipatory standpoint is I think North Dakota State plays the
    Ducks. You mentioned, go, Ducks earlier. I am not sure of this
    year, but I think next year. So looking forward to the game.
    You know, we might have to have a little wager or something.
        Secretary Zinke. I would entertain a wager of an IPA.
        Senator Hoeven. That sounds great.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Tester, back to you, sir.
        Senator Tester. Thank you, Madame Chair. And I do not know
    if betting is allowed in Interior Appropriations Committee, but
    what the hell, you know? It is good to have you here, Secretary
    Zinke. Appreciate your willingness to serve.

                            VENTING AND FLARING RULE

        Just one point of reference. If that Congressional Review
    Act would have passed on the methane rule you would not have
    been writing any rule because it would have forbid you from
    writing rules. So hopefully you can go by what Congress has
    said here and do everything you can do to note waste that
    resource as you have pointed out in your testimony thus far.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        I want to talk about LWCF because it has been talked about
    ad nauseum and it is good because it is being talked about
    because it is a good program. It is a program that works. It is
    a program that takes a checkerboard out of the landscape by
    using easements. This budget cuts it by $350 million. It was
    not exactly at a stellar level before. Remember, it was $900
    million to be funded at when it was first put in.
        Can you tell me how the President or you can put forth a
    budget that really lacks a vision by cutting this program by
    this kind of money?
        Secretary Zinke. I have long been a supporter of the LWCF
    program and you and I agree on that. Overall, the program has
    done great things for our country.
        Senator Tester. Yes.
        Secretary Zinke. Some has been an appropriations problem.
    As you know, within the account, there is about $20 billion.
        Senator Tester. Sorry. Are you talking there is $20 billion
    setting in an account right now that can be appropriated out?
        Secretary Zinke. There is $20 billion in Treasury. And part
    of the issue is--there is not money in there--is that the
    methodology is----
        Senator Tester. Okay. I got the methodology. Years ago in
    1965, we were supposed to take our offshore oil receipts and
    fund this program. So if you take from 1965 to today and the
    money that has been appropriated versus the money that was
    collected, you end up with $20 billion. The question is is
    there $20 billion in that account or has it been spent?
        Secretary Zinke. It is in Treasury.
        Senator Tester. So then if it is in Treasury and you want a
    balanced budget, it looks to me like you could have
    appropriated that at $900 million.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, I do not appropriate. That would
    be----
        Senator Tester. You could have recommended that
    appropriation within your budget.
        Secretary Zinke. But this has been structurally the LWCF
    program offshore, 38 percent was supposed to go in the program.
        Senator Tester. Yes.
        Secretary Zinke. And appropriated to the field.
        Senator Tester. Yes.
        Secretary Zinke. It does not get appropriated.
        Senator Tester. But----
        Secretary Zinke. Structurally, to change that would be if
    we are going to make the law do what the intention was is that
    it either goes direct or put caveats on it so a long-term
    appropriation at the right funding would be done. And I agree
    with that.
        Senator Tester. Do you agree with that? So you advocate to
    put it back to $900 million which is where the program was
    initially supposed to be?
        Secretary Zinke. What I advocate is for--and I am a
    supporter of it. It should have been rather than going into
    Treasury where now you have to get a loan to get it out of
    Treasury and make an offset, it would be nice structurally if
    it was stable where the income would go into its purpose and
    its purpose was the LWCF.
        Senator Tester. We had Secretary Perdue at one of these
    meetings last week, one of our subcommittee meetings. And I was
    telling him the same thing. You are Secretary of Interior. This
    is an important position. It is one of the reasons I supported
    you in this position is because of your support for LWCF, but
    we cannot sit here and make excuses.
        Either we are for it or we are not. And you know how good
    this program is. You know that these landscapes probably will
    not be here 10 years from now. And if what we do today makes a
    difference for those kids sitting behind you, the next
    generation of leaders for this country, and if we take away
    their opportunities--and I think land and water conservation,
    lack of funding in that does that, I do not think we are doing
    a service. And so I agree I know you are for it, but this
    budget does not indicate you are for it.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, what the budget does is it zeroes
    out new land acquisition. It does not zero out conservation
    easements.
        Senator Tester. Well, there is a ton of easements that will
    not get funded under this budget in Montana alone. And I cannot
    speak to what is going on in New Mexico or Oregon or any other
    place, but I can tell you that folks in Montana have read this
    budget and said, including myself, this is not going to do it.

                           PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

        I want to talk about PILT. Cut--I think the Chairman talked
    about it or Lamar talked about. These are hand to mouth
    operations at county government. They do not have access unless
    they increase property taxes to pay for schools, roads,
    building operations. What was the idea behind cutting it 15
    percent?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, you are on appropriations. You may
    recall last year the discretionary request was zero, zero. This
    year was the first year we actually--well, this year in many
    years--we added $397 million in the discretionary request. That
    is a net change of $397 million to the positive on PILT,
    understanding it does not fully fund it.
        Senator Tester. In fiscal year 2017 we funded PILT at $465
    million. This year this budget says $396 million. That is a 15
    percent cut.
        Secretary Zinke. The previous President's budget had zero
    on PILT.
        Senator Tester. You know what? The previous President's
    budget, we fought with him too.
        Secretary Zinke. I understand that, but I would think it
    would be helpful to have $397 million rather than $0 as a
    starting point on a budget.
        Senator Tester. I think it--truthfully, if you talk to the
    county commissioners, and I know you have, you know what they
    will tell you.
        Secretary Zinke. They would say, and I would agree with
    them.
        Senator Tester. They would say fund it.
        Secretary Zinke [continuing]. PILT is a priority.
        Senator Tester. Yes.
        Secretary Zinke. But it is easier in this budget to have
    $397 million rather than $0 like the last President.

                                YELLOWSTONE MINE

        Senator Tester. I got you. One last question and it deals
    with the mine. We talked about this when you were a Congressman
    from Montana. It is the mine out of Yellowstone National Park.
    I understand that there are--it is open for comments at this
    point in time. Can you give me any indication what kind of
    comments you are getting on that mine on the potential that
    that does not ever happen?
        Secretary Zinke. As a Congressman, I stood opposed to it.
        Senator Tester. Yes.
        Secretary Zinke. I just did not see a process to go from A
    to point B on that mine.
        Senator Tester. Yes.
        Secretary Zinke. I will look. I have not followed the
    comments on that.
        Senator Tester. Okay.
        Secretary Zinke. But I will look.
        Senator Tester. If you could get back to me, I would love
    to know what the comments are on that. And in the end,
    hopefully we can get a permanent withdrawal. I have got a bill
    to do that.

                                      COAL

        One last thing, and I appreciate the flexibility from the
    Chairman, but you talked about fair revenue a number of times.
    And I agree with that and I think we ought to work with that,
    but it--I will not ask this question, but it does bring the
    question up. When we were doing a review of coal leases to get
    fair market value that has not been done in 20 years with the
    previous administration and I was pushing them to get it in 3
    years. When you took over, you pulled that off the table and
    that is not doing justice to taxpayers.
        Secretary Zinke. The coal, the revenue advisory committee
    looks at coal revenue as well as all of the above. I am a
    geologist and I do not consider myself a genius, but I am a
    pretty smart guy. When I cannot figure out how we do it, how we
    evaluate and get revenues in it, either the process is not as
    transparent as it should be or it is an arbitrary. Coal is part
    of that rent and royalty review as well as everything else
    across-the-board we do on interior lands.
        Senator Tester. Thank you for being here.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Tester.

                                     ARCTIC

        Mr. Secretary, I was in over at a gathering this morning
    over at the Wilson Center focused on the Arctic. And it is
    always a good day when I can start my day in Washington DC
    talking about the Arctic. When I look at the budgets not only
    within Interior, but the other subcommittees, I am always
    looking to see where have we, as an Arctic nation, placed the
    priority, the funding priority, in our budgets to work towards
    whether it is greater access to the Arctic, whether it is
    better understanding and working with our indigenous peoples,
    and a couple of questions for you this morning about where we
    are on some of these Arctic specific initiatives.

                            POLAR BEAR CO-MANAGEMENT

        And let me start first with polar bear co-management. Not
    too many of my colleagues get to talk about polar bears, so I
    think it is an important one. And had an opportunity to speak
    with some folks this morning just exactly about this. In the
    fiscal year 2017 Omnibus, we included report language related
    to the creation of a civil-based co-management regime for polar
    bears back in November of last year. The service published
    proposed rulemaking related to polar bears. It had two
    purposes. First, it solicits public comments on developing and
    administrating a co-management partnership with Alaska Natives
    and it also asks for preliminary ideas as the best method to
    ensure that take limits established by the Polar Bear Bilateral
    Commission for the Alaska Chukotka population are not exceeded.
        My understanding is that meetings on co-management between
    the Department and the Tribal governments were scheduled to
    take place in early June. I understand that these meetings were
    cancelled by the Department. I need some understanding this
    morning as where we stand with the co-management regime, what
    the timeframe is for this proposed rulemaking, and then
    further, making sure that I have your commitment and that of
    the folks within your department to work with Alaska Natives as
    we implement the treaty to ensure that decisions are being made
    on reliable, scientific information including incorporating the
    traditional knowledge from our Alaska Native people. So just an
    update on the co-management situation with our polar bear.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, I certainly appreciate and support
    that Alaska is different and Alaska has strategic, economic,
    and cultural value. In regards to the Interior Advisory
    Committees, I have 220 committees. I suspended them all until
    the different advisory committees could give me information who
    is on their board, what they have done in the last year, what
    they have done in the last 5 years, and their mission
    statement. Once I have that, then I am glad to unsuspend them.
    I just want to know what I am responsible for.
        If they had a meeting scheduled, all they had to do is ask
    for an exemption on it. I will see whether this particular
    board asked for an exemption. But if they had a critical
    meeting, like Acadia, there were some of them that had a
    meeting in June that was coming up. They wanted a meeting. Then
    there was a process in place that they could ask for an
    exemption and we would give it. Since I am responsible for 220
    boards, I just want to know who is on the board and what they
    are doing, which was a part of that.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, and I understand that. Also
    recognize that this is a bilateral commission that we have in
    place with Russia. So as we talk about how we can better
    involve our Native peoples in the co-management, this is
    something that is important not only for the polar bear. We
    have other commissions as they relate to management of other
    species, whether it is walrus, whale.

                                  WALRUS IVORY

        And let me bring up the issue of walrus right now. As you
    know, our Alaska Native people have hunted walrus for
    centuries. The meat is a critical part of diet. The skins are
    used for skin boats for hunting. The tusks are turned into
    works of art. And literally it is the revenues that are derived
    from selling the ivory that allow so many to be able to either
    buy food, pay for their energy, put fuel in their boat so that
    they can continue hunting.
        The previous administration instituted a near total ban of
    domestic commercial trade of African elephant ivory. I want it
    clear for the record we have no African elephants in Alaska. We
    do not engage in anything that has to do with elephant ivory.
    Unfortunately, what has happened is there has been unintended
    negative consequences on the Alaska Native arts economy. We
    have had some States that have put complete bans on any ivory
    because they apparently are concerned that you cannot recognize
    walrus ivory, fossilized ivory. I am wearing an ivory bracelet.
    I have got ivory earrings on, all from walrus.
        But some States have said we are just going to avoid
    purchasing any walrus ivory and it has been wrongfully
    confiscated at some airports around the country. This is an
    issue that for many, many of our Native people is really very,
    very concerning. And at our AFN Convention last year, there was
    a roundtable conducted specifically on this issue.
        On top of all this, the service is required to make an ESA
    status determination on the walrus in fiscal year 2017 because
    of a multi-species settlement agreement that the Obama
    administration entered into in 2011. So I need you to commit to
    working with our Alaska Native leadership to educate Fish and
    Wildlife service personnel on the need to treat elephant ivory
    different than walrus ivory. And I would ask that you
    consider--I know you are not a big fan of working groups right
    now. I understand the review that you are on, but if you could
    look at forming a working group on this issue to ensure that
    our Alaska Native artists are able to continue the sale of
    these important artifacts.
        Secretary Zinke. Absolutely, and the ivory ban applies only
    to the African elephant. I think we will look at a Secretarial
    order to clarify the position. I will be glad to help you with
    it.
        Senator Murkowski. That would be great.

                            POLAR BEAR CO-MANAGEMENT

        Secretary Zinke. On co-management, I am an advocate of co-
    management. I think a lot of the Native Alaskan Tribes, and in
    my brief introduction with them, they certainly have a culture
    of managing the species up there. Bears Ears is another
    example. I am an advocate for co-management. Part of the
    request was to have Congress authorize it. My understanding is
    I do not have the authority to authorize co-management, but you
    do. But I would be glad to help work with you in any way I can
    on legislation and certainly give our support behind co-
    management. I think that is the appropriate path.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Udall.
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Chair, Madame Chair. I believe
    Senator Merkley has a pressing other issue, so I am going to
    yield to you for your second round of questioning.
        Senator Merkley. Oh, that is very gracious and thank you
    very much.

                           PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

        I wanted to echo the concerns about PILT that my colleague
    from Montana put forward. Very important to many of our
    counties in the west that have such a large percentage of
    Federal land.

                                 INDIAN AFFAIRS

        And then I wanted to turn to the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    where the public safety budget is cut by $28 million and the
    Indian education by $64 million and the overall Bureau of
    Indian Affairs is cut by about $300 million, having a pretty
    profound effect on the 500 plus federally recognized Tribes.
        I know that the Chair and the Ranking Member also work very
    hard on these issues related to Indian affairs. And is this an
    area where you would seek the wisdom of the subcommittee,
    taking a phrase from the Agricultural Secretary?
        Secretary Zinke. I will always work with you and because I
    think it is important. Upfront, again, the budget was a
    starting point. I think the value of the budget, quite frankly,
    is to have these conversations that are frank, open, and
    informative. The budget funds core task and treaty obligations,
    but not much more. Many of the members have expressed concern
    about it and I will work with you and I look forward to working
    with you on it.

                                INDIAN EDUCATION

        Indian education is a particular concern. We spend more
    money per student by far than the national average and yet the
    results continue to lag behind.
        Senator Merkley. I appreciate your willingness to work with
    us. Thank you.

                                 KLAMATH BASIN

        I want to turn to the Klamath Basin. We have a basin,
    agricultural basin, where the water is overallocated and
    adjudicated water rights have put the top rights going to the
    river and the lake very much a challenge for the ranchers and
    the farmers. And, in addition, the water rights, which are tied
    to the river and lake and also are tied--well, through the
    Tribal, the Klamath Tribe.
        The Tribe also had its--so its land was condemned in 1973
    and turned into a national forest and then in 1986 the Tribe
    was restored, so it was 13 years later. But when the Tribe was
    restored, the Federal Government did not return the land that
    they had condemned and turned into the Winema Forest. This is
    the only case like this in the history of our country that we
    are aware of where a reservation was turned into a national
    forest.
        So the groups have been trying to work out a deal that will
    involve a lot of funding for water conservation so the ranchers
    and farmers can thrive, but use a lot less water, which will
    make the river and lake healthier and address the salmon issues
    in the river and the fish issues in the lake. And the Tribe
    would obtain its forest back. This is complex, difficult,
    nearly came to an agreement. Did come to an agreement, but we
    did not get it through Congress in a timely basis. If we are
    going to reassemble the pieces of this and save the ranching,
    farming and save the fish in the stream, the whole thing, we
    are going to need a lot of help from the Interior Department.
    And I would ask if members of your team would be available to
    assist us as we try to work through a complicated
    reestablishment of a deal to address these issues.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, I look forward to working with you
    on it. I was briefed last week and you are right. It is dams
    and fisheries and Tribal obligations and forest service and
    Crater Lake. They called in the water rights and so Crater
    Lake, the U.S. Park Service, is having to ship water.
    Certainly, I think we can work together to find a solution, as
    difficult as the number of pieces are. There is certainly a
    solution that all parties can walk away with on this and we
    would be glad to help you with it.

                        ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

        Senator Merkley. I appreciate that a great deal. And then I
    wanted to try to understand the process on the ANWR right now.
    I believe that before Energy and Natural Resources you conveyed
    that Congress has the authority to authorize drilling, but that
    you have the authority to, I guess, prepare an understanding of
    the resources that are there. Are you planning to review
    seismic data or do new seismic testing or what is the plan
    currently?
        Secretary Zinke. It pertains only to the 1002 section,
    which was segregated separately by Congress. And, quite
    frankly, Congress has the authority and only the authority to
    authorize production to drilling. The 1002 is set aside. My
    charter is to assess. We are reviewing the U.S. Geological
    Survey data which has not been updated in a long time, which is
    my first blush at it. It is inaccurate.
        As the Department of Interior Secretary, I think it is an
    obligation to at least inventory our holdings to give Congress
    a better feeling for what is there so Congress can make the
    decision. That includes precious metals, rare earth. My
    intention is to go forward with the public process to do
    seismic testing off the coast of the Atlantic because I think
    part of my job is to make sure we inventory what we have and
    then it needs to be a public decision based on science on
    whether or not we go forward.
        Senator Merkley. Can that seismic testing that you are
    planning be done in a way that will not disturb the existing
    wildlife in the ANWR?
        Secretary Zinke. I am fairly confident it can. I was up in
    the North Shore. The technology today, and I had been on a rig
    earlier as a geologist, it was night and day. This is the
    harshest of all environments. What is occurring in technology
    on horizontal drilling, they are going in some cases 10 miles
    on a horizontal drill with little or no impact on adjacent
    areas.
        I am confident that the industry and American innovation
    can do things in an appropriate manner, but you have to hold
    people accountable too because trust, but verify, I think has
    been a very, very good phrase from President Reagan. I think
    part of the job is to make sure that, again, we are good
    stewards of the land and that means you return it to better
    condition than you found it.
        Senator Merkley. Sorry to interrupt you. My time is over
    and I want to respect that. If I understood correctly, then,
    yes, seismic testing using various technology, but any decision
    to actually recover oil would still rest with Congress.
        Secretary Zinke. That is correct, sir.
        Senator Merkley. Okay. Thank you very much.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
        Senator Udall, I will now turn to you. I am going to pop
    out quickly and go ask a question over in another
    appropriations hearing just next door. I will be back.
        Senator Udall. Okay.
        Senator Murkowski. So you will probably have more than 6
    minutes, but I know you want to try to head over there too, so
    we will just swap out of here.
        Senator Udall. Okay.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Madame Chair, and thank you,
    Senator Merkley, for that line of questioning there.
        Since he started with the 1002 area, you mentioned it is
    1002, or most call it the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I
    just wanted to note that there are some places that are just
    too special to develop and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
    I believe is one of them. I have been to the refuge. I have
    floated down the Hula Hula River. I have seen all the wildlife
    that is there, so I disagree with your budget proposal to drill
    there.

                                 REORGANIZATION

        I wanted to ask you one more question about reorganization.
    We have no idea how your large reorganization proposal will
    affect the Bureau of Indian Affairs or Tribal programs. I am
    not sure how Tribes are supposed to conduct a meaningful
    consultation with the Department if no one has shared any
    details of a plan with them and how the final notice to
    reorganization consultation with Tribes will take place on June
    27 in the midst of the huge personnel changes that impact
    multiple Indian Affairs staff, including the acting assistant
    secretary and the BIA director.

                              TRIBAL CONSULTATION

        At this point, I am sure Tribes are wondering if this is
    consultation lip service, and rightfully so, because it seems
    like decisions have already been made regardless of their
    input. How much weight is the Department giving Tribal input
    received at these consultations? What changes should Tribes
    expect for the BIA?

                                 REORGANIZATION

        Secretary Zinke. Well, we are finishing up the first round
    of listening sessions on the organization and here is where we
    are on it. I have talked to the Secretary of Agriculture,
    Secretary of Energy, the Vice-President. The organization is
    centered on how do we be more joint, how do we work together
    between the Forest Service and Department of Interior, whether
    it is Fish and Wildlife or Bureau of Land Management.
        I understand in the different regions if we take the tact
    of looking at organization based on Powell and watersheds, what
    would that look like considering that in 1906 when Pinchot and
    Roosevelt were around, a lot of the holdings have changed. You
    do not want to truncate a forest service. But we are looking at
    different areas, what it would look like, and then looking at
    the model of how we fight forest fires with our joint command
    up in Boise and how would functionally we look, given that the
    areas are much different as well as the populations are much
    different.
        If you go from Seattle down to San Francisco, the
    population is different on expectations of public lands. The
    watersheds are different. At the end of the day, I think that
    is appropriate that we work for the people and have to give
    some flexibility in the system.
        We are putting them together, certainly and absolutely the
    cases we are going to coordinate with you. As soon as we have,
    to a degree, a first blush so we can talk intelligently about
    it, how the divisions will be made, what our best guess of it
    will be. But we should have that within about 90 days. The
    Tribes will be a part of it.
        Not every part of Interior is going to be as affected as
    others. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, if you give it a grading,
    you know, how would you grade education? How would you grade
    Indian health? How would you grade our treaty obligations? You
    know, I would say our grades across the board have not been
    good.
        How do we look at providing our treaty obligations of
    service and what are the Tribes' ambitions. Because it is a
    mistake to lump all the Tribes as if they are monolithic. Even
    in Montana, the seven Tribes are uniquely different in culture,
    aspirations, ideas, resources. You have to respect the Tribes
    across this Nation are very, very different.
        Ultimately, our path to reorganization is going to honor
    sovereignty--it should mean something--self-determination, and
    respect. There is no chance that Interior is going to
    reorganize BIA without absolutely sitting down with the Tribes
    and Congress and working through what we all would agree would
    be a--the system as it is in place is not working well, so how
    do we sit down and improve it? I think everything is on the
    table.
        Senator Udall. You know, and I trust what you say there.
    You really want to consult and have them be a part of it. I
    know as a Congressman you did that with the Tribes in Montana
    and so I take you at your word that they are going to be
    meaningfully involved in this.
        I think if it--and you know this from dealing with Montana
    Tribes. I think if you go to Tribes and ask them to grade the
    Federal Government on consultation I think they would uniformly
    come out with an F on things. So we just need to--and it is a
    struggle because you have so many Tribes, but it is good to
    hear that you are going to work on that in a meaningful way.

                                INDIAN PROGRAMS

        Just months after taking office, President Trump attached a
    signing statement to the fiscal year 2017 spending bill that
    called into question the legality of programs that benefit
    Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. Coupled
    with proposed budget cuts that would disproportionately affect
    Indian Country and your own recent statements about privatizing
    Indian lands, Indian Country is understandably concerned about
    what could be perceived as an attack on key principles
    underlying the United States trust obligations to Tribes.
        Secretary Zinke, can you give me a yes or no here on did
    you agree with the President's claim that Federal programs
    benefitting Native Americans including Native Hawaiians and
    Alaska Natives are potentially race-based and unconstitutional?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, first, to even allege that I would
    suggest privatizing is untrue. What I said, and I want to be
    clear about this, is the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, which
    I know you are very familiar with, is that sovereignty should
    mean something. If a Tribe wants to go to something else, how
    do they do that? If a Tribe makes their own decision that they
    want to do something else as far as land trust, what is the
    process?
        And so openly there is not a process in place. I do think
    if we are going to honor sovereignty and a Tribe agrees whether
    they are going to go under the Department of Interior as far as
    their education experience or they want to do a different
    vehicle, sovereignty means that they should have that decision.
    So I think we should honor what sovereignty should mean and
    give Tribes choice, but it is up to the Tribe.
        It does not mean termination at all. What it means is
    working with the Tribes. There are some Tribes that are
    absolutely in a different position than others because they are
    not monolithic. I think you should honor the sovereignty of a
    Tribe, self-determination. If a Tribe feels strongly about a
    direction, then we should work with them as partners to
    accommodate that and be an advocate rather than an adversary.
        All too often the one size fits all idea that we are
    helping people sometimes in Washington results in actually we
    are doing harm, whether it is unintended consequences or not.
    Sometimes our policies do harm when they go to the field.
        Senator Udall. Yes. Well, thank you very much for
    clarifying that. I think that was one of the things that I
    wrote you a letter about to clarify that we both spoke, I
    think, to that Tribal group and they had questions about that
    and that is one of the letters.
        But could we go back to the do you agree with the
    President's claim that Federal programs benefiting Native
    Americans, including Native Hawaiians and Alaska Natives, are
    potentially race-based and unconstitutional? This has been a
    big issue up here on the Hill and many Tribes have approached
    us about that.
        Secretary Zinke. I am unaware of the President's
    statements, so in all fairness, I would have to read what the
    President has said and then I would have to ask him. Upfront, I
    think he--well, he is the greatest boss I ever worked for. He
    does not micromanage me. He asks me what I need. He has great
    respect for the Tribes. I know this to be true, but I will ask
    him. And I will get the statement and I will ask him on that
    and return.
        Senator Udall. Okay. That would be great. We will make sure
    you have the question and then look at the statements that were
    made and then give us a straightforward answer on that. We
    really appreciate it.

                               NATIONAL MONUMENTS

        Secretary Zinke, we already talked a little bit about Bears
    Ears, so I would like to turn to my home State of New Mexico
    where the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks and the Rio Grande Del
    Norte National Monuments are located. These two monuments were
    developed through decades of public input to Congress and
    previous administrations and they were created with
    overwhelming public support. You and I, I think, have had a
    visit about those also and how strong that public support was.
        These monuments are also contributing to New Mexico's
    economy. Since the Rio Grande Del Norte Monument was
    established, BLM has reported a 21 percent boost in tax revenue
    for area hotels and visitation at Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks
    National Monument is up more than 150 percent creating up to
    $34 million in new economic activity.
        When you came to visit me during your confirmation we
    talked about this, yet your Department still chose to review
    the protected status of these two monuments as part of your
    broader review under the President's executive order. Mr.
    Secretary, I am sure you can see why I am concerned about the
    uncertainty regarding their future status. At the Energy
    hearing yesterday you seemed to suggest to Senator Gardner that
    the Canyons of the Ancient National Monument is not on the
    chopping block which tells me you are making progress with your
    internal reviews.
        Given that fact, I wanted to take the opportunity to ask
    you about the status of New Mexico's monuments. Will you commit
    to me today that you will respect the wishes of the vast
    majority of New Mexicans and maintain the existing boundaries
    of these two monuments?
        Secretary Zinke. Let me go through the process. I will come
    out. I am scheduled to come out to New Mexico in a couple of
    weeks and that was at the invitation of Senator Heinrich. The
    President asked me to look at monuments from 1996 forward,
    100,000 acres or greater, with the first due out of Bears Ears,
    which I did. The recommendation on Bears Ears, and it is going
    to have some bearing because we are going to be consistent on
    the recommendation. Bears Ears was 1.5 million acres. In scale,
    about 1.5 times the size of Glacier. Within Bears Ears, there
    is a monument. There is a U.S. Forest Service holding. There is
    a wilderness study area. There is BLM land. Most of it is
    almost all Federal land.
        Looking at what the Antiquities Act says is the smallest
    area compatible to the protection of the object, and that is
    the executive power. Also understand the Antiquities Act is
    unique. It does not require NEPA. It is singular in authority.
    It does not require a public review. The President has the
    authority to establish a monument. The first monument, as you
    know, was 1,200 acres. That was Devil's Tower, and
    controversial then. I would say over a course of time the
    monument's program and the law has been enormously beneficial
    to the United States.
        So on Bears Ears, I looked at it. I think the antiquities
    and the objects can be identified, segregated. We have not
    determined the boundaries, but it can be revised, the
    boundaries to isolate them and protect those antiquities. Part
    of my responsibility is to make sure the boundaries are set
    where I can actually execute my duty of protection.
        We are also going to ask Congress for three things: co-
    management, authorization to co-manage the revised boundaries.
    We are going to ask Congress to review the lands within the
    memorial or monument because some of the lands, we think, are
    better under national recreation and national conservation
    areas because there is no object, per se. But that is a
    congressional decision and we are going to ask Congress to
    review it.
        Lastly, to clarify from Congress what happens when you put
    a monument over the top of a wilderness because a monument has
    its own proclamations and management, but a wilderness in many
    cases is more strict in its management. So what happens? What
    is the intent of Congress putting a monument over the top of a
    wilderness or wilderness study area?
        In the case of New Mexico, I do not want to rip a band-aid
    off of a monument that is settled. I talked to the Governor. I
    will talk to the congressional reps. I will talk to the county
    commissioners as I did on Bears Ears. If it is settled and
    people are happy with it, I find no reason to recommend any
    changes. There might be a recommended change on a proclamation
    if the community feels like the proclamation itself is either
    too stringent or needs to be clarified, I would certainly look
    at that.
        I look forward to be in the great State of New Mexico. My
    understanding is we are going to try to do it on a weekend. As
    soon as we solidify with your staff, you are certainly invited.
    My understanding is I might even get a horse ride through it.
        Senator Udall. I will know and we really appreciate you
    coming to New Mexico and we hope you will meet just like you
    talked about, with a wide range of stakeholders in terms of
    hearing what is actually happening on the ground. Thank you
    very much for that.
        Apparently, they need me over at the SAC-D hearing, so we
    are going to have a short recess. There are facilities back
    here. Give you a little short break and then I believe Chairman
    Murkowski will return here in a moment.
        Secretary Zinke. Very well.
        Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Committee
    is in recess.
        [Recess]
        Senator Murkowski. Secretary, to keep you on the hot seat.
    I just passed the baton with Senator Udall in the hallway. I
    just have a few more questions if I may this morning. I figure
    between what I had yesterday with you on the Energy Committee
    and now this, if I have not gotten all my questions presented
    to you, I am not talking fast enough. So I will be relatively
    brief here this morning.

                              ALASKA LEGACY WELLS

        Yesterday I mentioned the issue of contaminated lands,
    lands that had been conveyed to our Alaska Native people that
    basically were transferred in a contaminated State. We did not
    really talk about the legacy wells. You briefly touched on the
    fact that we have been making some headway in plugging these
    legacy wells that were drilled back in the 40s on the National
    Petroleum Reserve.
        We have got a situation, again, where we cannot complete
    this unless the resources are there. The question for you is
    whether or not you--given the resources that you have included
    in this year's budget, can you keep on the timeline that we
    have discussed with the Department about doing the necessary
    cleanup given the budgetary constraints that we are facing? In
    other words, are we going to be able to maintain momentum or
    are we once again slowing down because of budgetary
    limitations?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, I appreciate the question. The
    statistics I have on it is that we are down from 50 to 31. We
    will be at about 25 wells at the end of 2018. The budget itself
    had an $8 million decrease in it. It had $14 million in it, an
    $8 million decrease because the conditions up there are
    difficult and it is fairly isolated and so it is expensive. The
    glide slope on this is that it would not be completed for 6
    years. I am unaware of what the agreement was, but at the
    present allocation, it would be 6 to 7 years.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, and I appreciate that. And this is
    something that as we move forward, you as Secretary here, know
    that I am going to be on you and your folks to make sure that
    we have a serious commitment of resources and prioritization to
    clean these wells up. My concern is that we got to the low
    hanging fruit first, the easy ones, the ones that were less
    expensive. We have done that remediation. We have been able to
    plug them successfully and now we are at the point where it is
    the harder ones. You point out that they are in more remote
    places.
        So instead of being able to do a cluster at one time and
    gain some efficiencies of scale, it is just more challenging.
    So we want to be working closely with you to see if, given the
    complexity of the ones that we are working on now, whether that
    is slowing things down, whether we need to increase these
    amounts, but we will work with you on that one.

                     U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NATURAL HAZARDS

        Let me talk a little bit about USGS and I think it was
    Senator Capito that mentioned a little bit of what we are
    seeing within USGS. There is a proposal to cut $27 million from
    this side. This is part of the budget that provides for early
    warning for certain hazards like volcanic eruptions,
    earthquakes, landslides. We live in a place where we see this.
    And Alaska is probably the most seismically active State in the
    country.
        We have got a system of earthquake monitors called the U.S.
    Array. It is currently operated by the National Science
    Foundation. These monitors are going to be decommissioned in
    2018. We have been working with USGS on the cost of
    transferring these stations from NSF to USGS. And in the 2017
    Omnibus, we included some funding to prepare a report that
    looks at the cost of acquiring this equipment as well as an
    implementation plan on how USGS would begin to work with moving
    out some additional seismic stations.
        So I do not know whether you are aware of this request.
    What we are trying to do is ensure that investments that have
    been made in this monitoring system are not just abandoned and
    looking to make sure that we are utilizing the technologies,
    but again this is a resource that is important and making sure
    that we can allow for a continuation is going to be something
    that we would ask for your assist on.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, I look forward to working with you
    on it. You know, obviously USGS, with my background, is near
    and dear. I think the seismic work has been overall excellent.
    I understand there is a program to convert the systems and I
    think we will move to maybe converting 10 to 16 of the systems
    this summer. The budget, I will work with you on the budget to
    make sure we prioritize, and this is under the guise of public
    safety.
        I was briefed by the University of Oregon. The President
    came to the office and there is exciting technology about
    extending some algorithms on early warning and how that early
    warning results to actions in the ground, moving the people,
    transportation systems, and that which I think would fall under
    public safety. But I look forward to working with you on it.

                                VOLCANO HAZARDS

        Senator Murkowski. Good. Good. Another area is the Volcano
    Hazard Program. We have included in this appropriations
    subcommittee funding over the years for deferred maintenance
    work on these monitors that help us with volcano early warning.
    I have been asked why do we even need this. Well, if you are in
    an airliner and you go through a cloud of ash you can drop out
    of the sky about 30,000 feet as a Korean jetliner had to do
    some years ago. Early warning is important.
        Right now we understand that some of these monitors are not
    in compliance with the FCC regulations and waivers may need to
    be submitted for analog monitors to stay in operation while we
    do this conversion to digital. So the Senate Interior bill
    included a directive for USGS to report back with a funding
    plan to basically do an assessment as to how many of these
    stations are out of compliance and then the cost of bringing
    them in.
        I do not know if that is on your radar screen, but that is
    something that we are following here on the subcommittee, so I
    just wanted to bring that to your attention as well.
        Secretary Zinke. I am aware of it and I have talked to
    Department of Transportation on not just this system, but
    others as the President's plan to go to a different system and
    what are the consequences on our side because we have, you
    know, a fifth of the interior of the United States. We have a
    lot of systems out there and we have our own aviation
    department also that we need to be compliant.
        We will run the numbers on that, what the consequence would
    be. I do not have the data yet, but as soon as I do, I would be
    glad to share it with you.

                                 CONFIRMATIONS

        Senator Murkowski. Good enough. Good enough. Some of these
    are really quick. Again, just making sure that these are our
    issues that are in front of your people. And on that note, I
    realize you do not have a lot of your people yet. We are going
    to continue to push on your behalf. We would like to get Mr.
    Bernhardt working for you relatively quickly.
        Secretary Zinke. Madame Chairman, that has been a source of
    frustration, imminently qualified. He has been on the slate on
    or about when I was confirmed.
        Senator Murkowski. Yes.
        Secretary Zinke. And no progress.
        Senator Murkowski. We got him through the committee.
        Secretary Zinke. You did your part.
        Senator Murkowski. Yes.
        Secretary Zinke. We are hoping the Senate as a whole takes
    it up by a yay or nay vote, but it is not just that. As you
    know, I have critical people, Fish and Wildlife. I have Park
    Service. I have across the board to date I am the only
    confirmed member of Interior. I would have to believe it is
    willful to slow things down, which is disturbing because of all
    the departments--well, maybe not of all the departments--but
    certainly the Department of Interior should not be a partisan
    issue. Protecting our public lands should be an American issue
    and to have the right leadership in the right place, imminently
    qualified people.
        I am excited about our choice in USGS. I cannot think of a
    better person to have in there and yet it is just--in my
    opinion, it is being slow rolled. It is not the White House.
    The White House has approved the slate to their degree. They
    have to go through the Office of Government Ethics, but when
    you have 22 rounds of questions for an individual that has TS,
    SBI, SCI, and has been in government service and has done
    orbits around the Earth, I think they are pretty qualified
    people.
        Senator Murkowski. I share your frustration. You know,
    there are some who says, well, the process is slowed here in
    the Senate, and in fairness, we do see some of that. But you
    and I have talked about the good men and women that have been
    put forward that somehow or other end up in this dark hole
    somewhere. And I would sure like them to come out on the other
    side of that so we can move them through not this committee,
    but through the Energy Committee and get you the men and women
    that you need.
        As you know from this hearing today, the one you had
    yesterday, your appearance over on the House side, people are
    expecting you to work. I need you to get moving on a 5-year
    lease review. We have got things that we have got to be doing
    when it comes to land and water conservation, management of BLM
    lands, all of the concerns that you hear, but I do not think
    you have any more hours in your day than I do and you cannot be
    doing it all alone. And I know you have good and able staff
    that are there to just help with the day to day and we
    appreciate that too, but we have got to get you some help, sir,
    so.
        Secretary Zinke. I appreciate that. I hope troops are
    coming.
        Senator Murkowski. I hope troops are coming too. So I am
    going to very quickly raise a couple of very parochial issues.

              KAGALASKA ISLAND AND CHIRIKOF AND WOEWODSKI ISLANDS

        You and I have had an opportunity to talk about hunting and
    I think we share a love for hunting. One of the things that I
    do not think is necessarily appropriate though is when our
    Federal agencies embark on what I would view as almost a
    private hunt. And I know that they would probably get offended
    with my description of that. But what we saw a couple of years
    ago with Fish and Wildlife effectively conducting a caribou
    hunt on Kagalaska Island with the intention that we need to
    eradicate these rogue caribou that had swum across a channel
    from Adak, population maybe nine on a small island off of Adak.
        And the Fish and Wildlife Service chartered a boat to come
    from Kodiak all the way down to Adak. You have been out there,
    sir. You know that that is not a day trip. It is not
    inexpensive. And they basically went to go eradicate the area
    from these rogue caribou. We actually had to include language
    in the 2017 Omnibus that said, no, do not spend taxpayer
    dollars to do this.
        Similarly, we have cattle on Chirikof and Woewodski Islands
    that, again, an effort to use Federal dollars to remove these
    cattle that have been there for decades. So I am bringing these
    to your attention to make sure that you know that I am not of
    the mind that it makes good sense to use good taxpayer money to
    have our Federal wildlife service go out and engage in rogue
    caribou hunts or the cattle removal, so.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, Madame Chairman, we will comply with
    the subcommittee direction and there will be no hunts on the
    islands in question.

                                  KARLUK LAKE

        Senator Murkowski. Okay. Karluk Lake. I do not know if you
    have heard about Karluk Lake. This is a beautiful lake on
    Kodiak, in the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge area. The fiscal
    year 2017 Omnibus included language that directed the service
    to conduct a formal compatibility determination on whether
    nutrient enrichment in Karluk Lake for fish rehabilitation is
    compatible with the refuge's comprehensive conservation plan.
    And this is an issue that has a long history there.
        I would like to finally get some resolve here. I have asked
    the folks at Fish and Wildlife to revisit this. I would
    encourage you to work with stakeholders in Kodiak who have
    worked on this issue for a number of years, but I do not know
    if you have any updates on Karluk Lake. If you do not, I would
    certainly engage in discussion on that later.
        Secretary Zinke. My understanding is that, and I will see
    to it the Department is going to comply with the subcommittee's
    direction on that.
        Senator Murkowski. Great.
        Secretary Zinke. Because the direction is pretty clear.

                             COOPER LANDING BYPASS

        Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that. And then I am going
    to raise one more and this is relating to the Cooper Landing
    bypass. I wrote you earlier this spring to see if you could
    help us settle an issue, a land issue, in the State that would
    provide for a bypass route of the Sterling Highway at Cooper
    Landing. A bypass would allow for a--effectively moving away
    from the Kenai River, the Russian River, very popular rivers
    for fishing, very, very fruitful rivers. But the fear has
    always been because this road runs right by the river that if a
    truck goes off the road or there is some kind of a spill it
    could potentially do great damage to the great salmon that
    spawn in those rivers.
        Fifteen years ago, Congress passed the Russian River Lands
    Act. It settled a dispute, but for that solution to work, the
    Department needs to initiate a land exchange and we need Fish
    and Wildlife to facilitate the land exchange and the Forest
    Service to also work with us on a trail issue. I have raised
    this with the chief of the forest service, so just need to know
    whether you are willing to have your staff work with Forest
    Service and Federal Highway Administration to finally untangle
    this four decade long nightmare so that we can finally get this
    resolved.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, I am happy to report the Secretary
    of Agriculture and the Secretary of Transportation, we work
    together, we have regular meetings, and I am happy to say that
    we will engage in this.
        Senator Murkowski. Great.
        Secretary Zinke. Forty years, it does not seem appropriate
    for a bypass.

                                   KING COVE

        Senator Murkowski. It seems like all of the things that we
    work on are 40 years. You know, the issue with King Cove and my
    10 mile, one-lane gravel, non-commercial use road is a 25, a 30
    year old debate. ANWR has been a 35-year old debate. Quite
    honestly, we get tired of these decade long battles. So we
    would love to get some resolution on some of these.
        I have talked long enough to make sure that my Ranking
    Member made it back, hopefully with an opportunity to ask
    questions in Defense across----
        Senator Udall. No, I am finished. I think the Secretary has
    been here long enough.
        Senator Murkowski. Yes.
        Senator Udall. I will ask any additional questions for the
    record.
        Senator Murkowski. Good.
        Senator Udall. I just wanted to go down and shake his hand
    as he was leaving.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I think we are wrapped up. I think
    we have had a good several hours with the Secretary and his
    team. I appreciate his leadership. We will allow Members to
    submit questions for the record, and with that, we stand
    adjourned.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        [Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., Wednesday, June 21, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

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

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2017

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

        The subcommittee met at 9:40 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski (Chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Murkowski, Udall, Leahy, Daines, Tester,
    Van Hollen, and Capito.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. SCOTT PRUITT, ADMINISTRATOR
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            HOLLY GREAVES, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE ADMINISTRATOR

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Good morning. The subcommittee will come
    to order.
        Today, we will review the fiscal year 2018 budget request
    for the Environmental Protection Agency. I would like to
    welcome you, Administrator Pruitt, to the subcommittee. It is
    good to have you back here. The Administrator is accompanied
    this morning by Holly Greaves, who is a Senior Advisor to the
    Administrator. So, again, I appreciate you being here. I look
    forward to a productive dialogue this morning.
        As a reminder, we will adhere to the early bird rule, we
    will go back and forth, 6-minute rounds. So, because I'm
    assuming that we will have a fair amount of interest this
    morning, I'm going to ask Members to stick to the time limit as
    closely as possible. I do anticipate that we will have multiple
    rounds, but I recognize that the Administrator does have a hard
    stop at noon due to a commitment that requires travel.
        The EPA's fiscal year 2018 budget request totals
    approximately $5.7 billion. The proposal is a stark change from
    the funding levels provided in the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus and
    represents a substantially different vision for EPA than we saw
    in the previous administration, and that is not necessarily a
    bad thing.
        For years, the Agency has overstepped its appropriate role.
    Rather than focusing on the core mission of cleaning up the
    environment, the Agency has produced rule after rule using
    questionable legal authority. Rather than being treated as
    partners, States were often treated as adversaries simply
    because they had a different plan to comply with environmental
    regulations.
        I have expressed concern for years that the Agency's work
    on the Waters of the United States rule was very problematic
    for the State of Alaska because the rule would subject even the
    most routine projects to EPA's scrutiny and delay. Those
    concerns were ignored as the Obama administration advanced a
    flawed rule that was stayed in the courts.
        So, Administrator Pruitt, I appreciate your plan to take a
    commonsense approach to this issue.
        The Agency is currently taking a hard look at duplicative
    and unnecessary financial assurance requirements for hardrock
    mining that were advanced during the previous administration.
        Administrator Pruitt, you have signaled a desire to refocus
    the Agency on its core mission. You have also signaled a desire
    to spend more time moving forward with measures that have
    tangible environmental benefits and less time writing rules
    that may or may not make a real on-the-ground difference. We
    should all be with you in making this commonsense approach.
    Ensuring that we have clean air and clean water is a serious
    mission that deserves support.
        We can maintain responsible levels of spending at the EPA
    and continue our efforts to keep our air and water clean.
    Unnecessary regulations do not always result in a cleaner
    environment.
        So I would like to speak to the specifics in the budget
    now. And given that the subcommittee has already reduced
    spending at the Agency, I don't believe that we can achieve the
    level of budget cuts proposed in the fiscal year 2018 budget
    and effectively move forward with a back-to-basics approach
    that I do support. And some of the proposed reductions and
    eliminations in the budget are in direct contrast to that back-
    to-basics approach.
        For instance, the budget proposes eliminating the Alaska
    Native Villages program, which provides critical basic drinking
    water and sanitation infrastructure, basically known as flushed
    toilets and running water. And in so many of our Alaska Native
    villages, we simply do not have this basic infrastructure.
        The Targeted Airshed Grants program, which was also
    proposed for elimination by the Obama administration, is
    helping clean up air pollution in places like Fairbanks with
    real on-the-ground measures like changing out woodstoves that
    are less efficient.
        The radon program, which the Obama administration also
    proposed to eliminate, helps fight the second leading cause of
    lung cancer after smoking. We have rejected changes like these
    in the past, and I will certainly push my colleagues to do so
    again this year.
        I am pleased that the budget proposes current funding
    levels for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving
    Funds and continues funding for the WIFIA program. I think we
    recognize we need to find creative ways to meet our Nation's
    water infrastructure challenges.
        Beyond infrastructure, I'm committed to ensuring that the
    Agency has the resources it needs to process air, water, and
    pesticides permits, as well as to implement the new TSCA law,
    which is a priority for the Ranking Member, and I know is a
    priority for you.
        As with every President's budget, the fiscal year 2018
    request is a proposal, and the subcommittee now has the
    difficult job of crafting an appropriations bill that actually
    directs those taxpayer dollars.
        So before I close, I would like to briefly mention my hope
    that the new administration will work with me on a number of
    lower profile issues, certainly important to us, but very
    unique to Alaska.
        And, Administrator, you and I have had an opportunity to
    discuss some of them, but they include things like fish
    grinding to PM2.5 in Fairbanks, to small remote
    incinerators. As I mentioned, I had a pretty good working
    relationship with Administrator McCarthy, and we were able to
    move the ball forward somewhat, but in several cases, we just
    weren't able to get it across the line. And so it's my hope
    that we'll be able to work together to address these
    environmental issues in a sensible manner. So know that I'll be
    asking about some of these more parochial issues in my question
    time.
        And now I would like to turn to my Ranking Member, Senator
    Udall, for any comments.

                         STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM UDALL

        Senator Udall. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
        And, Administrator Pruitt, I appreciate seeing you before
    us today, and I would like to thank Holly Greaves for joining
    us also. Welcome to you both.
        Administrator Pruitt, the budget request before us today is
    downright offensive. It would slash EPA funding by nearly a
    third, research is cut in half, enforcement is cut by a
    quarter, toxic cleanup is cut by 30 percent, support for States
    is slashed by 45 percent, tribal support is cut by 30 percent,
    environmental justice programs are zeroed out, and all climate
    change programs are eliminated.
        I cannot square this with your rhetoric about returning EPA
    to its core responsibilities. Nothing was spared. EPA's core is
    hollowed out. And let's not pretend that the Agency hasn't
    already sustained cuts and already been working hard to do more
    with less. Staffing has slid a full 10 percent over the last
    decade. The Agency's budget has dropped nearly 1 billion in
    real terms. These cuts are not an attempt to rein in spending;
    they are intentional steps to undermine science and ignore
    environmental and public health realities.
        Your budget actually boasts about eliminating 60 programs,
    reversing real progress in every corner of our Nation, from the
    U.S.-Mexico Border to Chesapeake Bay. Also eliminated are the
    ENERGY STAR and WaterSense programs, market-based partnerships,
    which together have saved consumers nearly a trillion dollars
    on their utility bills.
        Many of the programs you are proposing to eliminate have
    proven track records. The budget takes aim at the U.S.-Mexico
    Border Infrastructure Program, which has eliminated 353 million
    gallons of raw sewage per day from transport or watersheds,
    significantly reducing cases of hepatitis A, skin disorders,
    and gastrointestinal disease. The idea that these programs are
    unnecessary, redundant, or even mature ignores real results and
    the need to sustain the progress we have made.
        The only bright spot I see in this budget is continued
    funding for drinking water and clean water infrastructure for
    States proposed at $2.25 billion, but the administration's
    support for the States goes dark after water infrastructure.
        Administrator Pruitt, you have expressed your intent to
    return responsibility to the States, but then you propose to
    cut States' funding by 45 percent. States are on the front line
    for implementing most of our Federal environmental laws. They
    rely on EPA for more than a quarter of the funding needed to
    carry out these delegated responsibilities. States are the ones
    that run programs to decrease childhood lead poising; prevent
    radon poisoning in schools and homes; oversee public water
    systems to prevent tragedies like Flint, Michigan; reduce
    ozone; monitor water pollution; and ensure safe disposal of
    hazardous waste. In other words, cutting this funding is a
    backdoor evisceration of the core programs you claim to prize.
        The budget also proposes to cut enforcement by 23 percent,
    taking cops off the beat from holding polluters accountable. We
    do not need to guess how this would turn out. Reagan era cuts
    to EPA similar to the size you propose resulted in 69 percent
    fewer civil cases referred to the Justice Department.
        And for an administration focused on return to investment,
    it's surprising to see a proposal to scale back such an
    effective tool in EPA's toolbox. Compliance stemming from
    enforcement cases have generated $60 billion in pollution
    control investments in just the past 5 years.
        This proposal also cuts 30 percent from Superfund cleanup,
    by definition, the most contaminated sites in the Nation. More
    than 1,300 sit on a waiting list. I understand you started a
    task force to speed up Superfund cleanups. I welcome a fresh
    look at the process, but I'm worried that a focus on speed will
    lead to shortcuts and lax standards. Sites like the Bonita Peak
    Mining District, which includes the Gold King Mine, need
    comprehensive remediation, not a ``Band-Aid.''
        I'm also troubled that your budget proposes to eliminate $4
    million for independent monitoring of the water still flowing
    every day from the Gold King Mine into areas of New Mexico. I
    worked hard last year to start that program. I'm committed to
    continuing this funding despite the administration's proposal
    to stop supporting the Navajo in the States in this effort. It
    is critical to the health of those living downstream from Gold
    King Mine. It's also critical that we ensure those affected by
    the spill receive proper compensation and continue to work to
    make that happen.
        The budget also cuts research funding in half, which would
    cause ripple effects for generations. How will we identify
    risks? What basis will we have to mitigate the worst impacts on
    our health and environment? It's 2017, but I fear we are
    reverting to the Dark Ages.
        The budget also proposes to fire 3,800 scientists and
    researchers, a full 25 percent of EPA's staff. This comes on
    the heels of 1,500 staff already lost over the last decade, a
    drop of nearly 10 percent. And just last week the
    administration handed out pink slips to most of EPA's Board of
    Scientific Counselors, which ensures that EPA's research is
    grounded in incredible scientific evidence.
        Add this to your backtracking on a growing list of critical
    regulations that were based on sound science for clean water,
    ozone, greenhouse gases, pesticides, methane, and fracking,
    it's clear that this administration is in a relentless pursuit
    to undercut and disregard science to the benefit of industry.
        I was originally heartened by your commitment to toxics
    reform, but last week EPA announced new policies that would
    weaken the risk evaluations at the heart of the program. It
    looks like the chemical industry has punched loopholes into
    TSCA. Your budget appears to preserve most of the funding for
    the Toxics Office, but no amount of funding can overcome
    policies to weaken the intent of the law, and the law should be
    implemented in the same bipartisan, balanced way in which it
    was created in the past.
        Finally, this budget request virtually eliminates every
    dollar of EPA funding related to climate change: fuel
    standards, international partnerships, research, all of it.
    Sadly, these proposed cuts go hand-in-glove with the
    President's decision to renege on our commitments under the
    Paris Agreement. Climate change is a global crisis that
    requires urgent global action, but this administration is
    choosing to isolate the United States from what scientists,
    national security experts, and world leaders agree is one of
    the greatest destabilizing forces of our time: climate change
    and the role of human activity in creating it. As a nation, we
    can't afford to stick our head in the sand and ignore
    scientific reality, just like we can't afford to enact many of
    the other irresponsible cuts included in this budget request.
        Administrator Pruitt, this is a budget--this budget is dead
    on arrival. We agree that EPA funding needs to focus on EPA's
    core responsibilities. To most Americans and to me it's clear
    that this core responsibility is to protect public health and
    ensure clean air and clean water, but this proposed budget
    shows that the new EPA thinks its core responsibility is to
    cater to industry, let polluters off the hook, deny the tenets
    of science, and walk away from our global commitments.
        We obviously have a lot to discuss this morning. Thank you
    for being here.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall.
        Senator Leahy, as the Ranking Member of the full committee,
    has asked for a couple moments to enter an opening statement.
        Senator Leahy.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

        Senator Leahy. Thank you. And both the Chairman and I, of
    the full committee, are trying to organize how we will take
    each one of these appropriations. And, Madam Chair, the work
    that you and Senator Udall are doing, are going to be extremely
    important in that regard.
        I'm afraid, Mr. Pruitt, and I enjoyed talking with you
    earlier this morning, but I think the Trump administration in
    this budget has demonstrated really contempt for the better
    work that the Environmental Protection Agency does to monitor,
    protect, and preserve our environment.
        You know, this budget, this budget that you propose for us,
    doesn't uphold your Agency's mission. I've watched that mission
    for years, both Republican and Democratic administrations. We
    ought to be doubling down on our investment to protect our
    environment for the sake of our children and our grandchildren,
    and curb the effects of climate change. Instead, the
    administration is tearing down the legacies of the Clean Air
    Act, the Clean Water Act, when we ought to be investing in
    green energy and a green economy.
        For example, in my State of Vermont, we have on a per
    capita basis more people working, well employed, in alternative
    energy fields than West Virginia has as coal miners. This
    administration, though, is eliminating programs that support
    science and innovation.
        We have a right to clean air and clean water. We accept
    that as a right in America. It's troubling to countless tens of
    million of Americas, from Baby Boomers to Millennials, that so
    much of this administration's policy and budget choice, from
    EPA to NIH, NOAA, climate change, are really steeped in anti-
    science, almost a know-nothingism. If you don't like the
    answers that come from science and monitoring, well, just fire
    the scientists. And then erase the government websites that
    people, both parties, have relied on. Scale back monitoring.
    Well, you can put your head in the sand, but that doesn't do
    anything for America. We wouldn't have cleaner air and water
    today without monitoring and regulation.
        You know, a State like my State of Vermont does a superb
    job as a steward of our air and our water, but we're powerless
    to stop pollution coming in across our borders from other
    States. That's why you have regulations, so everybody has to be
    doing what we do.
        You are not enforcing laws in the book. You're ignoring
    compelling scientific evidence. You've separated us from nearly
    every nation on the planet in a shared pursuit of a cleaner
    environment. You're at the heart of the administration's
    abatement of our role as the global leader in addressing the
    adverse effects of climate change.
        As an American, I liked the fact that America was the
    leader, the world leader, in the environment and protecting the
    environment and climate change. We just gave it away. We gave
    it away. Look who's coming in to try to fill the place, China
    and European countries, saying, ``America is not leading
    anymore. We'll take over.''
        Well, Americans are watching, Vermonters are watching,
    years, decades, of investment in the restoration and cleanup of
    Lake Champlain, the largest body of fresh water in the United
    States outside of the Great Lakes. They're threatened by this
    budget's elimination of the geographic program. That means lost
    jobs, lost economic revenue, lost progress. And even though the
    Lake Champlain cleanup is seen as a national model, in fact,
    it's studied by other countries, we're working hard to have
    farmers in towns implement water protection measures, but we
    have to have Federal resources to address nonpoint source
    pollutants that are harming waterways, not only at Lake
    Champlain, but in the Great Lakes.
        Now, the American people know we can have both jobs and
    clean and water, and they don't accept your choice. It is a
    false choice. And they see you turning the EPA into a polluter
    protection agency. That's not what we want in Vermont. I don't
    think that's what most Americans want. Clean air, clean water,
    and the monitoring and the science to help achieve both of
    those, those are priorities of the American people.
        Your budget is not what the American people want and
    deserve. They deserve better than what this budget puts
    forward. We have to demand better. I agree with the Senator
    from New Mexico, this budget is dead on arrival. And I think
    everybody in this subcommittee knows it is, on both sides of
    the aisle.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
        Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall, this is a timely and
    important hearing. The Trump administration has demonstrated its clear
    contempt for the vital work done by the Environmental Protection Agency
    to monitor, protect and preserve our environment. I wonder how you can
    look at this Committee and defend this as a plan to uphold the Agency's
    mission.
        Where we should be doubling down on our investment to protect our
    environment and curb the effects of climate change, this administration
    is tearing down the legacies of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water
    Act. At a time when we should be investing in green energy and a green
    economy, this administration is recklessly eliminating programs that
    support science and innovation. Mr. Pruitt, Americans have a right to
    clean air and clean water. Your proposal undermines that right.
        It is troubling to countless tens of millions of Americans, from
    Baby Boomers to Millennials, that so much of this administration's
    policy and budget choices--from the EPA, to NIH, to NOAA, to climate
    change--are steeped in anti-science know-nothingism. Don't like the
    answers that come from science and monitoring? Just fire the
    scientists, scrub government websites, and scale back the monitoring.
    That's pretty close to the definition of putting your head in the sand.
        We wouldn't HAVE cleaner air and water today without monitoring and
    regulation. States like Vermont do a superb job as stewards of our air
    and water, but we are powerless to control the pollution that drifts
    across our borders from other States. Regulation is essential for
    solving problems like that.
        You are choosing not to enforce the laws on the books and are
    ignoring compelling scientific evidence. You have separated us from
    nearly every nation on the planet in a shared pursuit of a cleaner,
    greener environment. You are at the heart of this administration's
    abandonment of our role as the global leader in addressing the adverse
    impacts of climate change.
        Vermonters are watching. Americans across the country are watching.
    Years--decades--of investment in the restoration and cleanup of Lake
    Champlain are threatened by this budget's elimination of the Geographic
    Programs. That means lost jobs, lost economic revenue, and lost
    progress. Vermont's Lake Champlain cleanup effort is seen as a national
    model. We are working hard to help farmers and towns implement water
    protection measures, but we must have Federal resources available to
    address nonpoint source pollutants that are harming waterways like Lake
    Champlain and the Great Lakes.
        Administrator Pruitt, the American people know that we can have
    both jobs, and clean air and water. They don't accept your false
    choice, and they reject the idea of turning the EPA into a polluter
    protection agency. Clean air and water, and the monitoring and the
    science that help achieve that, are the real priorities of the American
    people. Your budget is not what the American people want and deserve.
    They deserve better than what this budget puts forward, and we must
    demand better.

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
        And as a reminder to the other subcommittee Members who
    would like an opportunity to place an opening statement in the
    record, the subcommittee record will be held open for an
    additional week. So if you would like to do so, just contact
    the subcommittee staff, and they'll make sure that the
    statements are included. The same will hold true for any
    questions that you are unable to ask today that you would like
    submitted as questions for the record.
        So with that, Administrator Pruitt, welcome again to the
    subcommittee. And your comments this morning, please.

                     SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT PRUITT

        Mr. Pruitt. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Udall,
    and Members of the subcommittee. Good morning. I thank you for
    the invitation to be with you this morning to talk about the
    EPA's proposed budget. I'm joined at the table, as indicated
    earlier, by Holly Greaves. She's a senior advisor to me on
    budget and audit.
        With the budget being the focus of our discussion today,
    it's important to note the work we are doing as an agency to
    bring the EPA back to its core mission. Specifically as part of
    our back-to-the-basics agenda, we are focused on air attainment
    and air quality standards, clean water and fixing our outdated
    infrastructure, clean up contaminated land through Superfund
    and Brownfield programs, and carrying out the very important
    responsibilities and updates to the TSCA legislation that this
    body knows very well.
        More generally, when I began my work at the Agency, I set
    three core principles by which I would operate and carry out
    our responsibilities.
        The first is to focus on rule of law. We are reversing an
    attitude and approach that one can simply reimagine authority
    under statutes. I firmly believe that Federal agencies exist to
    administer the law. It's Congress who has the constitutional
    authority to pass statutes. Agencies, including the EPA, have a
    responsibility to implement those statutes pursuant to the
    wishes of Congress. Any action by EPA that exceeds that
    authority by definition cannot be consistent with the Agency's
    core mission.
        Along with respect for rule of law, we are focused on
    process. Over the last several years, the Agency has engaged in
    rulemaking through consent decrees, sue and settle practices,
    and guidance. Regulation through litigation is something we
    will not continue at the EPA. We will make sure that process is
    respected and implemented so that people across the country can
    make their voices heard as we engage in rulemaking.
        And, thirdly, we are emphasizing the importance of
    cooperative Federalism, respecting the role of the States. As
    you all know well, a one-size-fits-all strategy to achieve
    environmental outcomes is very difficult to achieve. What may
    work in Arizona may not work in Tennessee. I recognize that
    States have unique environmental challenges and needs, and I
    will continue to engage in meaningful discussions about how
    shared environmental goals related to these regions can be
    achieved.
        With respect to the budget and these priorities and
    principles that I've shared with you this morning, I believe
    that we can fill the mission of our agency with a trim budget
    through proper leadership and management. We will work with
    Congress to help focus our national priorities with respect to
    the resources that you provide. And we will continue to focus
    our efforts on the core responsibilities, working cooperatively
    with the States to improve our air, land, and water.
        As I have indicated, clean air goes to the heart of human
    health, and we are focused on increasing air attainment through
    compliance and assistance and enforcement. We've made
    tremendous progress as a country through investment, through
    rulemaking. Since 1980, total emissions under the six criteria
    of pollutants that we regulate under the NAAQS program have
    decreased approximately 65 percent, and ozone levels have
    decreased almost 33 percent. We should celebrate this progress
    but recognize that we have much work to do, and it should be
    our focus at the EPA to find ways to increase the number of
    people living in attainment, living and working in areas that
    meet the National Air Quality Standards.
        The President has made it clear that maintaining
    infrastructure is critical to this country, and at the EPA,
    that means ensuring we continue to make investments in drinking
    water, in wastewater infrastructure. We will continue to
    partner with the States to address sources of drinking water
    contamination, and these efforts are integral to infrastructure
    efforts because source water protection can reduce the need for
    additional drinking water treatment and avoid unnecessary
    costs.
        And like President Trump, I believe we need to work with
    the States to understand what they think is the best way to
    achieve protection of the waters and the actions that they are
    engaged in to achieve that purpose. The EPA should only
    intervene when States demonstrate an unwillingness to comply
    with the law or do their job with regard to keeping water clean
    and water safe.
        With regard to contaminated land, we are going to punish
    bad actors, and that means that our job is to punish those who
    violate the law to the detriment of human health and the
    environment. EPA's enforcements efforts have produced billions
    of dollars in cleanup commitments from violators and billions
    of pounds of pollution prevented and cleaned up as a result of
    those commitments today.
        As States are the primary implementers of many enforcement
    action programs, we will work with our State partners to
    achieve compliance and enforcement goals, and we will focus our
    resources on our direct responsibilities.
        When we do not stay within the law as an agency, we create
    inconsistency and uncertainty for the regulated community.
    Regulatory certainty is key to how we do our job. We need to
    outline exactly what is expected of our businesses and industry
    and citizens because when we do our job well, we create good
    environmental outcomes.
        Madam Chair, Members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to share briefly this positive environmental
    agenda. We are moving forward focused on these core priorities,
    and I look forward to working with you to achieve the goals of
    clean air, land, and water, and protecting human health as we
    engage in the discussion today.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Hon. Scott Pruitt
        Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members
    of the subcommittee. I am joined by Holly Greaves, my senior advisor
    for budget and audit, and we are here today to discuss the
    Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed fiscal year 2018
    budget.
        As the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, I am a
    firm believer in EPA's mission to protect human health and the
    environment and am committed to helping provide future generations with
    a better and healthier environment. I also firmly believe that Federal
    agencies exist to administer the law. Congress passes statutes, and
    those statutes outline the responsibilities and work that EPA must do.
    Any action by EPA that exceeds the authority granted to it by Congress,
    by definition, cannot be consistent with the Agency's mission.
        At the outset, it is important to recognize the tremendous progress
    that has been made over the years toward a cleaner environment across
    the country. The proposed budget supports EPA's highest priorities with
    Federal funding for core work in air and water quality, contaminated
    land clean-ups, enforcement and ensuring the safety of chemicals in the
    marketplace so we can continue this progress. The President's budget
    aims to reduce redundancies and inefficiencies, and prioritize EPA's
    core statutory mission of providing Americans with clean air, land, and
    water.
        EPA can accomplish a lot when the Agency focuses on working
    cooperatively with the States and Tribes to improve health and the
    environment. It is essential for the Federal Government, State
    governments, and Tribal governments to work together to provide the
    environmental protection that our laws demand and that the American
    people deserve. I strongly support cooperative Federalism, and make
    every effort to partner with EPA's counterparts in State, local, and
    Tribal governments to further these goals.
        I recognize that States have unique environmental needs, and I will
    continue to engage in meaningful discussions about how shared
    environmental goals related to the regions can best be achieved. We
    will work collaboratively with States, Tribes and local governments to
    provide flexibility to address important priorities. And, I look
    forward to working with you all, and other Members of Congress, to
    ensure we meet the environmental needs of your communities.
        In my testimony today, I will focus on five main areas where EPA is
    protecting human health and the environment: air, water, land,
    chemicals and enforcement. I will also outline how EPA is reducing
    inefficiencies and redundancies, to better serve the American people
    and maximize every taxpayer dollar we are allocated.
                        improving america's air quality
        By funding air quality work at $448 million, EPA will continue to
    perform key activities in support of protecting human health and the
    environment through improving the quality of the Nation's air with a
    focus on States achieving greater levels of attainment.
        States have made tremendous progress and significant investment in
    cleaning up the air. Since 1980, total emissions of the six criteria
    air pollutants regulated under the National Ambient Air Quality
    Standards program have dropped by 63 percent and ozone levels have
    declined 33 percent. We are focused on finding ways to get more
    accurate measurements of the areas of the country that need help
    improving their air quality--and then working with States on meeting
    the standards set by the Agency.
        Areas designated as being in ``nonattainment'' of the standard face
    consequences, including: increased regulatory burdens, restrictions on
    infrastructure investment, and increased costs to businesses.
        EPA is working with States to give them additional time on their
    initial designations of nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone standard
    to better understand some lingering technical questions and information
    needs. The agency also is looking at ways to provide greater
    flexibility in the development of their air quality improvement plans.
    And, I am establishing an Ozone Cooperative Compliance Task Force to
    develop additional flexibilities for States to comply with the ozone
    standard.
        My staff and I inherited an unacceptable backlog of air quality
    implementation plans from the previous administration. The backlog of
    these State Implementation Plans (SIPs) creates vast uncertainty for
    States and compromises air quality benefits that otherwise could be
    attained. I am committed to reducing the SIP backlog and have directed
    my staff to work with the States to reduce this backlog as quickly as
    possible.
        The proposed budget also provides funding for the Greenhouse Gas
    Reporting Program which requires mandatory greenhouse gas emissions
    reporting to inform the annual GHG inventory, a U.S. treaty obligation.
    Additionally, in fiscal year 2018, the Federal Vehicle and Fuels
    Standards and Certification program will focus its efforts on
    certification decisions. The agency will conduct activities supporting
    pre-certification confirmatory testing for emissions and fuel economy
    for passenger cars.
        When it comes to people living and working in areas that meet air
    quality standards, we are committed to working with States to do better
    than what was happening under the previous administration.
            restoring the role of states in the regulation of water
        The President has made it clear that maintaining infrastructure is
    critical to the foundation of this country's commerce. At EPA, this
    means in large part ensuring we continue to make investments in
    drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.
        The fiscal year 2018 budget includes $2.3 billion to capitalize the
    State Revolving Funds to assist our implementing partners in
    revitalizing and rebuilding our Nation's aging water resources. The
    fiscal year 2018 budget also includes $20 million for the Water
    Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program to address
    aging water infrastructure. The $20 million provided for WIFIA could
    provide up to $1 billion in credit assistance, which, when combined
    with other funding resources, could spur an estimated $2 billion in
    total infrastructure investment.
        Established by the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
    of 2014, EPA's WIFIA program is a Federal loan and guarantee program
    that aims to accelerate investment in our Nation's drinking water and
    wastewater infrastructure by providing long-term, low-cost supplemental
    credit assistance for eligible projects, including those of regional or
    national significance. WIFIA supports projects to repair, rehabilitate,
    and replace aging water treatment plants and pipe systems, and
    construct new infrastructure including desalination, water recycling,
    and drought mitigation projects.
        Organizations from across the country are seeking to partner with
    EPA to invest in their local communities and improve water
    infrastructure with WIFIA, with `letters of interest' from prospective
    buyers across 19 States, including: Arkansas, Arizona, California,
    Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland,
    Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Pennsylvania,
    Tennessee, Washington, and Wisconsin.
        EPA will continue to partner with States, drinking water utilities,
    and other stakeholders to identify and address current and potential
    sources of drinking water contamination, particularly in areas of
    significant regional and national importance. These efforts are
    integral to infrastructure efforts because source water protection can
    reduce the need for additional drinking water treatment and avoids the
    associated costs.
        To assure the American people that their water is safe to drink,
    the EPA's drinking water regulatory program monitors for a broad array
    of contaminants, evaluates whether contaminants are of public health
    concern, and regulates contaminants when there is a meaningful
    opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public
    water systems. In addition, the EPA will work to reduce lead risks
    through revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), and regulations to
    implement the Water Infrastructure Improvement for the Nation Act and
    the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act.
        EPA will continue to provide scientific water quality criteria
    information to our partners and the public, review and approve State
    water quality standards, and review and approve State lists of impaired
    waters. In fiscal year 2018, the agency will work with States and other
    partners on Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) as required by the Clean
    Water Act, as well as on other waterbody restoration plans for listed
    impaired waterbodies. EPA also will continue to implement and support
    core water quality programs that control point-source discharges
    through permitting and pre-treatment programs.
        Like President Trump, I believe that we need to work with our State
    governments to understand what they think is the best way to protect
    their waters, and what actions they are already taking to do so. EPA
    should only intervene when States demonstrate an unwillingness to
    comply with the law or to do their job, with regard to keeping water
    clean and safe for families, businesses, and the public at large.
        The Clean Water Act asserts Federal control over ``navigable
    waters'' without providing clarity or details about the law's scope.
    President Trump signed an executive order on February 28, 2017 to
    directing the EPA and the Corps of Engineers to review the Obama
    Administration's Clean Water Rule--also known as the ``Waters of the
    U.S.'' or WOTUS--and propose to rescind or revise the rule as
    appropriate and consistent with the law and to ensure that we are
    meeting the original goals and policies of the Clean Water Act, as
    Congress has established.
        To meet the objectives of the Executive order, the EPA and the
    Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works have
    already begun soliciting input from States, Tribes, and other
    stakeholders and are following a two-step process that will provide as
    much certainty as possible, as quickly as possible, to the regulated
    community and the public during this process.
            cleaning up contaminated land to revitalize communities
        In an effort to restore the cleanup of contaminated lands to its
    rightful place at the center of the EPA's core mission, I am
    prioritizing Superfund cleanups. EPA's Superfund program is responsible
    for the cleanup of some of the Nation's most contaminated areas. One of
    my first actions as Administrator was to visit the community of East
    Chicago, Indiana, a Superfund site where residents have been dealing
    for decades with lead contamination from a former smelter. We've
    installed a new ombudsman office in the community to make sure
    residents are kept informed, we have worked with the State and local
    officials on providing clean drinking water, and we have worked with
    some of the responsible parties to secure more money to clean up
    additional homes.
        During my confirmation process and in my time as Administrator, I
    have heard from families and community members, elected officials, and
    business leaders that the cleanup of contaminated sites takes too long.
    I have already taken a number of steps to elevate these issues within
    the Agency and to make sure that we are doing all we can to ensure
    cleanups are occurring without delay, sites are being put back to
    productive use wherever possible, and families and nearby residents
    know that their communities are safe. I have changed the approval
    process for sites with remedies estimated to cost $50 million or more
    to ensure they get the appropriate level of attention from myself and
    my senior staff. I have also established a Superfund task force to
    provide me with recommendations on how EPA can streamline and improve
    the Superfund program.
        In addition to the Superfund program, the Brownfields grants
    programs will safely clean-up and restore to enable the redevelopment
    of contaminated land under my leadership at EPA. These programs not
    only return land to productive use but also help spur economic
    development and job creation. Brownfields grants have a community
    driven approach, with over 67,000 acres of idle land made ready for
    productive use and over 124,300 jobs and $23.6 billion leveraged.
        Land cleanup and restoration efforts will continue at a funding
    level of $992 million in fiscal year 2018. When it comes to cleaning up
    these sites, I believe that with better leadership, and reducing
    inefficiencies and administrative costs, we can take steps to
    accelerate the pace of the clean- ups.
                  ensuring the safety of chemicals in commerce
        Ensuring the safety of chemicals used in commerce is a priority.
    Resources are needed to support efforts to minimize American exposure
    to pesticides, help maintain a healthy food supply and address public
    health concerns.
        The EPA's toxics program will maintain its `zero tolerance' goal
    for preventing the introduction of unsafe new chemicals into commerce.
    In fiscal year 2018, $65 million is requested for the Toxic Substances
    Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Risk Review and Reduction Program to
    support the agency's significant continuing and new responsibilities
    for ensuring that chemicals in commerce do not present unreasonable
    risks to human health or the environment. New chemicals will be
    evaluated and decisions will be based on the best available science and
    the weight of evidence.
        EPA reviews about 1,000 new chemicals per year, and must complete
    the review of each submission within a specified timeframe, resulting
    in about 300 chemicals under review at any given time. By January 2017,
    the number under review had grown to about 600.
        Under my leadership, we have split by half the backlog of new
    chemical submissions being reviewed under TSCA, with plans to fully
    eliminate the backlog by the end of July. The agency is also increasing
    transparency for the public and the regulated community about these
    chemicals.
        We are working with companies to gather all the relevant
    information early in the process, to inform safety reviews for new
    chemicals. Reviewing new chemicals quickly will enable those deemed
    safe to enter the marketplace to support jobs and our economy.
        The reduction in the backlog is the result of prioritizing and
    implementing process efficiencies. EPA will continue to work with all
    stakeholders to identify additional changes to improve the quality,
    efficiency and transparency of the new chemical review program.
        For chemicals in commerce, EPA will maintain an ambitious schedule
    for initiating and completing chemical risk evaluations and, where
    risks are identified, for initiating and completing regulatory actions
    to address those risks. EPA also will implement the new mandates
    related to determinations on claims for confidentiality for chemical
    identities.
        In fiscal year 2018, the agency will continue implementing TSCA
    activities not amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for
    the 21st Century Act. The agency also will provide firm and individual
    certifications for safe work practices for lead-based paint abatement
    and renovation and repair efforts, as well as provide for the operation
    and maintenance of the online Federal Lead-Based Paint program database
    (FLPP) that supports the processing of applications for training
    providers, firms and individuals.
        Identifying, assessing, and reducing the risks presented by the
    pesticides on which our society and economy rely is integral to
    ensuring environmental and human safety. Chemical and biological
    pesticides help meet national and global demands for food. They provide
    effective pest control for homes, schools, gardens, highways, utility
    lines, hospitals, and drinking water treatment facilities, while also
    controlling vectors of disease. The program ensures that the pesticides
    available in the U.S. are safe when used as directed. In addition, the
    program is increasing the focus on pollinator health, working with
    other Federal partners, States, and private stakeholder groups to stem
    pollinator declines and increase pollinator habitat.
        In fiscal year 2018, EPA will invest resources to improve the
    compliance of pesticide registrations with the Endangered Species Act.
    A portion of the funding also will ensure that pesticides are correctly
    registered and applied in a manner that protects water quality.
                              punishing bad actors
        EPA will remain focused on punishing bad actors. That means
    enforcing civil and criminal cases in areas that address substantial
    impacts to human health and the environment. EPA's enforcement efforts
    have produced billions of dollars in cleanup commitments from violators
    and billions of pounds of pollution prevented and cleaned up as a
    result of those commitments to date.
        As States are the primary implementers of many enforcement action
    programs, we will focus agency resources on non-delegated programs. We
    will rely on our State partners to achieve compliance and enforcement
    goals, and we will focus resources on our direct implementation
    responsibilities and oversight, emphasizing violations with public
    health and environmental impacts.
                                  streamlining
        As careful stewards of taxpayer resources, we will look to attack
    waste by examining our programs that are unnecessary, redundant, or
    those that have served their purpose and accomplished their mission or
    are outside EPA's statutory mandates. The fiscal year 2018 budget
    identifies and eliminates programs so that EPA can focus on its
    statutory mission, achieving greater value and greater results.
        In fiscal year 2018, these efforts include streamlining permitting
    processes and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) infrastructure
    project reviews along with the focused effort on improving Superfund
    processes. We will build on business process improvements by partnering
    with States, Tribes, and local governments to expand and support
    approaches across all our programs.
        To help achieve its mission, EPA will develop, review and analyze
    program requirements and implement options to effectively align and
    redistribute the agency's workforce based on priorities and
    technological advances. The result of these analyses is expected to
    create a need to reshape the workforce and maintain the current hiring
    freeze. The agency will also offer voluntary early out retirement pay
    (VERA) and voluntary separation incentive pay (VSIP) in fiscal year
    2018 to achieve effective reshaping.
        This budget does not include plans to close regional offices, but
    we will continue to prioritize efforts that save taxpayer dollars
    through space consolidation and essential renovations to reduce and
    optimize our physical footprint.
        The budget request also significantly reduces or eliminates funding
    for mature programs that no longer need a Federal presence or can be
    implemented by others. We will work with States and Tribes to target
    resources to core statutory work and provide flexibility to address
    particular priorities and concerns. The fiscal year 2018 President's
    budget identifies and eliminates programs, to save taxpayers $1.03
    billion relative to our fiscal year 2017 enacted budget.
        We are committed to performing the work that is necessary to meet
    our mission of protecting public health and the environment. With
    support from our State and local partners--and by working with each of
    you, and your colleagues in Congress, we can make a real difference to
    communities across America.
        I look forward to answering your questions.

                             STATE OF ALASKA ISSUES

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Administrator.
        My first question is so easy I shouldn't even be asking it,
    but I will because it's a priority for folks back home. And I
    mentioned in my opening that I had a number of parochial
    interests that we've been trying to advance over the course of
    many years, and with the former Administrator, we were able to
    schedule somewhat regular meetings with her and some of her
    team as well as my team to basically go through a punch list on
    the progress that we were making. I would like to restart those
    types of meetings with your folks, and I would like your
    commitment to that today.
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Madam Chair. As we met earlier at lunch,
    we started that process, and I look forward to working with you
    on those very important issues to the State of Alaska.

                            CONTAMINATED LAND ISSUES

        Senator Murkowski. Good. Thank you. And you had mentioned
    in your comments just here your commitment to ensuring that we
    have clean lands and a level of enforcement for those that
    would degrade the quality of our lands.
        While not necessarily in your jurisdiction here or your
    lines, we had Secretary Zinke before the subcommittee just last
    week, and it gave me an opportunity to speak with him about
    some of the failures that we have seen as it relates to our own
    Federal Government in failing to clean up lands, whether it's
    the legacy wells on the North Slope of Alaska, or whether it is
    lands that were conveyed to Alaska Natives as part of their
    land claim settlement that were conveyed as contaminated
    properties.
        Part of what we have been dealing with the contaminated
    lands issues is there has not been anybody that has been
    willing to be lead agency. I am not necessarily asking you to
    be lead, but I am saying that this is interagency, this is
    departments cooperating together, and hopefully we'll have an
    opportunity to sit with you, as the Administrator, and
    Secretary Zinke to talk about a game plan moving forward with
    some of these lands issues.
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes. As you've indicated, Madam Chair, there
    are Superfund sites across the country that have Department of
    Defense-Department of Energy responsibility, and that
    interagency coordination and collaboration is very, very
    important. What I've noticed as I reviewed our Superfund
    portfolio is that many times a decision just languishes over
    years. I think some of that is attributable to what you've
    identified this morning. You have the potential responsible
    parties, but you also have other agencies at the Federal level,
    and working with those agencies sometimes is very challenging.
        I've already reached out to some of my fellow members of
    the Cabinet with respect to these issues. I look forward to
    working with you to hopefully engage in a meaningful discussion
    on how we can work together interagency to achieve very
    definitive, clear processes to clean and remediate these sites.

                             BUDGET PRIORITIZATION

        Senator Murkowski. I think that will be key because if you
    are the individual, if you're the community, you don't care
    which department, which agency, has the responsibility, what
    you care is that it gets addressed. So I look forward to
    working with you on that.
        You're going to hear a lot of questions I think this
    morning about prioritization and the fact that a budget that
    comes out is effectively a prioritization of what is important.
    And in this fiscal year 2018 budget request, you do fund the
    Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds equal to
    what we did in fiscal year 2017 in the Omnibus.
        Many other programs, again, as I have cited, and as the
    Ranking Member and the Ranking Member of the full committee
    have cited, have been chosen to be axed or reduced
    dramatically.
        I want to give you just a moment here to explain the
    prioritization, why you would have prioritized, for instance,
    these funds in this particular category, in the clean water and
    the drinking water, and how that fits with the overall
    philosophy of where you're trying to take the EPA right now.
    Because you mentioned clean air, clean water; the three of us
    have mentioned clean air, clean water; and yet you've got some
    real discrepancies in what we see outlined within the budget
    proposal. So if you can address that.
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, I think some of it depends on the area of
    their office. When I think through it, for instance, land
    contamination and the Superfund programs that we've made
    reference to this morning already. Senator Leahy mentioned this
    task force that I've established. That report is being provided
    to me by the end of this month, and I would be very, very happy
    to share that with you, Madam Chair, and other Members of the
    subcommittee.
        Senator Leahy, to address your comment earlier, it's not
    really an effort to engage in quick or very expeditious-only
    response, it's to make decisions. What I've noticed is that we
    have sites across the country. I've mentioned West Lake, but
    there are others, it's not isolated. West Lake, just outside of
    St. Louis, where it's taken 27 years for the Agency just to
    make a decision on whether to excavate or to cap the uranium
    there at the St. Louis facility. That's unacceptable. That's
    not a matter of being quick, that's a matter of just simply a
    decision languishing over years and no urgency at the Agency to
    address that. The citizens in that community deserve better.
    You have those kinds of sites across the country; the Port of
    Portland, the Hanover site, there are many; East Chicago, which
    I've visited as well.
        So I think, Madam Chair, with respect to air attainment and
    air quality under the NAAQS program, I mentioned the fact that
    we've achieved a 65 percent reduction in those NAAQS criteria
    pollutants since 1980. That's something that's very good, but
    we have much work to do because there's 40 percent of the
    country still living in nonattainment with respect to ozone,
    about 120 million.
        So working with counties, working with local jurisdictions
    on compliance and assistance, and engaging in enforcement is
    very, very important. Getting monitored data and having that be
    real time available to us as opposed to model data at times is
    something that we need to focus upon.
        There is a backlog of State Implementation Plans at the
    Agency. Over 700 State Implementation Plans have been submitted
    to the Agency and not responded to by the EPA. That's
    unacceptable because that doesn't provide clarity and focus to
    the States on how to engage in enforcement and activity through
    compliance and assistance at the local level.
        So there is much work through management and leadership,
    Madam Chair, that I think will go a long way towards improving
    outcomes in air, land, and water issues. Obviously, money
    matters, and I will let you know and advise you as we get into
    the Superfund program, and the cuts that are proposed under
    this budget. We have orphan sites in that portfolio of over
    1,300, and if there is not enough money in the budget to
    address those, I will advise you. But I think in many
    instances, it's just a matter of lack of decisionmaking,
    management, and leadership with respect to core priorities of
    the Agency.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
        Senator Udall.
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair.

                           RESPONSIVE COMMUNICATIONS

        Administrator Pruitt, I wanted to quickly raise a process
    concern. It's a long-standing practice for Members of this
    subcommittee of both parties to request information from your
    department. Can you confirm that you will continue the long-
    standing practice of responding to all questions, including
    written correspondence, from both majority and minority Members
    of this subcommittee and do so as quickly as possible?
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes, without question, Ranking Member Udall. In
    fact, as I went through the confirmation process, I met with
    roughly 40 to 45 of your colleagues, many of whom were outside
    of the EPW Committee, and we talked about this very issue. In
    the last administration, both majority and non-majority Members
    said that there was not as much responsiveness to certain
    questions and phone calls and the rest, and that's the reason
    we try to be proactive through our Congressional and
    Intergovernmental Affairs Office.
        So, yes, absolutely. We will work diligently to respond to
    the questions that you have, provide information that you have,
    and I will say this to you as well, work with you on the
    concerns that are important to you at the State level. I mean,
    in going through the confirmation process, Senator Cardin and I
    talked about the Chesapeake Bay TMDL quite extensively, and it
    was very helpful to me.
        So we look forward to working on issues particularly to
    your State, as we talked about yesterday.

                                STAFFING CHANGES

        Senator Udall. Yes. Thank you. And I'm sure you'll hear
    from Senator Van Hollen also about Chesapeake Bay. He's on this
    subcommittee.
        We've heard about reorganization planning, Administrator
    Pruitt, that you're doing, and your budget proposes to shed
    3,800 employees. That's a quarter of the EPA's workforce. And I
    want to emphasize that this is simply a proposal. Congress has
    not yet acted on it. And as you are keen to reiterate, you are
    compelled to carry out Congress's direction.
        The fiscal year 2017 Omnibus provided funding in specific
    direction to maintain EPA's current staffing level. I
    understand you are planning voluntary buyouts. While I'm deeply
    disturbed by that step, your authorities stop there. This
    subcommittee will have a say in any further decisions, whether
    it will be through the budget or through a reprogramming
    process where we consider reorganization proposals.
        Will you commit to heeding this subcommittee's direction on
    staffing changes, including potential office closures or moves
    and major staff reductions, instead of prejudging congressional
    action?
        Mr. Pruitt. Ranking Member Udall, it was referenced earlier
    about pink slips. There are no pink slips being issued at the
    Agency. Through attrition, voluntary buyouts, the hiring freeze
    that's in place, those are the only steps that we're taking
    presently with respect to the personnel numbers that you make
    reference to.
        Senator Udall. So your answer to this question would be
    yes?
        Mr. Pruitt. We respect the rule of Congress in that regard,
    yes.

                           PROPOSED STATE BUDGET CUTS

        Senator Udall. Yes. Okay. And talking a little bit about
    State budgets and the Superfund, what I have the most trouble
    in your request is the mismatch of your stated priorities and
    then the funding request. For example, you've delayed new ozone
    standards because some areas have yet to meet old standards,
    but you cut $150 million in grants to States to reduce air
    pollution, including $50 million for upgrading dirty diesel
    engines, and for $30 million in grants targeted at areas with
    the worst air quality. I know you dismiss the problem of
    climate change, but these programs are about the air we breathe
    and having clean air.
        You've said that the States and other entities should take
    on more, but States are still struggling to recover from the
    recession, as you know that with your State, I know that in my
    State. In fact, 19 States, including New Mexico and Oklahoma,
    still have far fewer revenues than before the 2009 downturn.
        It looks to me like this budget proposes to create a
    foregone conclusion that State-delegated environmental programs
    die on the vine. How do you envision States would be able to
    make up for the drop in Federal support, that 45 percent drop
    you're talking about?
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, those Targeted Airshed Grants, as you've
    indicated, have served a very useful purpose. We look forward
    to the discussion with this subcommittee and Congress with
    respect to those issues. I would say to you, Senator, that the
    air transport issues, you know, the attainment issues that
    States face, clearly there are air quality issues that cross
    State lines. You know, things that are going on in Texas impact
    Oklahoma. Senator Leahy talked about the impact in Vermont as
    well. We serve a very important role at those air transport
    issues, cross-State air pollution issues. We look forward to
    working with this subcommittee and working with Congress to
    focus upon that to achieve better attainment.
        Senator Udall. You still haven't answered the question. How
    do you expect the States to do more and then cut their budgets
    45 percent? I mean, as you know, what we've done with major
    environmental laws over the years is we have delegated them to
    States, and we've given them significant budgets. And so those
    cuts really go deeply to what the States are doing on clean
    air, clean water, and a number of other areas, and I don't see
    how you fit those two together.
        Mr. Pruitt. Some of it, Senator, is better cooperation. I
    will say to you that my first weekend after having been sworn
    in on a Friday, I had 18 Governors in my office visiting about
    very hosted issues from Superfund issues to air attainment,
    compliance and assistance, and how we can better cooperate with
    them.
        As I indicated in my earlier answer, we have over 700 State
    Implementation Plans that are before the Agency today that the
    Agency hasn't responded to, and that was before any discussion
    about a budget. That provides a lack of clarity and direction
    to the States. That doesn't provide them the steps forward to
    achieve attainment under the Clean Air Act.
        So some of this, Senator, is truly just having more
    decisive approaches to working with States, cooperating with
    the States, making decisions, and compliance and assistance.
        Now, to your point, obviously the budget proposal is
    something that, as we go through the discussion, we have to be
    mindful because I really believe that the States serve a very
    important role in enforcement. In fact, we joined with a State
    yesterday on an enforcement matter. The State of Colorado, we
    joined in an action against a company with respect to 3,000
    tons of VOCs that had been emitted into the atmosphere there.
    Working with Justice, we actually have engaged in some very
    constructive and meaningful enforcement actions there.
        So you're right, the States serve a very important role in
    this enforcement and compliance and assistance, and we need to
    be mindful of that as we go through the budget process.
        Senator Udall. Well, I'm going to do everything I can to
    make sure they have the budgets to do their job.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall.
        Senator Daines.

                               SUPERFUND CLEANUP

        Senator Daines. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
    Udall.
        Mr. Pruitt, I appreciate your interest in restoring the EPA
    to its core mission of protecting human health and protecting
    the environment. I'm very pleased that you just commented that
    some of your first meetings after you were confirmed were with
    Governors to restoring this relationship with the States,
    working better with the States.
        One of the examples of that was really some of the main
    flaws of the EPA Clean Power Plan where the standards were
    unattainable without creating drastic economic impacts to our
    States. In fact, in Montana, we were harmed the most of any
    State. According to the University of Montana, 7,000 jobs lost,
    $140 million of lost tax revenues for our schools, our teachers
    infrastructure. In fact, it was called the biggest economic
    disaster to happen in our State in over 30 years. So thank you
    for your leadership on pushing back on that EPA overreach and
    working back with the States now.
        I have some concerns about where we're headed with the
    Superfund program, and I want to talk about that for a moment.
    Montana is home to 19 National Priorities List Superfund sites,
    including a couple of the most infamous in the Nation. These
    sites impact Montanans every day through the potential hazards
    they pose to human health and property, through lost potential
    for commerce and economic developments, and the stigma they
    associate with some of our Montana communities and beyond. In
    our meeting in my office during your confirmation process, I
    urged you to prioritize the cleanup and return to productive
    use of Superfund sites in Montana and across the country.
        My question is this, one of the concerns I'm hearing from
    Montanans with respect to Superfund cleanup is a lack of
    transparency and collaboration with local governments, with the
    citizens on the ground there, and stakeholders. Do you intend
    to work more closely with those impacted locally in the
    remediation process? And what are some other aspects of
    Superfund processes that you would like to improve?
        Mr. Pruitt. Senator, absolutely. In fact, I will tell you
    it's not just a matter of working cooperatively or
    collaboratively with folks locally, it's just simply
    responsiveness. Butte, Montana, obviously is one of those sites
    that make up the Superfund portfolio. I would love to tell you
    that the sites across the country--I mentioned West Lake;
    Butte, Montana, is another that it's isolated, that you have
    some of these sites listed for a period of 25 or 30 or more
    years. It's just simply not the case.
        The Agency, in my estimation, has not been urgent at
    prioritizing this cleanup of various sites across the country,
    and it's some of the most tangible benefits we can provide
    citizens across the country. So we will not only work
    cooperatively and collaboratively with those at the local
    level, we will be responsive, making sure they're involved in
    the process, that their voice is heard, that we incorporate
    their concerns with respect to the objectives of how the land
    is going to be used post-remediation, and get accountability
    with those PRPs and others that are responsible for the
    cleanup.
        Senator Daines. Mr. Pruitt, you brought up the community of
    Butte, Montana. I think you're familiar, there were a couple of
    news publications that ran in Montana just over this past
    weekend. And I was hoping you could address some of the
    criticisms that they had regarding the EPA.
        Mr. Pruitt. Senator, you'll have to--I didn't read any
    articles, so maybe you can refer me--refer to the specific
    information.

                              SUPERFUND TASK FORCE

        Senator Daines. Yes. I think it's really looking at there
    have been some numbers thrown out there about how much money we
    think it will take to clean up the Superfund sites there in
    Butte, of $50 million. And just I guess the question is, and
    maybe it goes back to your earlier statement, how do we engage
    these communities that have been battling this for many, many
    years, are very frustrated by the lack of progress with the EPA
    to really restoring back to their core mission here of
    protecting health and human safety?
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, I think that the process is such that
    there are many vendors that are involved in remediation
    activities across the country. The regions really don't have a
    lot of consistency. We have 10 regions, as you know, and one of
    the objectives that I'm engaged in, in this Superfund task
    force is to get more uniformity, I guess more consistency,
    across the 10 regions on how we respond to these Superfund
    sites, because you may have sites languish more in Region 8 or
    Region 7 or what have you than you do in other parts of the
    country. So some of our regions can help educate best
    practices, share those best practices with others across the
    country.
        I do look forward to sharing that information with you
    because there is so much opportunity in this Superfund land
    remediation area because there are 1,330 or so Superfund sites
    across the country, I mentioned many of them have been on the
    list for decades.
        Senator Daines. Right.
        Mr. Pruitt. The Agency has not been, I believe, efficient
    about making decisions so that we can get a path forward with
    those potentially responsible parties and then accountability.
    I mean, many of these sites, Senator----
        Senator Daines. Yes. On the path forward, maybe this--I'm
    going to run out of time here, there is so much to talk about,
    but I appreciate where you're headed here and changing the way
    the EPA engages with their local communities. I would like your
    commitment that we could--that you would review each of
    Montana's Superfund sites with the goal of finding a workable
    solution for cleanup for each one of them.
        Mr. Pruitt. Absolutely. Then after we decide with the
    community what the cleanup should be, actually set forth a
    project management plan to achieve that within a certain
    timeframe. I've been onsite at the East Chicago Superfund site,
    and I've talked to quite a few folks in West Lake as well in
    St. Louis. Just on the ground there is just not a sense of
    urgency and lack of clarity on what the cleanup should be, the
    timeframe, and the accountability in that regard.
        Senator Daines. Yes. And I appreciate being on the ground,
    and we'll look forward to having you come out to Montana. I'd
    love to spend some time there in Butte with you so you can see
    it firsthand. And I appreciate your commitment and attention to
    these issues. There is going to be more talk about some of the
    cuts we're seeing right now in the EPA budget relates to
    concerns, how that will reconcile with our efforts for funding
    these Superfund remediation. But I'll be sending you a letter
    today which will include recommendations that I think how we
    could better improve the Superfund program. And I look forward
    to continuing to work together with you on this.
        Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
        Senator Tester.
        Senator Tester. I will yield to the honorable Senator from
    Vermont.
        Senator Leahy. No, go ahead, go ahead.
        Senator Tester. No, go ahead. Go ahead, Patrick. Go ahead.
    I'll----
        Senator Murkowski. The only reason I'm going to Senator
    Tester is because----
        Senator Tester. Yes, is because we bumped me last time.
    That's why. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski [continuing]. You were actually here
    before Senator Leahy, but----
        Senator Leahy. He was. And I'm perfectly willing to wait.
        Senator Murkowski. But seniority does have its preference.
        Senator Tester. I would yield to the senior Member of the
    Democratic----

                            WATER POLLUTION CLEANUP

        Senator Leahy. Thank you. When I came here, I never
    expected being the Dean of the Senate. I still recall the very
    senior Member of the Senate, one of my first days here, told
    me, ``Boy, around here it's based on seniority, and you ain't
    got none. You hear me, boy?'' [Laughter.]
        I went to his funeral. [Laughter.]
        The EPA budget, as I said before, is really the worst I've
    seen. I don't think it invests in our future. I don't think it
    recognizes undisputed scientific evidence. Let's take what may
    sound parochial, but I think it's reflective of what's going
    on. The EPA is providing critical support for States and
    regions across the country working to clean up our lakes, our
    rivers, our estuaries.
        Now, Vermont and New York join at Lake Champlain, as I
    said, the largest body of fresh water outside of the Great
    Lakes in this country. It's infected by blue-green algae
    blooms. In 2016, EPA adopted a strict new cleanup plan for
    phosphorus in Vermont. Now, we Vermonters, even though it's
    going to be expensive and hard, we welcome that. We also
    embrace the moderate assistance the EPA has given us for 25
    years.
        We're making progress against point and nonpoint source
    water pollution, due in large part to EPA's culmination of
    regulatory oversight and targeted financial assistance. Now,
    this is not only in Lake Champlain, the Chesapeake Bay, the
    Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico, and other water bodies. You
    propose doing away with all of these, all of this financial
    support around this country.
        Do you believe that this proposal to terminate EPA funding
    will force Vermont and New York and the Lake Champlain Basin
    Program to shut down after all these years, is that going to be
    a setback to cleaning up Lake Champlain?
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, Senator, you have rightly stated that
    nutrient pollution, harmful algal blooms, are issues that
    States deal with substantially. In fact, in my home State of
    Oklahoma, we've had similar issues, phosphorus levels in the
    Illinois River----
        Senator Leahy. But are your cuts going to make it hard for
    us to continue this----
        Mr. Pruitt. I believe that these programs like Lake
    Champlain, Great Lakes Initiative, all have very important
    meaningful objectives that we should seek to meet and achieve
    as we go through this budget process. Senator, this is the
    start of the process and I look forward to your input in that
    regard. I recognize and actually acknowledge----
        Senator Leahy. Your budgets cuts the money. Your budget
    cuts out the money. Would that hurt the cleanup? It's a simple
    question.
        Mr. Pruitt. I think the assistance that the EPA provides to
    States on nonpoint source issues particularly is something
    that's very important that we should continue as part of our
    core program in the Office of Water or through specific
    geographical grants, as you identify.
        Senator Leahy. Even though the budget may be cutting it
    out.
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, as I indicated, the support and
    assistance we provide is important to continue whether it's
    part of the specific grant or part of the core programs at the
    Office of Water.

                               ELIMINATION OF EPA

        Senator Leahy. As some have said, the intent of the
    administration to actually dismantle the EPA as a Federal
    agency over the next 4 years. I remember one time years ago
    when they just constantly reorganized it every few months so
    nothing could get done, and you're cutting the budget. Is it
    the administration's plan to eliminate EPA within the next 4
    years?
        Mr. Pruitt. No, sir. As I indicated, Senator, in my
    confirmation process, and I said this years ago serving as
    attorney general, the EPA is not terribly popular in the State
    of Oklahoma, as you might imagine, and I said this as an
    elected official, there's a very important role for the EPA.
    There are air quality issues, water quality issues, Superfund
    issues, TSCA, there are many very important roles the Agency
    serves, will continue to serve, and it's important we fund
    those and that we prioritize those.
        Senator Leahy. Well, as you know and has been suggested by
    Senator Murkowski and Senator Udall and others, we have your
    budget, we will be voting on what we want to do with it. If we
    vote to add--to continue programs, even if they've been
    eliminated in the budget you present here, if we pass
    legislation that continues them, do I have your pledge you will
    follow what the Congress has done and maintain those programs?
        Mr. Pruitt. Absolutely.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you, Senator Tester, for your continuous help.
        Senator Tester. It's always my pleasure, Senator Leahy,
    always.
        Senator Leahy. I'll now go to Judiciary and have fun.
    [Laughter.]
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
        Senator Tester, always waiting patiently.

                                SUPERFUND BUDGET

        Senator Tester. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member
    Udall.
        And thank you for being here, Director Pruitt. I want to
    talk about Superfund for a second. Your opening statement was
    solid, as was the Chairwoman's, about the core mission of
    cleaning up the environment. The Superfund budget, the cleanup
    portion, is cut from $718 million to $515 million, a cut of
    $203 million. I didn't do the percentages on it, but it is
    very, very significant.
        Butte America, which you've already referenced, has a pit a
    mile long, a mile wide, that has been full of toxic water, high
    sulfuric acid, bad stuff, and bad stuff so bad that multiple
    times geese have landed on that lake and they're dead.
        So up until now, in the last 20, 30 years, 35 years or so,
    it has been a mining hole full of water. Now we're getting to
    the point where it's going to start impacting drinking water in
    a big, big way. And I'm not saying that it shouldn't have been
    cleaned up a long time ago, but this is a big dollar project.
    This could eat--this would eat up your entire budget in a
    minute. It would eat up the whole $515 million, and we would
    just be getting to it unless we can hold the folks accountable.
        So here's my question. The first question is that you said
    earlier in your statement that you were going to punish the bad
    actors. One of EPA's really important jobs is to hold those bad
    actors accountable and make sure they come to the table with a
    wallet that's got some money in it, and for the EPA to do the
    job of cleanup. Can you tell me how this budget, in the area of
    Superfund site, meets your core mission?
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, about 60 percent, Senator, of our
    Superfund sites approximately are privately funded, meaning
    that there are PRPs that are responsible. We've got about $3.3
    billion in accounts presently from some of those PRPs.
        Senator Tester. Yes.
        Mr. Pruitt. And I think you make a very good point. There's
    something I've noticed already. As a former attorney general, I
    dealt with enforcement. I led a grand jury, and I know what it
    means to hold bad actors accountable. I will tell you what I
    have noticed with respect to how we approach Superfund, is we
    go to those potentially responsible parties, we negotiate, as
    opposed to setting what the cleanup is going to be, and going
    to those PRPs saying, ``It's going to cost X number of dollars,
    and if you don't pay it, we're going to sue you.'' The CERCLA
    statute that you passed----
        Senator Tester. Yes.
        Mr. Pruitt [continuing]. Is one of the strongest
    environmental statutes on the books.
        Senator Tester. Yes.
        Mr. Pruitt. It's joint and several liability.
        Senator Tester. Yes.
        Mr. Pruitt. There is substantial opportunity to go to those
    PRPs and say, ``This is what the cleanup is going to be. Here's
    the timeline it's going to take place. And you're going to pay
    for it.''
        Senator Tester. Okay. But--and I agree with that, that's
    great, but what happens if they say, ``Sorry, we're not going
    to agree to that''?
        Mr. Pruitt. We will sue them.
        Senator Tester. Okay. So it eventually ends up in court
    anyway.
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, look, I mean, you have to enforce some
    way. That's the enforcement mechanism that you've provided,
    and----
        Senator Tester. Look, we don't disagree. We agree on this,
    Director. We agree on this.
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes, yes, yes.

                            ENFORCEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

        Senator Tester. At some point in time you've got to hold
    their feet to the fire.
        And there's another issue that's gone on in Butte and
    probably in a lot of other sites, that the EPA goes into
    negotiations with these companies, and you talked about working
    with the local community, and the local community is never told
    what the hell is going on with these negotiations----
        Mr. Pruitt. That's right.
        Senator Tester [continuing]. And they're left out in the
    cold.
        Mr. Pruitt. And community groups as well.
        Senator Tester. What's that?
        Mr. Pruitt. And citizens, and community groups across----
        Senator Tester. That's correct.
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes, correct.
        Senator Tester. No, that's correct. Can you give me some
    assurance that it will be not business as usual when it comes
    to keeping the subcommittee informed on these negotiations?
        Mr. Pruitt. It's already not business as usual because I've
    already met with those community groups in East Chicago, those
    community groups that were not being responded to by the
    Agency.
        Senator Tester. Yes.
        Mr. Pruitt. So absolutely.
        Senator Tester. Okay. Because there is always a lot of
    frustration that the negotiations are going on, the community
    is putting their input, they don't know if the negotiations are
    even meeting the goals that the subcommittee puts--or the
    community puts forward, so----
        Mr. Pruitt. And what's--if I may, Senator?
        Senator Tester. Yes.
        Mr. Pruitt. It's not just input from the community and
    they're making a decision----
        Senator Tester. Yes.
        Mr. Pruitt [continuing]. It's then execution upon the
    record and decision to make sure it gets done in a timely
    fashion.
        Senator Tester. And making sure they're a part of the
    making of that record or decision.
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes, sir.

                        SUPERFUND REVIEW--LIBBY, MONTANA

        Senator Tester. We have another situation in Libby:
    asbestos, bad stuff. We've had an asbestos mine up there. We've
    insulated homes throughout this country with that asbestos I
    might add, but Libby is particularly hard hit. And even to the
    fact that the trees have asbestos in it, so if we ever get a
    forest fire, it's going to do a whole lot more good--a whole
    lot more harm not only to Libby, but the entire region where
    that smoke will go. That's another separate Superfund site
    that's going to be--has been very expensive and will continue
    to be very expensive. And that is why I will just tell you the
    statement about going back to the core mission, I don't think
    this budget even gets you back to a core mission.
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, Senator, I can say to you that as we're
    going through the Superfund review, if the monies are not
    sufficient to address that site in Montana or the orphan sites
    that make up the portfolio, I will be sure to advise and then
    make you aware of that because it is important to me and to the
    Agency that we actually show progress in the area of Superfund.
    We have not shown progress in many years on many sites across
    the country, and it's important that we change that direction.
        Senator Tester. So you will be here multiple times in front
    of this subcommittee, for sure the next time you have a budget,
    if not before. And you're telling me things are going to be
    different next time you're in front of this subcommittee.
        Mr. Pruitt. That's my commitment to you, and I will make
    sure that the Chair, the Ranking Member, yourself, and other
    Members of this subcommittee, as we implement these changes to
    the Superfund program, if there are insufficient monies and
    capital to achieve the objectives that are important to the
    American people, I will make you aware of that.
        Senator Tester. I look forward to that meeting. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Tester.
        Senator Van Hollen.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Welcome, Mr. Administrator.
        Mr. Pruitt. Thank you.

                          CHESAPEAKE BAY--TMDL PROGRAM

        Senator Van Hollen. And I want to talk a little bit about
    the Chesapeake Bay, which is a vital national treasure, natural
    resource. It's also essential to have a clean Bay if we're
    going to have a strong economy in the State of Maryland. It's
    vital to our tourism industry, to our watermen, to our boating
    industry. That's why decades ago the six States and the
    District of Columbia got together with the EPA. We formed a
    compact.
        Senator Cardin asked you about this during your
    confirmation hearing about your support for the EPA's role with
    the Chesapeake Bay and making sure that we enforce the TMDL
    program, the Total Maximum Daily Load program. Here's what you
    said in response at that hearing, I'm quoting, ``I really want
    to emphasize to you that process,'' meaning the process we've
    got with the Bay States, ``represents what should occur for
    States to join together and enter into an agreement to address
    water quality issues, and then involve the EPA to serve the
    role it is supposed to serve is something that should be
    commended and celebrated. And as it relates to enforcing the
    TMDL, I can commit to you that in fact I will do so.'' That's
    what you said to Senator Cardin. I understand a little earlier
    today you referenced those conversations as an example of EPA's
    relationship working with the States.
        Can you explain how totally eliminating the $73 million for
    the EPA's Chesapeake Bay program meets that commitment?
        Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I really appreciate the summary you've
    provided. Senator Cardin and I did have very meaningful and
    good discussions through the confirmation process. And truly
    the Chesapeake Bay TMDL is reflective of what is good about
    States joining together to address point source-nonpoint source
    pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. I will say to you that as we
    go through this process, if this subcommittee chooses to
    restore that funding, then that's something obviously we're
    going to implement and carry out our responsibilities, but even
    if it didn't happen, the EPA is going to work collectively with
    those States to ensure that that nonpoint source-point source
    related concerns of those six States and the DC area are
    addressed, whether it's in the Office of Water or in other
    areas of the Office to enforcement or otherwise.
        Senator Van Hollen. But you would agree, would you not,
    that eliminating the EPA's commitment and role and funding
    would make it harder to achieve our goals?
        Mr. Pruitt. My commitment and the Agency's commitment to
    the Chesapeake Bay TMDL is not changing and will not change. As
    we go through this budget process, if it's restored, that's
    something that we obviously dedicate and carry out our
    responsibilities with the new funding, or the funding.
        Senator Van Hollen. Well, I can assure you we'll work very
    hard to restore that. I can tell you the EPA cut to the
    Chesapeake Bay is the one thing that has united everybody in
    the State of Maryland across party lines and regional lines,
    every member of the Maryland congressional delegation,
    Republicans, Democrats, and our Governor Hogan, Republican
    Governor.
        Mr. Pruitt. It's very hard to do. It's very hard to achieve
    that type of cooperation and collaboration. I mean, I've worked
    on similar issues from the State perspective with Arkansas----
        Senator Van Hollen. Yes.
        Mr. Pruitt [continuing]. And it's tough to get six States
    joined together to achieve that type of agreement. So I commend
    you for that. I commend the leadership in the six States.
    Please know you have my commitment, no matter what, we're going
    to do our work under the Chesapeake Bay TMDL to achieve the
    outcomes that have been set out.
        Senator Van Hollen. Got it. And I do want to point out that
    the Federal Government's role has been important from the
    start. I mean, this goes back to when people like Senator
    Mathias were here and others in forging that agreement.
        In that regard, I understand that the Chesapeake Bay
    Commission has requested a meeting with you. Will you take a
    meeting with them?
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes. And we've had representatives actually
    onsite meeting with those individuals already, but absolutely.

                             NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE

        Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that. So one of the issues
    that has arisen over and over in the last couple months is the
    integrity and accuracy of information coming out of the EPA.
    There was a report today in the New York Times you may have
    seen where they quote Deborah Swackhamer, who is the
    environmental chemist who headed the EPA's Board of Scientific
    Counselors. She testified on the House side back in May, and
    she reported that the Chief of Staff to the EPA, Mr. Jackson,
    called her to try to change her testimony, and I just want to
    quote from what she has said. She said, quote, `` `I was
    stunned that he was pushing me to correct something in my
    testimony,' said Dr. Swackhamer, a retired University of
    Minnesota professor. I was factual, and he was not. I felt
    bullied.''
        Do you know about this incident?
        Mr. Pruitt. You know, I have not read the article, Senator.
    I would say to you that any emails, communications, that relate
    to this issue I would be happy to provide to the subcommittee
    and make sure that you're fully aware of the conversations that
    took place between the individual you cite and the Chief of
    Staff.
        [The information follows:]

                   Committee on Science, Space, & Technology

                             Lamar Smith, Chairman

    _______________________________________________________________________

    June 27, 2017    Press Release

      EPA EMAILS SHOW DUE DILIGENCE, SST MINORITY EMAIL SHOWS POLITICALLY
                                MOTIVATED AGENDA

        WASHINGTON.--Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) of the House Science,
    Space, and Technology (SST) Committee released the following statement
    upon reviewing all documents and official correspondence surrounding
    Dr. Deborah L. Swackhamer's testimony before the Committee on May 23 in
    the Environment Subcommittee Hearing, Expanding the Role of States in
    EPA Rulemaking (https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/
    environment-subcommittee-hearing-expanding
    -role-states-epa-rulemaking). The Chairman has reviewed the email
    exchange between Swackhamer and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson in addition to the letters sent by
    the SST Minority to EPA Administrator Pruitt and EPA Inspector General
    Arthur J. Elkins.
        ``The truth has come out that EPA was pursuing a course of due
    diligence and ensuring that information provided in witness testimony
    before Congress was accurate and without factual error. It's
    unfortunate that the Minority has tried to hijack committee hearings
    for their own politically motivated agenda. It is clear that the
    Minority invited Dr. Swackhamer to testify because she was a member of
    the EPA Board of Scientific Counselors, despite protestations from the
    Minority that she was testifying only in her `personal capacity.' The
    American people are smart enough to see past the Minority's highly
    politicized tactics. In a move to support full transparency, the emails
    we have obtained can now be viewed by the American public who will see
    that the Minority's claims are baseless.''
    Background:
        At the Subcommittee on Environment hearing entitled Expanding the
    Role of States in EPA Rulemaking, the Subcommittee sought testimony
    from State environmental protection officials regarding the role that
    States play in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rulemaking and how
    the States and EPA could work together to pursue common goals. The
    Minority invited retired University of Minnesota professor Deborah
    Swackhamer to testify at this hearing.
        Coincidentally, Swackhamer currently serves as the Chair of the
    Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) at EPA. In the weeks prior the
    hearing, Swackhamer made statements to the press critical of EPA
    Administrator Pruitt's decision to evaluate the current membership of
    the BOSC. On May 17, less than a week before the hearing, and after
    Swackhamer's statements to the press, the Minority informed the
    Committee of its intention to invite her as a witness.
        The Minority and Swackhamer contend that the testimony she provided
    to the Committee was done so solely in her personal capacity and not as
    the Chair of the BOSC. However, documents obtained by the Committee, as
    well as the opening statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
    (D-Texas) at the May 23 hearing, demonstrate that the true intent of
    this testimony was to criticize Administrator Pruitt's evaluation of
    the BOSC rather than discuss State involvement of EPA rulemaking.
        On May 19, the Committee received an email from the staff of
    Science Committee Minority Member Congressman Don Beyer (D-Va.)
    inquiring about Beyer's participation in the hearing even though he is
    a not a member of the Environment Subcommittee. The subject line of
    this email referred to the hearing as ``FW: ** Tuesday Subcommittee
    Hearing about EPA Science Board **.'' The Minority's characterization
    of the hearing as ``about the EPA Science Board'' demonstrates that it
    was the Minority's intent to have Swackhamer testify to discuss the
    matters pertaining to the BOSC, rather than the stated purpose of the
    hearing to discuss State involvement in EPA rulemaking.
        Furthermore, Ranking Member Johnson made clear the intent of
    Swackhamer's testimony in her opening statement, ``The decision by EPA
    Administrator Scott Pruitt earlier this month to not renew 9 of the 18
    members of the Agency's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) is just
    the latest example of this Administration's efforts to silence
    scientists,'' and goes on to say, ``We are fortunate that Dr. Deborah
    Swackhamer is here today to provide us with her perspective on these
    unfortunate events. Dr. Swackhamer, a Professor Emerita of Science,
    Technology, and Public Policy as well as a Professor Emerita of
    Environmental Health Sciences at the University of Minnesota brings a
    wealth of scientific expertise to the table. She is also the current
    Chair of the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors and the former Chair
    of the EPA's Science Advisory Board. Although she is testifying today
    in her personal capacity as a scientific expert and not representing
    any of the EPA's science advisory boards, I am glad she has decided not
    to stay silent.''
        On June 26, Ranking Member Johnson and Members of the Minority sent
    a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and EPA Inspector General
    Arthur Elkins accusing Ryan Jackson, the EPA Chief of Staff, of
    attempting to interfere with the testimony of Swackhamer before the
    Environment Subcommittee. The Minority contends that an email sent by
    Jackson to Swackhamer regarding her testimony before the Subcommittee
    was inappropriate and an attempt to ``shape her testimony.''
        Upon review of the email communications referenced in the
    Minority's June 26 letter as the basis for its accusations, it is clear
    that Swackhamer failed to adhere to EPA processes for reviewing
    testimony and that Jackson sought to merely clarify a section of the
    testimony that would be provided to the Committee.
        The email communications indicate the following: Swackhamer failed
    to adhere to established review practices set forth for testimony
    provided by EPA-affiliated witnesses when testifying before
    Congressional Committees, including submitting this testimony for
    review by the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
    and the Office of General Counsel. Jackson attempted to discuss
    Swackhamer's testimony with her on the telephone, but was unable to
    reach her, thus prompting further email communications. Jackson sought
    only to clarify a point in Swackahmer's testimony regarding
    Administrator Pruitt's decision to evaluate the BOSC membership and did
    not use threatening or intimidating language in his communications as
    you can read in the linked exchange below. Career EPA attorney and
    acting General Counsel Kevin Minoli was copied on all of the email
    communications sent to Swackhamer pertaining to this matter.
        The full email exchange between Jackson and Swackhamer, can be
    viewed here (https://science.house.gov/sites/
    republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/
    EPA%20Emails%20%281%29.pdf).
        The SST Minority email from a member of Congressman Don Beyer (D-
    Va.)'s staff that internally refers to the hearing as the ``Tuesday
    Subcommittee Hearing about EPA Science Board'' can be viewed here
    (https://science.house.gov/sites/
    republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/
    Minority%20Email%20%281%29.pdf).
        The opening statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-
    Texas) can be viewed here (https://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/
    democrats.science.house.
    gov/files/documents/S20Font%20Ms.%20Johnson%20Statement%20-
    %20Enviro%20Sub%20Hearing%20-%20EPA%20BOSC%20-%205.23.2017.pdf).
        The written testimony of Dr. Deborah L. Swackhamer can be viewed
    here (https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/
    files/documents/HHRG-115-SY18-WState-DSwackhamer-20170523.pdf).

        Senator Van Hollen. But you agree it's really important
    that EPA provide accurate information to the Congress.
        Mr. Pruitt. Without question. I would say to you that those
    members of BOSC, there's a rotation. None of those folks have
    been fired. Those individuals can reapply for positions on the
    Board; in fact, are. It's intended that as we make decisions
    about representation on that Board that we have geographical
    dispersion, and that's something that was actually mentioned to
    me both by Democrats and Republicans in the confirmation
    process, that we had folks from different parts of the country
    participating and providing scientific review on rulemaking
    that we engage in.
        Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Pruitt. So just please know that in that regard, any
    information specific to that matter we will get to you, but the
    integrity of the scientific review is something that I take
    very seriously.

                             CLIMATE CHANGE WEBSITE

        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
        If I may, Madam Chairman, just along the lines of
    disclosure, why is it that you took down the climate change
    website at the EPA? Why did you take that----
        Mr. Pruitt. Senator, there were many changes to the website
    that have been made that were not meant to send any particular
    message one way or the other. We have a job to do under the
    Clean Air Act, and that job is going to continue whether it's
    on a website or not. We have an endangerment finding from 2009.
    We have a Supreme Court case in 2007 from Mass v. EPA. The
    Agency tried twice to regulate carbon and failed twice with
    respect to the Clean Power Plan and the UARG decision involving
    the tailoring rule.
        So there is ongoing review with respect to what authority
    we have under the Clean Air Act to address those issues. How it
    affects the website or what the website----
        Senator Van Hollen. Could you tell this subcommittee--could
    you get back to this subcommittee and tell us what you found
    inaccurate about that website? Because this was the compilation
    of a lot of information that had been vetted. You've got, you
    know, political conservatives, liberals, who follow this issue
    both saying it was the gold standard. So I would appreciate if
    you could tell us what you found inaccurate about it. Could you
    do that?
        Mr. Pruitt. As part of the record, post this meeting, we'll
    get to you the information associated with that.
        [The information follows:]
                     inaccuracies in climate change website
        The changes that were made to the website were made under the
    direction of the then Associate Administrator for Public Affairs to
    bring the website in line with current Administration priorities. A
    number of areas on the site, specifically the endangerment finding,
    remain unchanged. All of the removed material is housed in the agency's
    website archive and is fully accessible. Additionally, a ``snapshot''
    of the EPA website was taken prior to the transition of
    Administrations, and the link can be found at the bottom of the website
    page.

        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
        Mr. Pruitt. Thank you.

                         CLIMATE CHANGE--CO2

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.
        Let me just do a little follow-up to Senator Van Hollen's
    question. I come from a State where we talk about the fact that
    we see our climate that has changed, that has seen impact with
    ice that is further from the shore, with erosion along our
    coastline and in the interior, and there is a visuality to the
    changing climate. And so there is a discussion about it in the
    State that's relatively open. When your budget came out--and
    Senator Van Hollen mentioned the website--there has been some
    directed criticism that the budget zeros out effectively all of
    the climate change programs.
        Now, if you look through, you don't necessarily see the
    words ``climate change'' or, as I mentioned, many of these
    programs are zeroed out, but we recognize that within the
    mission set of the EPA, if you focus on your back-to-the-
    basics,'' which are clean air, clean water, ultimately this
    works to address so much of what we're seeing with the
    environmental impact that is associated with any climate
    change.
        Can you speak to some of the commonsense parts of the
    proposal that you feel will have a positive impact on climate,
    just something that I can give the folks back home?
        Mr. Pruitt. So this isn't a question with respect to the
    NAAQS program and those criteria pollutants. You're making
    reference to steps that we're taking with respect to
    CO2?
        Senator Murkowski. Just to ensure that, yes, we are making
    headway with----
        Mr. Pruitt. I think the greatest progress we've made as an
    agency has really been obviously with mobile sources, you know,
    the CAFE standards. The Clean Air Act's focus on mobile sources
    over the last several years, I think, has made a substantial
    difference with respect to GHG and CO2.
        I think we've also seen great progress with respect to our
    CO2 footprint that industry has contributed to.
    We're at pre-1994 levels right now with respect to our
    CO2 footprint since 2000. From 2000 to 2014, we
    reduced our CO2 footprint by 18-plus percent, you
    know, and that's primarily through industry.
        Sometimes we don't recognize the technology and how it's
    contributed to better outcomes. Conversion to natural gas and
    the generation of electricity through hydraulic fracturing and
    horizontal drilling have contributed to that. We have
    technology that's being deployed with respect to coal
    generation that matters. But I think from a regulatory
    perspective, the areas that we've made the most progress is in
    that mobile source category.
        Senator Murkowski. Do you feel that the budget proposal, as
    we have now, allows you to continue those positive outcomes?
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes. I mean, I think when you look at the CAFE
    standards, as an example, where the mid-term review will come
    in April of 2018, we've been in discussions, meaningful and
    intense discussions, over the last several months with parties
    with respect to that mid-term review. I think that will
    continue the progress we're making with respect to the
    CO2 footprint.

                      WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (WOTUS)

        Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you about WOTUS. I mentioned
    it in my opening statement, Waters of the U.S. I mentioned that
    I am pleased that the administration is reexamining the
    regulation and hopefully going to be coming up with a more
    sensible proposal. I understand that the Office of Information
    and Regulatory Affairs is currently reviewing a proposal to
    rescind the previous administration's rule, and what we are
    hearing is that it is imminent.
        What I've learned around here is that ``imminent'' is a
    very vague term. Can you give me a better sense as to the
    Agency's schedule on this and moving forward once the previous
    administration's rule is rescinded?
        Mr. Pruitt. I chuckle, Madam Chair, because as you asked
    the question, Holly has given me a little note saying, ``Well,
    how about today?''
        Senator Murkowski. That's imminent. Oh, my goodness, that's
    really moving toward imminency.
        Mr. Pruitt. I think it's in the ``Federal Register'' that's
    being published or being sent to the ``Federal Register'' as of
    today.
        Senator Murkowski. So that will be published----
        Mr. Pruitt. That's very imminent, by the way.
        Senator Murkowski. That is very imminent, unusually
    imminent around here, so thank you for that. So then the
    process moving forward, can you outline some of that?
        Mr. Pruitt. I think what's important with respect to this
    issue is the lack of clarity that the previous rule, the 2015
    rule, created. I mean, it created a situation where farmers and
    ranchers, landowners, across the country did not know whether
    their stream, or dry creek bed in some instances, was actually
    subject, as you know, Madam Chair, to EPA jurisdiction and EPA
    authority. So they were facing fines that were substantial as
    they engaged in earthwork to build subdivisions, and it was
    something that created a substantial amount of uncertainty and
    confusion.
        So what we endeavor to do is to provide clarity by
    withdrawing the 2015 rule, revert back to 2008, the standard
    that was adopted in 2008, through some guidance in that
    timeframe, and then have a proposed rule on a replacement to
    the 2015 rule by the end of this year or the first quarter of
    next year at the latest.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. Well, I appreciate that update.
    And, again, we've had a discussion about the situation in
    Alaska, recognizing that about two-thirds of the State of
    Alaska is already considered a wetland. And we had asked with
    the previous administration to provide details on the impact of
    the proposal on Alaska. We weren't ever able to get that
    information from them.
        So I would just ask that we have an opportunity to work
    with you, specifically to the impact of any new proposal and
    how it might work with the State. Again, we're one-fifth the
    size of the country, and two-thirds of us is either pretty wet
    or pretty frozen.
        Mr. Pruitt. What's encouraging, Madam Chair, is that we've
    already engaged with Tribes and States on that issue. We've had
    over 150 responses, as I recall, by those States and Tribes
    with respect to this issue. So there is robust discussion going
    on, hearing from folks locally, all over the country.
        Senator Murkowski. Great. I appreciate that.
        Senator Udall.

                              GOLD KING MINE SPILL

        Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Administrator Pruitt, we're approaching the second
    anniversary of the Gold King Mine spill. And as I've been
    saying from day one, we owe it to the Navajo Nation, the Navajo
    people, and others harmed by this spill to ensure that they are
    compensated for business losses and property damage they've
    suffered. EPA took full responsibility for the accident. We owe
    it to the Navajo and others harmed to make things right. And I
    will continue to work and make sure that that happens.
        As you continue to learn more about this issue, can you
    commit to reaching out to everyone that was affected by the
    spill, not just those who have submitted claims?
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator. I would say to you I'm not sure
    the Agency has taken full responsibility. I think the Agency's
    response to the Gold King spill, where it shirked, in my
    estimation, its response to help compensate claimants that were
    impacted or injured. I mean, that was something that we're
    trying to remedy and are in fact in the process of remedying. I
    look forward to sharing with Members of this subcommittee what
    you and I discussed yesterday and the EPA response. But we've
    been engaged in a very robust investigation on the ground,
    developing facts that I think demonstrate the EPA needs to do
    more than what was done by the end of last year in response to
    that Gold King situation.

                        NAVAJO NATION--WATER MONITORING

        Senator Udall. Well, thank you for that. And as you know,
    I've been advocating that for years, and I'm glad we found a
    place we can agree. We owe it to the Navajo and others harmed
    to make things right. Still I'm troubled because the fiscal
    year 2018 budget proposes to totally eliminate the $4 million
    in water quality monitoring that I worked hard to secure in the
    fiscal year 2017 Omnibus. That funding was authorized into law
    as a 5-year effort to track the water still flowing from the
    mine. It's critical to the health of those living downstream
    from the Gold King Mine.
        Can you assure us today that you will be fully committed to
    working with the Navajo Nation and the States to ensure that
    water monitoring is ramped up quickly despite the request to
    stop funding for these State and Tribal efforts in fiscal year
    2018?
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator. It's important for the Agency to
    do more than what it's done with respect to the Gold King
    situation, and I'll commit to you that we're going to do that.

                                      TSCA

        Senator Udall. Thank you very much. Administrator Pruitt,
    I'm glad to hear that you've offered your support for robust
    implementation of TSCA, yet this proposal cuts programs that
    are vital to TSCA, such as the Office of Research and
    Development cut in half, the core Agency functions, like
    enforcement. We can't just build a wall around the TSCA office
    and expect it to perform. The same applies to clean water,
    clean air, hazardous waste, radon, and even childhood lead
    poisoning programs. Strong implementation requires a strong EPA
    across all of its disciplines. Given that the EPA budget is
    already lower than in previous years, how do you reconcile
    these dramatic cuts with support for a strong, timely TSCA
    implementation?
        Mr. Pruitt. Ranking Member Udall, the way we approach it is
    you know we have scientific review and scientists internal to
    each of the offices--Office of Water, Office of Air, the
    Chemical Office as well--and then those individuals are
    supported by ORD.
        To give you an example, when I came into this position,
    there was a backlog, as you know, of chemicals. TSCA required
    that any new chemicals entering into the flow of commerce
    needed to be approved by the Agency, and there was a backlog of
    roughly six to seven hundred of those as I came into this
    position. We actually worked--ORD and the Chemical Office--
    together adding FTEs to really focus on addressing that
    backlog, and it's going to be clearly cleaned out by the end of
    next month.
        So you make a very good point, and the point is that ORD,
    working with those program offices, needs to provide the
    support and assistance and partnership to achieve good
    rulemaking. That's going to continue. It's something we're
    committed to.
        I would say this to you as well, ORD can provide, I think,
    technical assistance to the States in a way that helps them
    develop plans to address air attainment and water quality
    issues and the rest. So that mission is important to ORD as
    well.
        Senator Udall. I thank you for that answer. I'm also very
    concerned about the TSCA framework rules that you announced
    last week. I need your assurance that EPA is going to take a
    comprehensive look at chemicals and their impacts on public
    health and the environment, not a limited review focused solely
    on uses that help shield chemical companies from regulation of
    their products.
        It feels like everything is headed towards stamping
    chemicals is okay for specific purposes, to shield them from
    State or Federal action, instead of prioritizing elimination of
    the biggest threats. Will you assure me that EPA will not
    cherry-pick conditions of use when evaluating chemicals for
    safety?
        Mr. Pruitt. Senator, look, the Chemical Office at the EPA
    is working very diligently. Those three rules, we had a
    deadline. We met that deadline of June 22. You had the
    prioritization rule, you had the inventory rule, you had the
    risk rule. All those rules were met and addressed.
        We're following the statute there. The statute, as you
    know, provides a risk-based assessment on these chemicals.
    That's what's going to be applied and we'll do so vigorously.
        Senator Udall. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.

                          FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall.
        Administrator, we have talked about Fairbanks and the
    interior and the issues that they have with meeting air quality
    requirements within the Fairbanks North Star Borough. This is
    the PM2.5 issue. Fairbanks was fortunate. They wrote
    a very strong application last year under the Targeted Airshed
    Program Grants. They got a $2.5 million grant to do a woodstove
    changeout. They're working to do that. As was mentioned here
    earlier by both myself and the Ranking Member, I think these
    Targeted Airshed Grants are important programs; you have
    acknowledged that as well.
        Fairbanks is in a situation now because in April, they were
    officially reclassified, the borough was officially
    reclassified, from moderate to serious nonattainment, and the
    designation means that the State is required to submit the air
    quality plan by the end of this year, by December 31. And I
    know that EPA has been working with the State, been working
    with the borough, to develop a plan and provide that level of
    technical assistance.
        So you know the issues. We've had the conversation about
    some of the challenges that the Fairbanks North Star Borough
    faces. It's not because of lack of trying, but you don't have a
    lot of alternatives. The geography of the area makes it very,
    very complicated. So I'm hoping that again by the time we have
    an opportunity to meet with your team, that we've got some
    specifics in terms of measures that you can outline that will
    help us working with those in the area that are really trying
    to come into compliance. Nobody wants to be in a nonattainment
    area, they want to try to clean it, but it is a difficult set
    of facts, and we appreciate that.
        Mr. Pruitt. You know, Madam Chair, we've interpreted and
    perceive that the individuals, the Alaska Department of
    Environmental Quality, the equivalent DEQ there, their elected
    leadership, they're committed to finding answers, and that's
    good.
        Senator Murkowski. Yes.
        Mr. Pruitt. So we are working very cohesively with them.
    And you're right, there's a SIP that is due by the end of this
    year. It's very important, I believe, that that State
    Implementation Plan is actually drafted and completed by that
    time so there's not exposure with respect to potential
    litigation. We're working diligently, members of our team here
    in DC and through the region, with Alaska to try to achieve
    some good outcomes and also a very good plan going forward.

                           PEBBLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

        Senator Murkowski. Good. We appreciate that.
        Let me ask you about the settlement agreement that was
    reached in May with the Pebble Limited Partnership that would
    allow Pebble to apply for a Clean Water Act permit from the
    Army Corps, and this is with regards to a mine, proposal for a
    mine, in Bristol Bay.
        Regardless of where you may be in pro-mine or anti-mine
    there, I have been consistently neutral on potential
    development in the area, but I've supported the idea that the
    Pebble Limited Partnership should be allowed to apply for a
    Clean Water permit from the Corps before the EPA preemptively
    acts to prevent development within the State. I have also
    consistently supported local and tribal voices being heard on
    the issue.
        So as part of the settlement agreement, EPA agreed to
    withdraw the proposed Clean Water determination and agreed to
    do so within 60 days. Now, my understanding is that as of this
    point in time, EPA has not yet proposed to actually withdraw
    that determination and that when you then do so, that's when
    the clock begins running on the public comment period.
        The problem that we have with this is if the Agency uses
    the entire 60 days, the withdrawal could happen in July, which
    is right in the middle of the Bristol Bay commercial fishing
    season. It would--you go out there beginning just about now
    until the end of August, and this is the time when people are
    working 20, 24 hours a day. And I'm very concerned that this
    timing may inadvertently limit the participation of the folks
    there.
        So since we have had good conversation about the importance
    of robust engagement of the Tribes and because the timing of
    this withdrawal could happen during the middle of fishing
    season, I would ask if you can commit to having a reasonable
    comment period of 90 days so that everyone in the region really
    has an opportunity to weigh in and participate if they choose
    to do so.
        Mr. Pruitt. I think you make a wonderful point, Madam
    Chair. We're going to make sure that as we go through this
    process that all voices are heard. That's what we restored.
        Senator Murkowski. Right.
        Mr. Pruitt. As you know, our decision earlier this year was
    not a decision on whether to grant a permit, it was simply
    restoration of due process. So as we open up this comment
    period, I can comment to you that it will be sufficient length
    to make sure that all voices are heard and that whether it's 90
    days or whatever, that's something that we will commit to you
    that we will do.
        Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that. Thank you.
        Senator Udall.

                                  CHLORPYRIFOS

        Senator Udall. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        One of the first acts as EPA Administrator was to revoke
    the food tolerances for chlorpyrifos, a pesticide linked to
    brain damage and to worker and bystander poisonings. What was
    the scientific basis of your sudden decision to reverse EPA's
    decision to ban the use of chlorpyrifos on food crops? And what
    new information did the EPA receive since the election that
    would suddenly justify the reversal of this ban? Or did you
    simply overrule the judgment of the professional staff?
        Mr. Pruitt. A couple things Ranking Member Udall. One,
    there has not been a decision. The decision on what to do with
    chlorpyrifos will occur by October 1 of this year. You make
    reference to a petition to ban. That was denied, and it was
    based on a USDA communication to the EPA that the scientific
    basis that was being used by the Agency was very questionable.
    That was actually an interagency communication between USDA and
    the EPA. I've got a copy of the letter I can provide you and
    would be happy to do so.
        [The information follows:]

                    United States Department of Agriculture

    January 17, 2017

    Jack E. Housenger, Director
    Office of Pesticide Programs (7501P)
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
    Washington, DC 20460

    Dear Mr. Housenger,

        USDA appreciates the opportunity to comment on EPA's proposal to
    revoke chlorpyrifos tolerances, and in particular the new underlying
    risk assessment that was announced on November 17, 2016
    (``Chlorpyrifos; Tolerance Revocations; Notice of Data Availability and
    Request for Comment,'' 81 FR 81049, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653). As
    you know, EPA is proposing this action in response to a petition to
    revoke chlorpyrifos tolerances submitted by the Natural Resources
    Defense Council and Pesticide Action Network North America in 2007.
        USDA has both grave concerns about the EPA process that has led to
    the Agency publishing three wildly different human health risk
    assessments for chlorpyrifos within 2 years, and severe doubts about
    the validity of the scientific conclusions underpinning EPA's latest
    chlorpyrifos risk assessment. Even though use of the Columbia Center
    for Children's Environmental Health (CCCEH) study to derive a point of
    departure was criticized by the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, EPA
    continues to rely on this study and has now paired it with an
    inadequate dose reconstruction approach.
        In light of these developments, USDA calls on EPA to deny the NRDC/
    PANNA petition to revoke chlorpyrifos tolerances. This would allow EPA
    to ensure the validity of its scientific approach as part of the
    ongoing registration review process, without the excessive pressure
    caused by arbitrary, litigation-related deadlines.
        Our detailed comments on the latest chlorpyrifos risk assessment
    follow. We look forward to continuing to work with EPA to ensure that
    pesticides remain both safe to the public and available to U.S.
    farmers. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further
    questions.

    Sincerely,

    Sheryl H. Kunickis, Ph.D.
    Director

     USDA Comments on the Risk Assessment Underlying the Reopened Proposed
    Rule ``Chlorpyrifos; Tolerance Revocations; Notice of Data Availability
           and Request for Comment'' (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653)

    Science is the backbone of the EPA's decisionmaking. The Agency's
    ability to pursue its mission to protect human health and the
    environment depends upon the integrity of the science on which it
    relies. The environmental policies, decisions, guidance, and
    regulations that impact the lives of all Americans every day must be
    grounded, at a most fundamental level, in sound, high quality science.

     --Excerpt from Scientific Integrity Policy, U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency

    Introduction
        The ``Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration
    Review'' dated November 3, 2016, is the third human health risk
    assessment for chlorpyrifos that EPA has released, and that USDA has
    reviewed and commented on, within the past 2 years. Typically, three
    risk assessments for the same hazard published so close together
    represent successive attempts at improvement and refinement, with the
    goal of reducing uncertainty and improving the reliability of the
    results. However, EPA's three risk assessments resemble more of a
    scattershot approach, with the agency switching between different
    health outcomes and points of departure, and adopting widely varying
    dose measurement and reconstruction approaches.
        In its latest assessment, EPA has stopped using the dose data from
    the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health (CCCEH) study
    it had endorsed in its previous risk assessment just 8 months earlier,
    and instead has chosen to rely on a dose-reconstruction approach to
    identify a point of departure. This dose reconstruction approach
    supposedly estimates the amount of chlorpyrifos to which women in the
    CCCEH cohort might have been exposed in their homes around the turn of
    the century. It is not based on any empirical data, but rather on
    conversations EPA had with ``several'' pesticide applicators in 2016 in
    which they ``recalled'' what the ``predominant'' use of chlorpyrifos
    ``in New York City apartment buildings'' was 15-20 years earlier.
    Without any actual data as to use of chlorpyrifos in the cohort
    members' apartment buildings, let alone their individual apartments,
    EPA is merely guessing that the women in the CCCEH cohort were exposed
    to one crack-and-crevice application of chlorpyrifos per month.
        These exposure guesses are then linked to adverse health outcomes
    that EPA's own Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) has questioned as being
    either statistical artifacts or not caused by chlorpyrifos exposure. In
    addition, the latest risk assessment is still based on just the single,
    not replicated, and unconfirmed CCCEH study. Many weaknesses inherent
    in the study have been identified by the SAP and others, which
    undermine its suitability for determining a point of departure. These
    weaknesses remain unaddressed in EPA's latest risk assessment. This
    cannot be the type of ``sound, high quality science'' the writers of
    EPA's Scientific Integrity Policy envisioned as the ``backbone of the
    EPA's decisionmaking.'' USDA has grave concerns that ambiguous response
    data from a single, inconclusive study are being combined with a mere
    guess as to dose levels, and the result is being used to underpin a
    regulatory decision about a pesticide chemical that is vital to U.S.
    agriculture, and whose removal from market would have a major economic
    impact on growers and consumers.
        Our more detailed comments follow, and are divided into two
    sections, substantive and procedural. USDA requests a response that
    addresses our comments both comprehensively, and on a paragraph-by-
    paragraph basis.
    Substantive Concerns
        Over the past 2 years, USDA has observed EPA's chlorpyrifos risk
    assessments transition from a more traditional, incremental approach
    based on combining a point of departure from a well-established health
    outcome (10 percent red blood cell acetylcholinesterase inhibition, or
    10 percent RBC AChEI) with retention of a 10X FQPA safety factor based
    on some new epidemiological observations, to a completely novel, even
    radical, approach of basing the entire risk assessment, and through it
    the regulatory and economic future of this major agricultural chemical,
    on a single limited and problematic epidemiological study.
        Throughout the latest risk assessment and the accompanying notice
    in the Federal Register, EPA gives the impression that the Agency has
    addressed concerns voiced by the April 2016 SAP and is following the
    SAP's recommendations. For example, in the Federal Register Notice
    published on November 17, 2016, which announced the availability of the
    latest risk assessment, EPA claimed that it ``modif[ied] the methods
    and risk assessment . . . in accordance with the advice of the SAP''
    (81 FR 81050). The SAP exists to provide independent scientific advice
    to the Agency; as such the SAP's findings are particularly important
    when they disagree with an approach taken by EPA. Even though SAP
    reports are not legally binding on the Agency, USDA strongly encourages
    EPA to thoroughly consider the advice received from the SAP. An
    objective, comprehensive review of the meeting minutes of the SAP's
    April meeting, published July 20, 2016, simply does not lead to the
    conclusion that SAP concerns have been addressed. Instead, the latest
    risk assessment raises additional and more acute concerns about the
    viability of EPA's risk assessment approach and the reliability of its
    findings.
        EPA's latest risk assessment rests on three central conclusions.
    USDA disagrees with all three.

      1.  EPA concludes that studies show an actual effect on working
            memory among children in the CCCEH cohort

        In order for a study to be meaningful for deriving a point of
    departure, it must detect an actual health effect. EPA has chosen a 2
    percent change in working memory, measured at age 7 and discussed in
    the Rauh et al. (2011) study of the CCCEH cohort, as the critical
    effect for its last two risk assessments, the first of which was
    reviewed by the SAP in April. There was considerable disagreement among
    SAP members as to whether this 2 percent change is even significant or
    anything more than a statistical artifact:
      --``The [SAP] was conflicted with respect to the importance of a 2
            percent change in working memory.''
      --``Some members considered a 2 percent change in working memory
            (less than one standard deviation in the distribution of scores
            in the general population) to be of questionable biological
            significance.''
      --``By definition, the [standard deviation] for an essentially
            unexposed population is really 15 percent. A 2 percent
            reduction seems to be a particularly low threshold for
            concluding `abnormal.' ''

     Quotes from FIFRA SAP meeting minutes on chlorpyrifos (July 20, 2016)

        If the Rauh et al. study failed to detect a true health effect, any
    further discussion on the use of this study to derive a point of
    departure would be moot. USDA does not deny that some SAP members did
    argue that a 2 percent change in working memory is a significant health
    effect. Rather than taking a position as to whether the observed 2
    percent decrement in working memory is ``real'' or ``significant,''
    USDA merely wishes to highlight the considerable disagreement within
    the EPA SAP as to this very basic question. If the experts convened by
    EPA cannot even agree that a health effect (let alone an adverse health
    effect) was observed, this severely weakens the study's suitability as
    the sole quantitative foundation of a major, economically significant
    risk assessment. Equally concerning is EPA's failure to address in its
    most recent risk assessment the questions raised by the SAP.

      2.  EPA concludes that the 2 percent change in working memory was
            caused by prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos

        Establishing causality between the exposure of interest (in this
    case, prenatal chlorpyrifos exposure) and the observed health effect
    (in this case, a 2 percent change in working memory measured at age 7)
    is a crucial prerequisite to using the CCCEH cohort data in
    quantitative risk assessment. EPA's latest risk assessment does nothing
    to address the April 2016 SAP's strongly-worded concerns regarding the
    lack of established causality. If anything, EPA's Federal Register
    Notice accompanying the risk assessment further obfuscates the SAP's
    conclusions. It states that ``generally, however, the FIFRA SAP agreed
    with the overall conclusion of the CCCEH study, i.e. the association
    between prenatal chlorpyrifos exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes
    in children'' (81 FR 81050; emphasis added). Whether or not
    chlorpyrifos exposure is associated with the change in working memory
    is not the issue here; an association between chlorpyrifos exposure and
    change in working memory could be the result of a confounding factor or
    a multiple comparisons problem, and thus be meaningless for risk
    assessment.
        Rather than association, the relevance of the CCCEH study depends
    on whether chlorpyrifos caused the change in working memory. The SAP
    emphatically commented on question of causality (emphases added):
      --``The assumption that the impaired working memory and lower IQ
            measures observed [in the CCCEH study] are caused primarily by
            a single insecticide (chlorpyrifos) and predicted by the blood
            levels at time of delivery is not supported by the scientific
            weight of evidence.''
      --``Some members of the [SAP] were also concerned about the lack of
            knowledge of the sensitive window(s) of exposure during
            pregnancy that would lead to neurodevelopmental outcomes.
            Without accurate knowledge that exposure occurred during a
            sensitive window, it is impossible to derive causation.''
      --``Without any evidence in the animal literature or elsewhere of a
            mechanism of action that could explain how pg/g levels in blood
            could impair IQ and/or working memory, there does not appear to
            be biological plausibility. This is a significant
            uncertainty.'' (Biological plausibility is a crucial element
            for establishing causality.)
      --``The [SAP] is not aware of any scientific evidence where pg/g
            levels in the blood would lead to deleterious
            neurotoxicological effects in a mammalian system. This lack of
            data could indicate a lack of biological plausibility.''
        The majority of the SAP members drew the correct logical conclusion
    from the absence of indicated causality, namely that use of the CCCEH
    study in a highly impactful risk assessment is ``premature and possibly
    inappropriate.'' This is a necessary conclusion EPA refuses to draw, by
    continuing to rely on the CCCEH study in its latest risk assessment.
    Even more worrisome is EPA's willingness to portray its latest risk
    assessment as responsive to the SAP concerns, when in reality it is
    extremely difficult to see how any continued use of the CCCEH study as
    a basis for a point of departure is consistent with the SAP
    conclusions. The larger passage from the SAP minutes reads as follows
    (emphases added):
      --``The majority of the [SAP] considers the Agency's use of the
            results from a single longitudinal study to make a decision
            with immense ramifications based on the use of cord blood
            measures of chlorpyrifos as a [point of departure] for risk
            assessment as premature and possibly inappropriate. The basis
            for this majority view includes: (1) an inability to either
            know, or confidently make assumptions about, aspects of
            exposure patterns, labor and delivery, and blood collection . .
            . [and] (5) lack of biological plausibility for how low cord
            blood (low parts per trillion) concentrations of chlorpyrifos
            can alter working memory and produce neurodevelopmental
            impairment.''
      --``Some Panel members stated that the reliance on single cord blood
            measurements from only one study (i.e. the CCCEH study) as a
            primary basis for a highly impactful regulatory decision goes
            against standard practices of science in the field of
            toxicology and pharmacology.''
        EPA argues that it addressed SAP concerns about the cord blood data
    by no longer using them in its latest risk assessment, having replaced
    them with the dose reconstruction approach. In doing so, EPA misreads
    the SAP's concerns. While the SAP did criticize EPA for using a single
    measurement of cord blood, rather than deriving a time-weighted
    average, the SAP's fundamental disagreement centered on the fact that
    the risk assessment was based on just a single study with insufficient
    evidence of causality between exposure and effect. It is not the cord
    blood data per se that are the problem, and replacing them with a time-
    weighted average not based on any relevant exposure data does not
    improve the risk assessment. Rather, it is EPA's ``inability to either
    know, or confidently make assumptions about, aspects of exposure
    patterns, labor and delivery, and blood collection,'' as well as the
    ``lack of biological plausibility'' that render the CCCEH study
    unusable. These criticisms are equally valid whether EPA uses the CCCEH
    cord blood data or a time-weighted average based on the reconstructed
    dose data.
        EPA's reconstructed doses are not based on any additional exposure
    data collected from the CCCEH cohort, nor do they help overcome the
    fundamental lack of biological plausibility and thereby causality. In
    fact, the SAP criticized the use in the risk assessment of not only the
    dose data (cord blood measurements), but also of the observed outcome
    data (change in working memory):
      --``It was the Panel's conclusion that the Agency provided
            insufficient justification for using cord blood chlorpyrifos
            levels and associated neurobehavioral health outcomes to derive
            a [point of departure]'' ( emphasis added).
        In the end, the fatal flaw of EPA's use of the CCCEH study is that
    there is insufficient evidence of causality underlying the observed
    association involving chlorpyrifos. The problems with the chlorpyrifos
    cord blood data identified by the SAP cannot be isolated from the CCCEH
    study as a whole. Instead, the entire study, including the cord blood
    data, is problematic because it fails to indicate a causal relationship
    between chlorpyrifos and the health effect. Replacing the cord blood
    data with a different (and arguably inferior) set of reconstructed dose
    data, as EPA did in its latest risk assessment, does nothing to improve
    the quality or reliability of the risk assessment, and introduces new
    and greater uncertainty rather than decreasing it.
        The SAP meeting minutes also restated many other concerns about the
    CCCEH study that have been previously identified by USDA and others,
    and that continue to be relevant as long as EPA attempts to use the
    CCCEH study to derive a point of departure. These include the potential
    presence of numerous confounding factors that further weaken any claim
    of causality between chlorpyrifos exposure and the change in working
    memory, the lack of access by EPA or the public to the raw study data,
    and questions surrounding the analytical methods used to detect the
    very low (picogram per gram) levels of chlorpyrifos in the cord blood.
      --On confounding factors: ``In addition to the air sampling study and
            the cord blood sampling study indicating exposure of the
            [CCCEH] study cohort to various pesticides, the cohort was
            additionally exposed to multiple contaminants including PAHs,
            tobacco smoke, piperonyl butoxide, and phthalates. . . . The
            fact that the pregnant mothers were exposed to a complex
            mixture of chemicals, many of which induce deleterious effects
            on the same neurobehavioral parameters that chlorpyrifos is
            reported to affect, increases the level of uncertainty for
            using measurements of chlorpyrifos alone as the basis for the
            risk assessment. . . . [T]he environment where the exposure
            occurred contained multiple organophosphate insecticides and
            multiple carbamate insecticides. . . . Thus, there was the
            opportunity for the pregnant mothers to be simultaneously
            exposed to multiple cholinesterase inhibiting chemicals.
            Following exposure to such a mixture, it would be biologically
            impossible to separate the independent effects of each chemical
            on a neurochemical or behavioral outcome regardless of the
            statistical model used'' ( emphasis added).
      --On raw data availability: ``Finally, some [SAP] members thought the
            quality of the CCCEH data is hard to assess when raw analytical
            data have not been made available, and the study has not been
            reproduced.''
      --On the analytical method: ``A major source of uncertainty for the
            [SAP] was the lack of verification and replication of the
            analytical chemistry results that reported very low levels of
            chlorpyrifos (pg/g). Imputing quantitative values when the
            concentration of analyte falls below the level of detection
            (LOD) was a particular concern, especially given that a large
            fraction of cord blood samples included in the analyses
            presented with levels below LOD.''

      3.  EPA uses reconstructed dose estimates that are not based on any
            empirical data or any actual knowledge of the exposure
            experienced by members of the CCCEH cohort

        EPA used its 2012 Residential SOPs, which are typically used to
    estimate exposure to a pesticide for the general population, to
    estimate the doses experienced by the CCCEH cohort. Exposure models,
    such as the Residential SOPs, are designed to produce conservative
    exposure estimates that are then compared to experimental dose data
    derived from animal or human studies. In other words, a study typically
    supplies actual dose values linked to actual response data, which can
    then be compared to modeled exposure estimates to determine whether a
    response is expected in the modeled population.
        Dose reconstruction is usually based on an internal dose
    (biomarker) measurement as a starting point and uses reverse dosimetry
    to arrive at a corresponding external dose. In this case, EPA has no
    usable internal dose data, and instead is using exposure models to
    estimate both the doses received by the individuals in the study, as
    well as the exposure experienced by the general population. The problem
    is that there is no cause-and-effect link between the dose estimates
    provided by the exposure model (Residential SOPs) and the change in
    working memory observed in the CCCEH study. Any exposure model can
    produce a huge range of exposure estimates due to both population
    variability and uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty around any
    modeled dose estimate is expected to be massive, since EPA has no way
    of knowing when, how often, and at what levels chlorpyrifos was applied
    in the CCCEH cohort members' apartments, nor does EPA know the duration
    and intensity of exposure experienced by study participants post-
    application. Did they apply chlorpyrifos themselves and did they do so
    instead of or in addition to professional applications? How long did
    they spend in the apartment post-application? Were the windows open or
    closed? When did they shower? Were they also exposed elsewhere, for
    example at work?
        The wide range of exposure estimates and the vast uncertainty
    associated with any estimate makes it impossible to identify an actual
    dose estimate that is linked to the rather small change in working
    memory observed in the CCCEH study. The fact that EPA's response to the
    SAP report--which highlighted in a negative way the ``inability to
    either know, or confidently make assumptions about, aspects of exposure
    patterns, labor and delivery, and blood collection'' and the ``the lack
    of knowledge of the sensitive window(s) of exposure during
    pregnancy''--was to derive dose reconstruction estimates based on
    absolutely no data related to the cohort members' timing of exposure or
    sensitive windows, indicates a misunderstanding of the SAP's concerns.
    The SAP went on to criticize reliance on the CCCEH study, because the
    data showed ``a lack of a clear dose-response relationship and evidence
    of temporality (i.e., two key concepts in pharmacology and
    toxicology).'' Abandoning the CCCEH cord blood exposure data in favor
    of EPA's dose reconstruction estimates, which are completely devoid of
    actual connection to the CCCEH cohort, exacerbates this SAP concern
    instead of mitigating it.
        In addition, EPA is using an inappropriately high level of
    conservatism in its dose-reconstruction effort given that its stated
    goal is to derive a lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) dose.
    In the latest risk assessment, EPA references an earlier dose
    reconstruction that was part of the 2014 Revised Human Health Risk
    Assessment (2014 HHRA). The goal of the 2014 HHRA exercise was to
    estimate an ``upper limit, bounding level exposure'' and as a result it
    contained very conservative assumptions with regards to exposure
    duration and bathing frequency. By contrast, EPA states that the
    purpose of the dose reconstruction in its latest risk assessment is to
    predict ``typical'' product usage and behaviors, and therefore the
    assumptions are essentially realistic or even tend to underestimate
    exposure (e.g., daily shower taking place immediately after
    application; exposure duration of only 2 hours/day). However, EPA
    should be estimating upper limit exposures if its goal is to derive a
    LOAEL dose. Assuming for a moment that the CCCEH study did observe an
    actual association between chlorpyrifos exposure and change in working
    memory, only the most highly exposed cohort members would have
    experienced this adverse effect. Most cohort members were exposed to
    comparatively lower levels of chlorpyrifos, which did not cause a
    change in working memory. Therefore, exposure resulting from
    ``typical'' product usage and behaviors should not be expected to cause
    a response, and if used at all should be considered a no observed
    adverse effect level (NOAEL) dose, not a LOAEL dose. Instead, upper
    limit exposures, representing the most highly exposed individuals
    within the CCCEH cohort, would have been the only doses to be
    potentially associated with an adverse effect.
        Taking a step back, USDA wishes to highlight a logical flaw in
    EPA's reasoning. In its dose reconstruction, EPA considered the
    exposure from the monthly residential crack-and-crevice application to
    be the only contributor to the chlorpyrifos doses experienced by the
    CCCEH cohort. In other words, EPA is assuming that the crack-and-
    crevice application, and only the crack-and-crevice application, is
    causing any adverse effects potentially observed in the CCCEH study
    cohort, such as a change in working memory. By implication, this
    indicates that the Agency considers any dietary (food or drinking
    water) exposure to chlorpyrifos among the CCCEH cohort to be
    negligible. As EPA points out in its latest risk assessment, all
    residential uses of chlorpyrifos were cancelled in 2000, meaning that
    today the only relevant exposures for the general population are food
    and drinking water exposures. There is no reason to believe that the
    population today is exposed to significantly higher levels of
    chlorpyrifos in the diet than the CCCEH cohort was. How then is it
    possible that food and drinking water exposures were not even
    considered in the CCCEH cohort dose reconstruction, but EPA now claims
    that food exposure alone causes some individuals to exceed the
    acceptable level of chlorpyrifos exposure by as much as 140 times?
                      conclusion for substantive concerns
        EPA's latest risk assessment depends on three conclusions related
    to the existence of a health effect, causality, and the dose-
    reconstruction approach. For EPA's assessment to be meaningful, all
    three conclusions would have to be well-supported by the evidence and
    logically coherent. Instead, they range from questionable to
    unsupported by the evidence to incorrect. As a result, the latest risk
    assessment fails to show either a causal or a dose-response
    relationship between chlorpyrifos exposure and a change in working
    memory among the CCCEH cohort, even though causality and the existence
    of a dose-response relationship are two fundamental pillars of
    regulatory toxicology and risk assessment. USDA concludes by asking
    whether, before November 2016, EPA has ever derived a point of
    departure for pesticide risk assessment based on a single study which
    the Agency has concluded does not contain any usable dose data.
    Procedural Concerns
        USDA strongly urges EPA to abandon use of the CCCEH study to set a
    point of departure for chlorpyrifos and to return to using AChEI as the
    critical effect. If EPA chooses to continue to use the CCCEH study,
    EPA's latest risk assessment should be re-submitted to the SAP for
    review. USDA finds this to be absolutely crucial for maintaining public
    confidence in the pesticide regulatory process. Compared to the March
    2016 risk assessment that the SAP reviewed, the latest risk assessment
    is even further beyond the ``mainstream'' of pesticide risk assessment.
    Mostly, this is due to the dose reconstruction approach that, to USDA's
    knowledge, has never been externally reviewed. In addition, the fact
    that the latest risk assessment continues to be based on the CCCEH
    study clearly weighs in favor of allowing the SAP to review again, in
    order to determine whether its earlier criticisms of the CCCEH study
    have been addressed or mitigated.
        USDA notes that according to EPA's Peer Review Policy, ``external
    peer review is the approach of choice'' for influential scientific
    information intended to support important decisions. Influential
    scientific information in turn is characterized, inter alia, by its
    establishment of a significant precedent, model, or methodology; its
    material adverse effect on the economy or a sector of the economy; its
    addressing of significant controversial issues; its significant
    interagency implications; and its consideration of an ``innovative''
    approach for a previously defined problem (EPA Peer Review Handbook,
    4th Ed.). In USDA's opinion, all of these factors are present in EPA's
    latest chlorpyrifos risk assessment, indicating that an external peer
    review of the document is warranted. USDA commends EPA for having
    consulted the SAP three times already on the subject of chlorpyrifos.
    However, this latest hybrid approach is more than just a refinement or
    an implementation of previous SAP recommendations. A completely new
    risk assessment approach is being considered which will have a wide
    impact on the evaluation chlorpyrifos, as well as other pesticides in
    the future. USDA strongly urges EPA to present this latest risk
    assessment to the SAP. Before doing so, EPA should thoughtfully
    consider and publicly respond to all public comments received on the
    subject of chlorpyrifos since the 2014 Revised Human Health Risk
    Assessment was published. This will allow the public to provide an
    informed opinion at the next SAP meeting, and it will help the SAP in
    fully understanding the breadth of risk assessment approaches
    considered by the Agency.
        USDA is aware that EPA is under a court-ordered deadline to fully
    respond to the PANNA/NRDC petition (by issuing a final rule, if
    necessary) by March 31, 2017. However, USDA strongly feels that EPA
    should take the necessary time to fully address the SAP concerns and to
    develop a robust risk assessment. To that end, USDA requests that EPA
    issue an order denying the petition to revoke chlorpyrifos tolerances
    and cancel uses. This would allow the Agency to continue its evaluation
    of chlorpyrifos as part of the ongoing pesticide review process and
    free from undue litigation-induced pressure, and would not preclude the
    Agency from taking mitigation action in the future if
    neurodevelopmental effects related to chlorpyrifos are identified and
    confirmed.

        Senator Udall. Thank you. No, that would be great to get
    that letter. But my understanding, in reading the press, is
    you've delayed this decision off a number of years. But you're
    saying now you're going to make it in October.
        Mr. Pruitt. The decision process that's been defined is
    there will be a decision by October 1 of this year.
        Senator Udall. Yes. Okay. As you know, I mean, this has
    been an issue that's been studied for 30 years by exposure
    scientists, and there is very, very strong scientific evidence
    there in terms of the damage that can be done. And also the
    additional issue is that there are alternatives. I mean, from
    everything I can tell, there are alternatives that could be
    used in the same way.
        What are your concerns in terms of Federal law? Can you
    specify those in terms of chlorpyrifos?
        Mr. Pruitt. I think, Ranking Member Udall, what we
    determined is what I shared just a minute ago, is that it was
    interagency communications between the USDA and the EPA about
    the scientific basis of the decision. There was a petition that
    was denied based upon that, and then a process set forth that a
    decision would be made by October 1 of this year.
        Senator Udall. Yes. And are you aware that there are more
    than 20 alternative chemicals available to farmers?
        Mr. Pruitt. Senator, we're going through the process, and
    there will be a decision by October 1.
        Senator Udall. Okay.
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes.

                             MANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE

        Senator Udall. We've heard from many administration
    officials a variety of statements on humans' activity and its
    impact on global warming and climate change, and these are
    quotes: it's the oceans, not humans; climate change is
    happening, but the jury is still out on human impact;
    CO2 is not the main contributor to climate change.
    Those are the kinds of statements.
        But what I want to ask you is, what is the official Trump
    administration position on accepting the scientific evidence
    that manmade climate change is occurring?
        Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I've been consistent from my
    confirmation hearing through all my comments that the global
    warming--CO2 is impacting the climate, that human
    activity contributes to it in some measure. Measuring that with
    precision is very difficult. But there is a very important
    question, what is the process as far as response?
        The Clean Air Act, if you go back to the individuals, and
    perhaps you were here at the time, I'm not entirely sure, when
    the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990, there was great question
    about whether greenhouse gases and CO2 were meant to
    be regulated. The Clean Air Act fundamentally is about regional
    and local air pollutants. And someone--you know, Congressman
    Dingell was actually quoted as saying that if the current
    framework was used to regulate CO2, it would create
    a glorious mess, quote, unquote. So the question from a process
    perspective----
        Senator Udall. Administrator, you know they've settled that
    issue. The court settled the regulation.
        Mr. Pruitt. No, they----
        Senator Udall. The court settled the regulation of
    CO2.
        Mr. Pruitt. Mass v. EPA simply said that the EPA--the 2007
    case, that they had to make a decision on whether to regulate,
    would have imposed a risk to health, and there was an
    endangerment finding that followed that in 2009. It did not
    address whether the tools were in the toolbox. It did not
    address whether the Agency--because, as you know, Senator,
    Congress has not responded to the CO2 issue with
    respect to amendments to the Clean Air Act, and the Supreme
    Court has said that, in the Clean Power Plan stay as well as
    the UARG decision with respect to the tailoring rule.
        Senator Udall. Now, I asked you the official Trump
    administration position. Is that the one you stated? I know you
    stated your position, but what is the official position of the
    administration?
        Mr. Pruitt. The Agency that I lead is responsible for
    responding to----
        Senator Udall. Do you not know of any official position?
        Mr. Pruitt. That--that--I've responded to you based upon
    what our responsibilities are at the Agency and the
    CO2.
        Senator Udall. But do you know of any official position
    that I can find somewhere and understand what the Trump
    administration official position is?
        Mr. Pruitt. I think what's important, Senator, is that we
    are responding to the CO2 issue through the
    regulation of mobile sources. We are also evaluating the steps
    or the tools that we have in the toolbox with respect to
    stationary sources, and that's our focus.

                            RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD

        Senator Udall. Yes. Administrator Pruitt, the Senate
    Environment Committee is looking at updates to the Renewable
    Fuel Standard. I supported the creation of this program when I
    served in the House, but I'm becoming concerned with its
    implementation now. First, I'm concerned that it has led to
    widespread land conversion, to corn to produce ethanol, which
    Congress did not intend.
        EPA is charged with reviewing and reporting on this issue,
    but has failed to produce the required reports. I wrote a
    letter, a recent letter, to you on this topic with Congressman
    Peter Welch. Will you respond to that letter and seek to
    produce the reports required by the statute?
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator. And you're right, the Agency
    historically--there's a 3-year review process that is supposed
    to be submitted to this body, and that's not happened, and
    that's something that's being corrected.
        Senator Udall. Okay. And you will get that letter in then.
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes, sir.
        [The information follows:]

                 United States Environmental Protection Agency

    August 4, 2017

    Hon. Tom Udall
    United States Senate
    Washington, DC 20510

    Dear Senator Udall:

        Thank you for your letter of May 5, 2017, to the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency regarding the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program
    and the status of the Triennial Report to Congress and the anti-
    backsliding study that are required under the Clean Air Act.
        As your letter notes, EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG)
    released a report titled EPA Has Not Met Certain Statutory Requirements
    to Identify Environmental Impacts of Renewable Fuel Standard (Report
    No. 16-P-0275) late last year. In response to this report the EPA
    committed to completing the next triennial report to Congress on the
    environmental impacts of biofuels by December 31, 2017. The agency is
    currently on track to complete the report by that date.
        With respect to the anti-backsliding study required under Section
    211(q)(1) of the Clean Air Act, EPA acknowledged our obligation under
    the law. EPA already has taken a number of steps that are important
    prerequisites for the study. However, as the OIG report correctly
    notes, there are multiple intermediate research steps that still need
    to be completed before EPA can plan, fund, and conduct a comprehensive
    anti-backsliding study. These steps include development or baseline,
    current, and projected scenarios for how renewable fuels have and might
    be produced, distributed, and used to fulfill the RFS requirements;
    generation of emissions inventories; and air quality modeling; all of
    which are time-consuming and resource-intensive. This work must be
    conducted on top of other statutorily-required actions under the RFS.
    EPA expects to meet the timeframe that we committed to in the OIG
    report.
        Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions.
    please contact me or your staff may contact Patricia Haman in the EPA's
    Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at
    haman.patricia@epa.gov.

     Sincerely,

     Sarah Dunham,
     Acting Assistant Administrator.

        Senator Udall. Yes. Thank you.
        Madam Chair, I'm over my time here, so----

                                  BRISTOL BAY

        Senator Murkowski. We'll keep going back and forth here.
        Let me talk about fish and fish grinding siting stuff, but
    for our fishermen, really important stuff. The NPDES general
    permit for seafood processors within the State allows for
    grinding and discharge of seafood waste, but the permit
    requires that all seafood waste be ground to a size of no more
    than \1/2\ inch in any dimension.
        So our seafood processors in the State have installed
    grinders to grind to \1/2\ inch or smaller, but the best
    available technology is not out there, it doesn't exist, to
    achieve a \1/2\-inch grind dimension on a consistent basis due
    to the fact that fish waste is different. You've got the bones,
    you've got the skin, you've got different things that make it
    that much more difficult. And the industry has spent a lot of
    money upgrading its waste systems in an effort to comply, but
    they've come to the point where achieving 100 percent of
    compliance all the time is not possible right yet, but this
    results in noncompliance reporting, it serves as a constant
    threat of enforcement risk and loss.
        In addition, you have the situation offshore where the
    issue of fish grinding just has not yet been resolved.
    Processing vessels that are operating in offshore waters are
    subject to the same requirements even though there is no
    documented water quality issues that would require such
    grading. And this grinding--this issue has been going on now
    since 2012.
        And I appreciate, Administrator Pruitt, with just about
    every question that you've heard from this panel, you've said,
    look, delays within the Agency are just not acceptable, we've
    got to make some hard decisions, we need to move through a
    process. And I hope that this is one of those areas where these
    long drawn-out reviews with no answers can come to a
    conclusion.
        So know that I want to work with you to find a solution for
    both onshore and offshore to effectively allow onshore that the
    fish processors that are using the best available technology or
    best conventional practice are not going to be facing the fines
    and the threats of fines that they currently do, and then to
    resolve where we are with the offshore in ensuring that it's
    going to be the science that leads us to the appropriate
    regulation in this regard.
        So I don't know if you have any updates for me on that, but
    we're in the midst of a fishing season. Bristol Bay is really
    going to be coming online, as I mentioned, in a week or so, and
    this is front of mind for a lot of folks back home.
        Mr. Pruitt. Well, you have my commitment to work with you
    on that issue. Regulatory certainty, Madam Chair, is so
    important. You mentioned those in the commercial space,
    industry space, facing fines, not knowing whether their
    practices are compliant with regulatory action by the Agency or
    current statute. It's something that we need to be decisive and
    provide that clarity to them, and I look forward to working
    with you in that regard, both onshore and offshore.

                                  INCINERATORS

        Senator Murkowski. Good. Well, and we've got other
    situations going on all over the State. I've mentioned our
    small and remote incinerators. To my Ranking Member here, one
    of our dilemmas is when you are working in these very remote
    areas, for instance, the North Slope of Alaska or some of our
    small villages, you create waste. You need to be able to remove
    them, but there is no road. And so your methods for dealing
    with this are basically helicopter it hundreds of miles to a
    place where the solid waste can be disposed of in an
    appropriate way.
        But we have been working with EPA in search of an
    administrative solution on this again for a number of years. We
    were so close to making it happen with Administrator McCarthy.
    But we need to get to a situation where we're able to resolve
    this issue, not be in conflict with the Clean Air Act. But,
    again, long-standing issue causing uncertainty and cost not
    only to the oil and gas industry up north, but really around
    our State with our many remote operations.
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes, I know that Alaska has requested an
    exemption. That's something that we are working through, Madam
    Chair. It's an exceptional circumstance. It's something that,
    as an agency, we need to be mindful of as we approach these
    kinds of decisions. I mean, you made reference to the
    incinerators. I think even the woodstove issue, you know, in
    Fairbanks is equal to that. You know, people are using
    woodstoves to stay alive, to stay warm.
        So as we work through these issues locally, it's important
    that we truly learn from the folks on the ground and try to set
    forth some practical responses to achieve the outcomes that we
    endeavor to achieve. But it's an exceptional circumstance, and
    you have my commitment to work with you in that regard.

                                   GENERATORS

        Senator Murkowski. Well, and oftentimes, and I know that
    you understand and appreciate this, but you have regulations
    that people cannot comply with because the technology isn't
    there or because of unusual circumstances, again remoteness or
    cost. And we see this with the diesel generators in remote
    villages, and the standards now that are put in place and
    required under this Executive Order 13777. But instead of
    individuals being able to meet the upgrades, if you will, what
    they're doing is they're saying, ``I can't do it,'' so they are
    basically rebuilding their older generators.
        And if you think about the impact, the purpose of the
    regulation is to move us towards cleaner air, but you cannot
    meet the requirements of the regulation, so what you do is you
    just rebuild the older, dirtier model. It doesn't get you to
    your intended goal.
        So, again, working to find some of the solutions in these
    areas, particularly in these remote communities where we're
    identifying and we're working off small microgrids that are not
    connected to anybody else, but making sure that we're moving
    forward, regulations that incent in the right way rather than
    provide a disincentive to stick with the older, dirtier, less
    efficient.
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes, well said, Madam Chair. We're reviewing
    the Executive Order 13777. And, again, these are unique
    circumstances to Alaska, and it's something that we need to be
    mindful of as we engage in these Tier 4 standards.

                              LEADERSHIP POSITIONS

        Senator Murkowski. Well, and my final question to you kind
    of speaks to the fact that I have outlined some of the perhaps
    more unique issues in the State, and that really kind of begs
    the question of where we are with getting regional
    administrator positions filled, as you know, Region 10, pretty
    important to us and the State of Alaska. And the last time we
    talked about getting these positions filled--and, again,
    they're not subject to Senate confirmation, so hopefully one
    would think that we'd be able to advance them quicker. And the
    last time we talked about this, they were stuck in the
    bottleneck of personnel decisions.
        But it's not just Region 10 where they're asking for this,
    and the other regions, I've had other Members contacting me
    saying, ``When can we expect some movement here?'' I know, I
    know full well, that you need people, and you need people not
    only in the confirmed spots, but you need them throughout.
        So let me know if there is anything that I can do to be
    helpful in advancing these positions, but I think the sooner we
    get people in place and brought up to speed on many of these
    areas, where, again, I look at them as parochial, but for our
    fishermen, for our miners, for the people that live in these
    remote areas and are raising their families, these are pretty
    key.
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes, on the substantive issues, you're exactly
    right. On the leadership issues, the personnel side, I believe
    we're making progress, and I'm hopeful that we'll have regional
    administrators in place soon.
        Senator Murkowski. Imminent?
        Mr. Pruitt. Well----
        Senator Murkowski. I like the earlier----
        Mr. Pruitt [continuing]. Not as imminent perhaps as the
    last date I provided you, but that would be good. We're working
    through that process, and I hope to see good outcomes sometime
    soon.
        Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that. Thank you.
        Mr. Pruitt. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. I have no more questions, Senator Udall.
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Administrator, when we were talking about chlorpyrifos,
    you said you would make a decision by October 1? Was that
    October 1 of this year? Because your website says October 1 of
    2022. The EPA website says 2022.
        Mr. Pruitt. Okay. It's my understanding that it's October
    1, 2022, Senator. But we'll get the clarification to you----
        Senator Udall. And the reason--whether it's 2022 or even
    this October, the reason is, is under Federal law, you are
    required to ban a pesticide if you cannot prove with reasonable
    certainty that the pesticide is safe. And at this point, I've
    had very--a large number of exposure scientists say the
    evidence is overwhelming over 30 years that this pesticide is
    not safe. And so the decision is before you to ban it.
        Mr. Pruitt. Again, the only decision that's been made
    presently is a petition that has been denied, and that was
    based upon the interagency discussion between USDA and the EPA,
    which we will provide you that letter. And we're engaged in the
    process to make a determination based upon the available
    science and data.

                            RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARDS

        Senator Udall. Yes. Well, I would urge you on the available
    science and data to act quickly. And I think it's justified to
    act more quickly, even more quickly than October 1 of this
    year.
        We were also talking about the renewable fuels earlier, and
    I'm concerned that the RFS is not helping produce advanced and
    cellulosic biofuels, as Congress intended. And now there is
    legislation under consideration which would allow more
    conventional ethanol. As EPA and Congress consider the RFS, do
    you agree that we should focus on what we can do to incentivize
    advanced biofuels rather than only promoting more conventional
    corn ethanol?
        Mr. Pruitt. Congress has set forth four categories, you
    know, under the advanced and conventional banners, and the
    statute, as you know, sets forth, like in cellulosic, it's over
    4 billion gallons. I don't remember the exact amount presently,
    Senator, and I think last year the waiver was down to around
    300 million or so gallons.
        This is something, I know that there is much effort, much
    work, being done in Congress on updating potentially the
    statute. I think that would be a good thing for Congress to do
    because we need clarity. This statute is very difficult to
    administer because Congress has been prescriptive, and as it's
    been prescriptive, the very specific gallons that are supposed
    to be blended is not being achieved in many of the advanced
    categories, as you know. So we need the help of Congress in
    responding.
        My objective is to use waiver authority judiciously to be
    respectful of what Congress has said as far as the intent of
    the statute, but we will work with you, work with others in
    this body, to address any legislative responses to that
    statute.
        Senator Udall. Well, we look forward to working with you.
    There is real bipartisan--there is a bipartisan sweet spot on
    this issue if we can get the information from you and then try
    to move forward with some legislation.
        Mr. Pruitt. I think that's important.

                        NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

        Senator Udall. Yes. You recently proposed a 2-year
    suspension for the oil and gas industry to comply with the leak
    detection and repair requirements of the New Source Performance
    Standards rule that limit methane emissions from oil and gas
    infrastructure. The regulation was designed to cut methane
    pollution by 40 to 45 percent from 2012 levels. This 2-year
    delay comes shortly after your earlier 90-day stay issued
    without advanced notice to the public or seeking public
    comment. The EPA recently estimated that the cost savings to
    the oil and gas industry from suspending the rule will be more
    than $173 million.
        At the same time, EPA understands that this suspension puts
    children's health at risk. The EPA acknowledges that children
    are disproportionately susceptible to air quality pollution and
    that they will continue to be exposed to harmful emissions for
    2 years during this delay.
        Does your suspension to review the methane rule signal that
    you will begin a formal Federal rulemaking process to replace
    it with a new rule that will protect the health of our children
    and the environment with similar or more stringent standards?
        Mr. Pruitt. It's not intended to send a message in any
    particular way, Ranking Member Udall. The standard under the
    statute for a delay of implementation is insufficient
    information, and based upon the information provided to me, the
    implementation issues that need to be addressed, that's why the
    delay occurred. It's not indicative of one particular approach
    over another on a replacement or withdrawal per se, it's just
    simply to address data and information that's necessary for
    implementation of the rule.
        Senator Udall. But will you begin a formal Federal
    rulemaking process to replace this rule?
        Mr. Pruitt. That's not been determined, Senator.
        Senator Udall. That hasn't been. And so you're--but you're
    not saying you're----
        Mr. Pruitt. I'm not--that's just not been determined yet.
        Senator Udall. Okay. Okay. Is it your position that EPA has
    no role in regulating methane pollution?
        Mr. Pruitt. Absolutely not. We absolutely have a role. Yes.
        Senator Udall. Madam Chair, that's my final question. I
    would just ask on the question that Senator Van Hollen asked
    with regard to the website that was taken down by the
    Administrator. This was a website that had been up for 16 years
    under Democratic Presidents, Republican Presidents. It was
    updated. It had the most recent science. And the person who ran
    that website was a guy named Jason Samenow. He is now a
    reporter for the ``Washington Post.'' And he wrote an article
    about his position on what the Administrator did, and I would
    just ask that that article be put in the record.
        Senator Murkowski. It will be so.
        [The information follows:]

                   [From the Washington Post, June 22, 2017]

    _______________________________________________________________________

    Outlook    Perspective

        I WORKED ON THE EPA'S CLIMATE CHANGE WEBSITE. ITS REMOVAL IS A
                              DECLARATION OF WAR.

                               (By Jason Samenow)

        Jason is the Washington Post's weather editor and Capital Weather
    Gang's chief meteorologist. He earned a master's degree in atmospheric
    science, and spent 10 years as a climate change science analyst for the
    U.S. Government. He holds the Digital Seal of Approval from the
    National Weather Association.
        This spring, political officials at the Environmental Protection
    Agency removed the agency's climate change website, one of the world's
    top resources for information on the science and effects of climate
    change.
        To me, a scientist who managed this website for more than 5 years,
    its removal signifies a declaration of war on climate science by EPA
    Administrator Scott Pruitt. There can be no other interpretation. I
    draw this conclusion as a meteorologist with a specialization in
    climate science and as an independent voter who strives to keep my
    political and scientific views separate. I concede that this specific
    issue is personal for me, given the countless hours I spent working on
    the site. But it should be obvious to anyone how this senseless action
    runs counter to principles of good governance and scientific integrity.
        Some 20 years in the making, the breadth and quality of the
    website's content was remarkable. It lasted through Democratic and
    Republican administrations, partly because its information mirrored the
    findings of the mainstream scientific community, including the National
    Academy of Sciences, other Federal agencies and the United Nations
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It ``presented the current
    understanding of the science and possible solutions in a fair and
    balanced way,'' says Kerry Emanuel, a world-renowned atmospheric
    scientist at MIT and a political conservative.
        The site's overarching conclusion, informed by these scientific
    organizations and reports, was that recent warming is largely a result
    of human activities, specifically the burning of fossil fuels, which
    releases large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
        Yet Pruitt, a lawyer who has spent much of his career fighting
    climate change mitigation efforts, decided that he knows more than the
    thousands of scientists whose decades of work support this conclusion.
    These are his words about the impact of human activity: ``I would not
    agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we
    see.'' Pruitt has championed the administration's decision to exit the
    Paris climate agreement and called for a debate on the fundamentals of
    the issue, even though there's virtually no disagreement about it among
    scientists. He then effectively cleansed the EPA's Board of Scientific
    Counselors, a steering committee for the agency's research.
        The EPA's official line is that it is ``updating'' the climate
    change website to reflect new ``priorities'' under Pruitt and Trump. It
    has archived the old site but put nothing in its place nor announced a
    timetable for ``updating'' it. Pruitt may not accept mainstream climate
    science conclusions, but if he wanted to promote his alternative views,
    a much more defensible and transparent action would have been to leave
    the site up while posting his perspective as well. Instead, one of the
    world's best climate science sites has vanished.
        In its heyday in the early 2000s, if you Googled ``climate change''
    or ``global warming,'' the EPA's site was the first hit. The site not
    only presented climate science, it was also a portal to data on
    warming's effects and greenhouse gas emissions, along with guidance and
    tools to help people, municipalities and states reduce their carbon
    footprints. It included a vibrant kids' site treasured by educators,
    featuring interactive teaching tools and videos, which was also taken
    down.
        While the George W. Bush administration attempted to exert some
    control over the site, it was never so drastic. When Bush's political
    appointees filed into the EPA in 2001--coinciding with when I began
    managing the site--updates were put on hold for several months. For a
    while, we were permitted to update only one page a month, which first
    went through an onerous White House review process. As the site
    contained several hundred pages of content at that time, this was
    effectively a ``let it rot'' policy. But at least the site wasn't
    trashed.
        During Bush's second term, the constraints on updating were lifted,
    and we resumed regularly posting new material. That carried on through
    the Obama administration (I left the EPA in 2010 to join The Washington
    Post).
        To be perfectly clear, it is any administration's prerogative to
    revise or archive Web pages that relate to policies and programs it is
    no longer pursuing. For example, Pruitt's move to archive material on
    the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan was totally justified; the
    Trump administration has shelved the policy.
        But there is no justification for political interference with
    authoritative, carefully vetted scientific information. Neither the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration nor NASA has altered
    its online climate science content--which is not substantively
    different than material on the EPA's site. They are not currently run
    by political appointees.
        It is refreshing that governments in several cities, including
    Chicago, Boston and San Francisco, have published replica versions of
    the EPA's now-defunct site to keep it alive.
        Pruitt's order to delete the site feels purely spiteful, as if he
    simply couldn't abide knowing that the agency he leads was publishing
    information he doesn't believe. But science is not about belief--it's
    about evidence. Of all people, the head of the EPA should have the
    utmost respect for this evidence and its transparent communication.
    Pruitt's choice to destroy carefully vetted scientific information
    rather than preserve it is a reckless and dangerous abdication of his
    responsibility.

        Senator Udall. Yes. And we may well have additional
    questions for the Administrator.
        But thank you very much. Appreciate you being----
        Senator Murkowski. And the record will be kept open for a
    week then if Members choose to submit additional questions.
        Administrator, we thank you for being here. And I
    appreciate particularly your just direct responses, clearly
    very well informed. I think you can tell from the issues that
    are raised, we care about ensuring that our air is clean and
    our waters are clean, whether it's Chesapeake Bay or what you
    heard from both Senators from Montana, they care about what's
    going on with the Superfund site there in Butte and otherwise,
    and in New Mexico. And so I think we clearly have common ground
    to work in so many different areas.
        I particularly appreciate the imperative that you seem to
    be bringing to the Agency that delays in decisionmaking that go
    on for years do not benefit anyone. And sometimes these
    decisions are difficult, and we appreciate that. But when you
    think about the uncertainty that comes, when you don't know
    whether or not that site is going to be cleaned or whether or
    not that regulation is going to be enforced, it just adds to
    ongoing frustration, additional costs.
        And we haven't done anything to address the issues, the
    back-to-the-basics, which is clean air, clean water, and what
    we're going to do to ensure that these mandates are met. So I
    appreciate your direction here this morning.
        Mr. Pruitt. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to
    be with you this morning. I look forward to the partnership
    with you and the Ranking Member.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                    Questions Submitted to Hon. Scott Pruitt
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
                       indian general assistance program
        Question. The fiscal year 2016 Omnibus contained a provision that
    allowed the EPA to continue ``solid waste and recovered materials
    collection, transportation, backhaul, and disposal services'' through
    the Indian General Assistance Program through fiscal year 2020. If this
    provision is not made permanent, what alternatives does the Agency have
    for continuing the backhaul program, which is extremely important to
    many in Alaska?
        Answer. To address the highest hazard waste materials, EPA, the
    Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and others in the Solid
    Waste Alaska Taskforce, have convened private sector stakeholders,
    government agencies, Tribes, and nonprofits to develop a plan for a
    Statewide Backhaul program. The goal is to have the program in place by
    October 1, 2020. The program is being designed to reduce backhaul costs
    through transportation economies of scale and increase revenue through
    recycling commodities in bulk quantities. Once fully implemented, the
    program is being designed to create a new waste transportation
    coordination service for the many public and private entities that
    generate waste in Alaska and charge economical service fees to further
    offset the cost of backhaul for remote communities statewide,
    including, but not limited to, Alaska Native Villages. EPA, ADEC, and
    Alaska backhaul stakeholders are assessing a variety of financing
    options to ensure program solvency and financial viability without the
    need for continued EPA funding through the Indian Environmental General
    Assistance Program (GAP). Through this backhaul program EPA and
    partners are exploring a solution to optimize waste management that
    will respond to concerns for protection of human health and the
    environment, including subsistence resources, due to disposal of wastes
    in these areas over time.
        EPA's management of GAP remains focused on these statutory
    purposes, which are to support (1) development of Tribal Government
    capacity ``to implement programs administered by the EPA'' and (2)
    ``the development and implementation of solid and hazardous waste
    programs for Indian lands'' in accordance with the purposes and
    requirements of applicable provisions of law. Indian Environmental
    General Assistance Program Act of 1992, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4368b (as
    amended). These Federal authorities cover core environmental programs
    such as water quality standards for surface waters, protecting Tribal
    members and natural resources from air and water pollution, delivering
    safe drinking water to Tribal communities, and assuring compliance with
    hazardous waste management requirements. Tribes across the country face
    a myriad of serious environmental and human health threats;
    contamination resulting from improper waste management is only one
    facet of these challenges. Tribal environmental protection programs
    generally lag behind the rest of the country and EPA's management of
    GAP strives to support all federally recognized Tribes who are building
    capacity to implement the full spectrum of environmental regulatory
    programs currently administered by the EPA.
                coal combustion residuals federal permit program
        Question. The Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act
    included a provision related to coal combustion residuals. Language was
    included as part of that provision to allow the Administrator to set up
    a Federal permit program for States that do no set up State permit
    program. However, my understanding is that it is possible that such a
    program must specifically be authorized in an appropriations bill. Is
    that the case or can the EPA move forward administratively to set up
    such a program?
        Answer. The WIIN Act provides: ``in the case of a non-participating
    State and subject to the availability of appropriations specifically
    provided in an appropriations Act to EPA to carry out a program in a
    nonparticipating State, the Administrator shall implement a permit
    program for CCR facilities.''
        Thus, it is EPA's understanding that Congress must provide a
    specific appropriation for EPA to carry out a permit program in a non-
    participating State. However, EPA is the permitting authority in Indian
    country.
                          carbon neutrality of biomass
        Question. The fiscal year 2017 Omnibus included language
    establishing the carbon neutrality of biomass. The bill set up a
    process where the EPA, USDA, and the Department of Energy would
    establish a consistent Federal policy related the carbon neutrality of
    biomass.
      --What is the status of the creation of that Federal policy? Has EPA
            closely coordinated with DOE and USDA at this stage and what is
            the timeframe for moving forward?
      --Will EPA take any steps to reverse the treatment of biomass in the
            2010 tailoring rule, which required regulation without regard
            to the ongoing forest carbon cycle?
        Answer. There are a variety of programs across EPA that work on
    aspects of the production, processing, and consumption of biomass. EPA
    will continue to address the use of biomass in its policies and
    programs in a manner consistent with the directives within the
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Public Law No: 115-31) and other
    legal authorities. EPA will work with our interagency partners,
    including the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy, to establish
    clear and simple policies for the use of biomass as an energy solution,
    and striving for consistency across Federal policies and programs. EPA
    is committed to our ongoing work with all stakeholders, including
    industrial partners, States, Tribes, local governments, and non-
    governmental organizations.
        Additionally, EPA is taking a common-sense approach to developing
    standards for greenhouse gas emissions from mobile and stationary
    sources under the Clean Air Act, including advancing its understanding
    of the role the use of biomass can play in affecting overall greenhouse
    gas emissions. EPA will continue to evaluate the use of biomass in the
    context of its policies and programs.
                         coal refuse-fired power plants
        Question. Coal refuse-fired power plants use fluidized bed
    combustion technology to burn abandoned coal refuse piles in a highly
    controlled manner to generate electricity, and then use the alkaline
    coal ash produced to reclaim the site and abate the mine drainage. This
    eliminates the potential for uncontrolled coal waste fires, acid mine
    drainage and the need for Federal, State or local funds for this
    purpose. The reclaimed land is available for commercial and
    recreational purposes, including shopping centers, housing
    developments, industrial uses, soccer fields and pastures. In
    Pennsylvania, coal refuse-fired power plants have reclaimed more than
    7,000 acres of land, improved or restored over 1,200 miles of polluted
    streams, and burned more than 200 million tons of coal refuse so far.
        In promulgating New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), EPA
    concluded that the unique multi-media environmental benefits provided
    by these facilities warranted special consideration. EPA amended the
    NSPS so as to not discourage coal refuse facilities, recognizing that
    different vintage waste coal units have different capabilities relative
    to their ability to control sulfur dioxide (acid gas). Unfortunately,
    this was not done in Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule. Coal
    waste generators emit very little mercury--in fact, these facilities
    were used to establish the ``maximum achievable control technology
    (MACT)'' standards for mercury. However, there is no economic way for
    these facilities to meet the additional acid gas requirements of the
    current MATS rule. In fact, use of the control technology suggested by
    EPA would actually result in increased mercury emissions from the
    plants, and eliminate their ability to use coal ash to restore the
    abandoned mine sites.
        The coal refuse fired-generators have appealed the MATS rule, which
    is pending before the D.C. Circuit. That proceeding has been suspended,
    pending a review of the rule by EPA. They have also filed comments in
    response to EPA's request for comments concerning the Agency's response
    to Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.''
    These generators have requested that EPA revise the MATS rule to either
    exempt coal refuse- fired generators from MATS or revise application of
    the current acid gas emission limitation for coal-refuse-fired
    generators.
        Would you make a commitment to review this application for relief
    that would allow these plants to continue creating jobs and generating
    electricity, while eliminating toxic air and water pollution at no cost
    to the American taxpayer?
        Answer. On February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order
    13777 on Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda. The Executive order,
    among other things, requires each agency to create a Regulatory Reform
    Task Force to evaluate existing regulations and identify any that
    should be repealed, replaced, or modified. To inform these
    recommendations, the Air and Radiation Program held a public meeting,
    via teleconference, on April 24, 2017, to hear from those directly
    impacted by these regulations, including Federal, State, local and
    Tribal governments, small businesses, nongovernmental organizations,
    and trade associations. EPA will continue to work with stakeholders to
    inform EPA's Regulatory Reform efforts to comply with Executive Order
    13777. EPA also will be reviewing specific comments submitted in
    response to Executive Order 13777 about coal refuse units.
                   superfund: authority and sediment guidance
        Question. I have been closely following your recent efforts to
    improve the Agency's implementation of the Superfund program, such as
    revising the delegation of authority procedures to require that
    remedies potentially totaling more than $50 million must receive
    approval from the Administrator. Closer coordination with the
    Administrator's office throughout the process will, in your words, help
    ensure ``increased oversight, accountability and consistency in remedy
    selections.''
        Moreover, you established a Superfund Task Force to conduct a 30-
    day review of the program, and to recommend any necessary changes to
    ensure remedies are consistent nationwide, data-driven, and efficient.
    Especially at large contaminated sediment sites or ``mega- sites''--
    which demand significant Agency and Federal Government resources,
    including additional FTE; can effect local communities for decades; and
    often result in multi-million and--billion dollar cleanups--the
    Agency's attention to proper guidance and procedure has eroded.
        These sites must be cleaned up as expeditiously as possible to
    revitalize urban areas and help spur economic growth and the creation
    of real, high-paying jobs. Since the 30-day timeframe ended on June 22,
    I look forward to reviewing the Task
      --Does the change in delegations of authority--and your instruction
            to increase headquarters' involvement in site progression from
            initial assessment to remedy selection--apply to continuing/
            future actions at sites with existing Records of Decision as
            well as new cleanups?
        Answer. Administrator Pruitt's May 22, 2017 memorandum
    ``Prioritizing the Superfund Program'' applies to future records of
    decision and record of decision amendments meeting/exceeding the cost
    threshold criterion. For more detail on the memorandum, please see:
    www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/
    prioritizing_the_superfund_program_memo_5-22-2017.pdf. For a copy of
    the Superfund Task Force Recommendations, please refer to the following
    website: www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-task-force-recommendations.
        Question. At new contaminated sediment sites and sites where
    existing Records of Decision are being implemented, what actions are
    you taking to ensure that EPA's Regional offices closely follow the
    principles set forth in the Agency's 2005 Sediment Guidance?
        Answer. EPA's policy and technical guidance encourages selection
    and implementation of sound, nationally consistent remedies at
    contaminated sediment sites. For example, on January 9, 2017, EPA
    issued ``Remediating Contaminated Sediment Sites--Clarification of
    Several Key Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and Risk
    Management Recommendations, and Updated Contaminated Sediment Technical
    Advisory Group Operating Procedures.'' This memorandum responds in part
    to an October 2016 Government Accountability Office report (GAO-16-777)
    and updates the Agency's 2005 guidance with additional recommendations,
    consistent with CERCLA, the NCP, and existing CERCLA guidance, for
    characterizing sediment sites, evaluating remedial alternatives, and
    selecting and implementing appropriate response actions.
        Regional offices consult with headquarters on sediment cleanups
    exceeding a certain size threshold, and site cleanups that are large,
    complex, and/or controversial undergo ongoing review by the Agency's
    national Contaminated Sediments Technical Advisory Group. Additionally,
    contaminated sediment sites with proposed remedies estimated to exceed
    $50 million typically also undergo review by EPA's National Remedy
    Review Board (NRRB). The $50 million threshold is part of a pilot
    initiated in 2014 along with the regional remedy review team (RRRT)
    process. The RRRT review normally entails a modified NRRB review for
    proposed remedies between $25 million and $50 million. The pilot is
    expected to continue until the end of fiscal year 2017.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
                                  chlorpyrifos
        Question. Please provide the EPA scientific analysis and
    recommendation presented to you on your decision to reject a petition
    to revoke food tolerances for chlorpyrifos.
        Answer. EPA denied a petition asking the Agency to revoke all
    pesticide tolerances (maximum residue levels in food) for the pesticide
    chlorpyrifos under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and
    cancel all chlorpyrifos registrations under the Federal Insecticide,
    Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Prior to this determination,
    EPA took the issues raised in the petition to the FIFRA Scientific
    Advisory Panel (SAP) and presented approaches and proposals for
    evaluating recent epidemiologic data exploring the possible connection
    between in utero and early childhood exposure to chlorpyrifos and
    adverse neurodevelopmental effects. The SAP has reviewed experimental
    toxicology and epidemiology data, and their incorporation into risk
    assessments (2008, 2010, 2012, 2016), risk assessment approaches for
    semi-volatile pesticides (2009), and the evaluation of a chlorpyrifos-
    specific pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PBPK-PD) model (2011). The
    SAP's reports have offered numerous recommendations for additional
    study and sometimes conflicting advice for how EPA should consider (or
    not consider) the epidemiology data in conducting EPA's registration
    review human health risk assessment for chlorpyrifos.
        Following a review of public comments on both the November 2015
    proposal to revoke tolerances and the November 2016 notice of data
    availability, EPA concluded that, despite several years of study, the
    science addressing neurodevelopment effects remained unresolved.
    Further evaluation of the science during the remaining time for
    completion of registration review is warranted to achieve greater
    certainty as to whether the potential exists for adverse
    neurodevelopmental effects to occur from current human exposures to
    chlorpyrifos. Included in the comments under consideration were
    statements submitted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Those
    comments can be viewed at www.regulations.gov under docket numbers EPA-
    HQ-OPP-2015-0653-0369 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0833.
        EPA is committed to resolving these questions through the
    registration review process, a program that re-evaluates all pesticides
    on a 15-year cycle. EPA does not believe the FFDCA petition process
    should serve to truncate that review. On July 18, 2017, the court
    rejected the petitioners' request and explained that EPA ``has now
    complied with [the court's prior] order by issuing a `final response to
    the petition' [seeking the tolerance revocation].'' In re PANNA, Dkt.
    No. 65, p.4. The court also directed the petitioners to file
    administrative objections under the FFDCA if they wish to challenge
    EPA's denial of their petition. The 9th Circuit ruling affords EPA the
    necessary time to conduct a proper evaluation, under the law, of the
    science and the studies on chlorpyrifos.. Currently, chlorpyrifos
    remains registered as the registration review continues. EPA will not
    complete the human health portion of the registration review or any
    associated tolerance revocation of chlorpyrifos without first
    attempting to come to a clearer scientific resolution on those issues.
    Congress has provided that EPA must complete registration review by
    October 1, 2022, a deadline the Agency intends to meet. All documents
    related to the registration review can be located in the chlorpyrifos
    registration review docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850 located at
    www.regulations.gov.
                 superfund: process, standards, and priorities
        Question. The budget proposes a cut of 30 percent to the Superfund
    program. The list includes 20 sites in the State of New Mexico. The
    areas around Church Rock Mine the site of the largest accidental
    radiation release in U.S. history still needs extensive cleanup. The
    Navajo Nation has suffered greatly from the legacy of uranium
    contamination for generations.
        The Bonita Peak Mining District is also on the Superfund list. That
    area includes the Gold King Mine site that caused a toxic spill in
    2015. These cleanups require funding for engineering, transportation,
    labor, and physical disposal.
      --Will you implement a fully transparent process for any changes to
            the Superfund program? Will you ensure that the cleanup
            standards will not be lowered in order to more quickly complete
            sites on the list? Will EPA's efforts at Church Rock and Gold
            King continue to be a priority under your administration?
        Answer. Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
    Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund), EPA
    communicates and shares information with States, Tribes, and
    communities on site-specific decisionmaking. The Superfund program will
    continue to use its long-standing community involvement process in
    future cleanup decisions at CERCLA sites. For any program-wide changes,
    EPA will utilize a transparent process for implementation.
        EPA will continue to determine site-specific cleanup standards
    based on site-specific risks as the agency implements actions to
    expedite cleanups.
        Addressing human health and environmental risks at National
    Priorities List sites, including the North East Church Rock Mine and
    Bonita Peak Mining District (of which the Gold King Mine is a part)
    will continue to be the Superfund program's core focus. The
    Administrator visited the Gold King Mine Site in early August to
    reinforce his commitment to the communities impacted by the release and
    to discuss a path forward in cleaning up the site. In this visit, he
    brought together local, State and national officials and also technical
    experts to highlight the importance of continued remediation for the
    benefit of all those impacted by the discharges from the Bonita Peak
    area.
                       analysis of enforcement reductions
        Question. Your proposed budget would reduce funding for enforcement
    of Federal environmental laws 25 percent and cut one in five people on
    the enforcement staff.
      --What analysis was conducted to assess the impact of these cuts? How
            many State inspections would States have to cut? Have you
            assessed the impact of those cut inspections on assuring
            compliance with the laws? How many air inspections? How many
            water inspections? How many hazardous waste inspections?
        Answer. EPA works in partnership with State and Tribal agencies to
    assure compliance, protect public health and the environment, and
    ensure a level playing field for companies that follow the rules. In
    fiscal year 2018, the Agency will focus our resources on our direct
    implementation responsibilities and the most significant violations.
    For fiscal year 2018, the total number of Federal inspections and
    evaluations is projected to be 9,500.
        Question. Companies often say they want more help understanding the
    regulations. How much compliance assistance would be cut, State by
    State, and from the Federal offices? Have you evaluated what the State
    by State effect would be on companies? On small businesses that
    particularly rely on compliance assistance? Please provide the dollar
    amounts of the cut and the numbers of actions that would not occur
    under your budget proposal.
        Answer. The Agency agrees that compliance assistance is a key
    component of a comprehensive compliance and enforcement program. In
    fiscal year 2018, the Agency will work to make more effective use of
    the full array of tools to assist and encourage compliance, in concert
    with traditional enforcement approaches, while focusing on our direct
    implementation responsibilities and the most significant violations.
                                  puget sound
        Question. This question is submitted on behalf of Senator Patty
    Murray. Puget Sound recovery and restoration is critical to my home
    State of Washington, to the Pacific Northwest, and to the country as a
    whole. A healthy Puget Sound plays an essential role in the region's
    economy and is important to the environmental and economic future of
    Washington. Healthy waters and tributaries are essential to the
    recovery of several Endangered Species Act-listed salmon populations
    and the protection of Tribal treaty rights. EPA's Geographic Programs
    provide critical Federal support to ongoing State and local efforts to
    implement Washington State's Puget Sound Action Agenda, which supports
    our commercial, recreational, and Tribal fishery industries and outdoor
    recreation economy. I am extremely disappointed with the
    Administration's decision to eliminate the Geographic Programs and
    funding for Puget Sound.
      --Administrator Pruitt, have you analyzed the economic and health
            impacts of eliminating funding for all Geographic Programs? If
            Congress disregards the President's misguided proposal and
            restores funding for Geographic Programs, do I have your
            commitment to implement the program?
        Answer. EPA will follow the direction of Congress, and will
    implement the Puget Sound program if directed to do so. EPA looks
    forward to continued discussions with the Committee and relevant
    stakeholders to achieve the shared environmental goals and good
    outcomes for the impacted regions. EPA recognizes the significance of a
    healthy Puget Sound. In fact, EPA recently declined to revisit a
    determination that adequate pump out facilities existed in the region,
    thereby allowing the entire Puget Sound to be designated as a ``no-
    discharge zone.'' This will be by far the largest such ``no discharge
    zone'' in the Nation.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
                      fiscal year 2018 omb budget request
        Question. In your written testimony and during the hearing you
    repeatedly said that you want to prioritize the EPA's core statutory
    mission of providing Americans with clean air, land, and water. Yet
    your budget proposes deep cuts for health and environmental protection
    and the EPA's core traditional programs for air, drinking water, waste,
    chemical safety, pesticides, as well as enforcement and research.
      --What was your original budget request to OMB for fiscal year 2018?
            Did you submit any appeals to OMB based on the OMB passback for
            the EPA and, if so, what were those appeals? Please supply
            these for the record.
        Answer. Per Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11,
    the President's budget deliberation process is confidential.
                    analyzing changes to agency regulations
        Question. You have stated that you think there are too many
    burdensome EPA regulations and that you are extremely concerned about
    how much certain environmental regulations might cost some sectors of
    our economy. You have already taken steps towards reducing the number
    of EPA regulations and delaying the implementation or enforcement of
    other regulations. Yet revising regulations or delaying them will also
    require detailed analysis and a sound record, just as issuing
    regulations did.
      --How will you analyze possible changes to regulations if you are
            cutting the staff of the programs and firing or retiring the
            agency's experts?
        Answer. Reducing inefficiencies and streamlining is good government
    and consistent with E.O. 13563. We are working to ensure we are
    creating a more effective Agency that protects human health and the
    environment, while also being respectful of the American taxpayer.
                             air quality management
        Question. States depend on the EPA's enforcement program for
    technical guidance and coordination. Individual States cannot take on
    nationwide pollution issues that affect Americans across the country,
    and cannot effectively tackle air and water pollutants that cross State
    lines. I am also concerned that industries and businesses may suffer
    from poorly funded, inconsistent State enforcement of Federal laws and
    regulations that create a patchwork situation across the country.
      --With the cuts you propose to EPA's Air Office and to the funds that
            support State air quality programs, what steps would you be
            able to take to maintain the air quality we have today, and
            avoid slipping back to unhealthy dirty skies?
        Answer. EPA will continue to meet its statutorily-required
    obligations under the Clean Air Act including its Clean Air Act
    mandated responsibilities to administer the NAAQS by reviewing State
    plans, working with States to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP)
    submittals on a timely basis, and by developing regulations and
    policies to ensure continued health and welfare protection. EPA will
    continue to look for ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness
    of programs, in partnership with State and local air agencies, to
    maintain and improve the air quality we have today.
                               lead paint program
        Question. This budget proposes to eliminate the Lead Paint Program,
    as well as the State grant funding for critical local implementation.
      --What is your justification for doing away with the Lead Paint
            Program?
        Answer. EPA will continue to provide firm and individual
    certifications for safe work practices for lead-based paint abatement
    and renovation and repair efforts. EPA also will continue to provide
    for operation and maintenance of the online database (FLPP) that
    supports the processing of applications for training providers, firms,
    and individuals. These aspects of the lead program will be funded
    within the Chemical Risk Review and Reduction program. Other forms of
    lead exposure are addressed through other targeted programs, such as
    lead pipe replacement with the State Revolving Funds.
        Question. Has the EPA calculated the full costs of the increased
    demand the U.S. would see for medical intervention and special
    education services, and the decrease in academic and lifetime earning
    potential for poisoned children with brain damage if the EPA's lead
    poisoning prevention program is eliminated?
        Answer. EPA's Lead Paint Program has made significant progress in
    reducing the blood lead levels of children through multiple initiatives
    over several years. A combination of outreach and regulations have
    helped make a difference. EPA will continue to provide firm and
    individual certifications for safe work practices for lead-based paint
    abatement and renovation and repair efforts. EPA will continue to
    provide for operation and maintenance of the online database (FLPP)
    that supports the processing of applications for training providers,
    firms, and individuals.
        Question. If you think the work on lead poison prevention is better
    carried out by the States, why have you proposed to eliminate the
    funding that States rely on to support these vital programs?
        Answer. EPA's Lead Paint Program has made significant progress in
    reducing the blood lead levels of children through multiple initiatives
    over several years. A combination of outreach and regulations have
    helped make a difference. States could choose to fund programs targeted
    at reducing lead based paint poisoning and continue activities that
    have been supported by EPA. Additionally, other forms of lead exposure
    (in water and air) continue to be addressed through a host of Federal
    and State programs.
                              geographic programs
        Question. With respect to the Geographic Programs that you propose
    to eliminate.
      --What impacts will such a sweeping and sudden Federal disinvestment
            and disengagement have on public health and environmental
            protection in these sensitive regional areas? What analysis on
            such impacts has the EPA done or utilized to justify
            eliminating these funds?
        Answer. EPA will work with States to implement core environmental
    programs. EPA looks forward to continued discussions with the Committee
    and relevant stakeholders to achieve the shared environmental goals of
    the region.
                             regional consolidation
        Question. There have been several news reports of possible closings
    of some regional offices that you have pushed back against. At the same
    time, an OMB document from March contained directions to the EPA to
    submit a plan for reducing the number of regional offices from 10 to 8
    by June 15.
      --How did the EPA respond to OMB's request for a regional
            consolidation plan? Did you advise the OMB that this is not on
            the table for discussion for the EPA?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2018 budget does not propose closing any
    regional facilities.
        Question. In the total absence of a nearby regional EPA office, how
    would the EPA manage an immediate emergency response to a natural
    disaster or industrial accident affecting our environment that both
    adequately and rapidly coordinates Federal, State and local first
    responders, environmental agencies, law enforcement and others?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2018 budget does not propose closing any
    regional facilities.
        Question. I have repeatedly heard from Vermont State agency staff
    about the important technical expertise, on-the-ground knowledge, and
    leadership at the EPA's regional offices. How would you propose
    replacing those skillsets and the roles of regional staff essential to
    developing acceptable resolutions when a company is charged with a
    violation and ensuring environmental compliance?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2018 budget does not propose closing any
    regional facilities. The budget provides over 5,400 FTE in the regions
    to continue to provide leadership and technical expertise to the
    regulated community, and to partner effectively with States and Tribes.
                           elimination of energy star
        Question. I come from a State with high electricity costs. For this
    reason, I am especially supportive of the Energy Star program, which
    according to EPA saved consumers and businesses $34 billion dollars on
    their utility bills in 2015, yet costs the government just $50 million,
    a stunningly impressive return on investment. Over 16,000 retailers,
    manufacturers and other businesses partner with the Energy Star
    program, providing one of the best examples of a public/private
    partnership.
      --Given the success of this program, what is the rationale for
            elimination of the program in the fiscal year 2018 budget
            request?
      --Energy Star has 90 percent brand recognition, which helps nearly
            every consumer in America to make energy efficient decisions.
            Do you believe helping consumers make energy efficient choices
            is an important goal for the EPA?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2018 budget request for EPA
    reflects the success of environmental protection efforts, a focus on
    core legal requirements, and the important role of Federal-State
    partnerships in implementing the Nation's environmental laws. EPA will
    continue to find ways to partner with stakeholders in the private
    sector to innovate, improve our environment, and strengthen our
    economy.
                      office of inspector general funding
        Question. In fiscal year 2017, the EPA Office of the Inspector
    General was funded at $41.49 million. Your fiscal year 2018 budget
    proposal calls for a $4 million reduction to that office, which will
    undoubtedly limited its ability to independently uncover and prevent
    fraud, waste, and abuse at the EPA.
      --You have said that economic efficiency is one of the main goals of
            this EPA. If this is the case, what is the justification for
            cutting funding to the office that is in charge of ensuring
            cost effective programs at EPA? How can we be sure American tax
            dollars are being well spent if you fail to provide the
            necessary funding for oversight at the EPA?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2018 President's budget includes $37.4
    million for the Office of the Inspector General to continue its vital
    work. In fiscal year 2018, OIG will continue to provide independent
    audit, program evaluation, inspection and investigative services and
    products that fulfill the requirements of the Inspector General Act, as
    amended, by identifying fraud, waste, and abuse in agency, grantee and
    contractor operations, and by promoting economy, efficiency, and
    effectiveness in the operations of the agency's programs. Proposed
    reductions in the President's budget to the OIG are consistent, if not
    lower than the reductions across the Agency.
                               regional haze rule
        Question. EPA grants to States have been critical over the years in
    implementation of the Regional Haze Rule to clean up the air in our
    national parks and wilderness areas. These grants to States were
    essential in the development of visibility plans that have led to
    tremendous gains in cleaning up hazy park skies over the last 10 years.
      --With the drastic proposed cuts to State grants, how does EPA expect
            States to perform and fulfill their Clean Air Act
            implementation and enforcement obligations?
      --Would your proposed cuts for Federal grants to States result in a
            backsliding on current progress and result in more pollution in
            our national parks and communities due to a lack of enforcement
            and new and additional financial burdens on State agencies as
            they aim to fill the budgetary gap in order to comply with
            clean air laws?
        Answer. It is essential for EPA to work cooperatively with State
    and Tribal governments to provide the environmental protection our laws
    demand and the American people deserve. EPA is seeking to engage in
    meaningful discussion about how shared environmental goals can best be
    achieved and will work with States and Tribes to target resources to
    core statutory work and provide flexibility to address environmental
    priorities and concerns. The fiscal year 2018 President's budget
    request reflects EPA's role in a model of cooperative Federalism that
    emphasizes strong cooperative State and Tribal partnerships and is
    guided by congressional direction in core environmental statutes.
                                climate research
        Question. Your budget eliminates funding for climate change
    research, including research on how climate change worsens unhealthy
    air pollution like smog. There is a clear scientific consensus that
    climate change is happening in real time and directly caused by human
    actions. Unprecedented levels of carbon dioxide emissions have
    accelerated the warming of the planet, directly contributing to violent
    and unpredictable weather patterns that we are seeing in Vermont, as
    well as rising sea levels, threatened wildlife, and deadly heat
    records.
      --How will the EPA execute its core responsibility of protecting
            public health and the environment from a changing climate
            without collecting and researching basic information such as
            this?
        Answer. EPA's Office of Research and Development's (ORD) research
    is critical to supporting EPA's mission to improve and maintain clean
    air, water, and healthy ecosystems. Under the President's budget, ORD's
    core science efforts, as it relates to this program, will prioritize
    statutory obligations surrounding these activities.
                              workforce reduction
        Question. you propose to cut as many as 3,200 jobs from the EPA and
    I understand have already begun an aggressive process of buying out
    employees and refusing to renew the terms for dozens of scientific
    advisers.
      --How do these personnel cuts, including many from scientific
            advisory boards that provide expert input, help achieve the
            central mission of the EPA?
        Answer. EPA is focused on its mission of protecting human health
    and the environment. Sound science is the backbone of EPA's rule-making
    process. EPA is eager to not only fill these advisory boards through a
    competitive application process but also ensure that EPA competitively
    selects the best individuals for these boards. Rather than
    automatically renew the terms of BOSC members among other boards, EPA
    opened the solicitation process to review if the existing Membership's
    expertise and breadth is appropriate given the new Administrator's
    priorities, while also identifying and selecting additional qualified
    individuals, from a wide background, to serve. The EPA aims to select
    the best individuals from a diverse pool, representing a wide range of
    stakeholders and viewpoints, to serve on these boards. During the
    period which EPA opened soliciting new members for these Boards, 44
    applied to serve on CASAC and 110 applied to serve on the SAB, so far.
    430 unique individuals applied to serve on the BOSC. During the
    previous Administration, for a nearly 2-year period, EPA did not even
    convene the BOSC. This current Administration has different plans. EPA
    is reviewing the applications and will announce members to the BOSC in
    October and convene regular meetings thereafter. EPA will value and
    ensure scientific review is a principal part of its activities. EPA
    will prioritize science and research activities directly tied to
    statutory requirements and inquiries into environmental and human
    health sciences.
      --Since Congress has the final word over funding for the EPA, do you
            commit to abiding to congressional intent and direction if the
            EPA is directed to slow or stop its process of cutting staff?
        Answer. EPA will adhere to congressional direction.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted by Senator Shelley Moore Capito
                     clean drinking water rural communities
        Question. I am pleased that you and the president recognize the
    importance of the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
    in your budget. Many of our systems in rural communities, specifically
    in southern West Virginia, are legacy systems that were built in
    company towns as far back as the 1930s. When the companies left these
    areas, they left the water systems behind with no technical assistance.
      --How do you see EPA as a partner with these communities to ensure
            they get clean drinking water, rather than simply just an
            enforcer that issues fines?
        Answer. In the last 5 years, the Agency has awarded approximately
    $40 million to provide training and technical assistance to small
    public water systems. The funding helps provide training and tools to
    improve small system operations and management practices, promote
    sustainability, and support EPA's mission to protect public health and
    the environment. The areas of assistance include asset management,
    capital improvement planning, fiscal planning and rate setting, water
    loss reduction, water system collaboration and partnerships, managerial
    leadership, funding coordination, as well as training and technical
    assistance to assist in achieving compliance with National Primary
    Drinking Water Regulations. In the first year of funding, one of the
    grantees provided more than 2,200 individuals with technical assistance
    and taught more than 100 workshops in all 50 States and in 4 U.S.
    Territories.
        Since its inception, the State-managed Drinking Water State
    Revolving Fund (DWSRF) have cumulatively provided $9.2 billion to small
    systems through over 8,000 assistance agreements. In addition to
    financing infrastructure through loans, States have four DWSRF set-
    asides States can use to support small system capacity. On average,
    States use up to 16 percent of the allowed 31 percent of a State's
    DWSRF capitalization grant to fund capacity building activities such as
    asset management and energy/water efficiency to help small systems
    become sustainable. States have used set-aside funds for a variety of
    pre-development activities to support small systems including (but not
    limited to): capital investment project planning, design and
    engineering to get water system projects ``construction-ready'' to
    receive a DWSRF loan; facilitation of water system partnership
    opportunities for water systems to share costs or joint system
    management; development of water conservation or energy efficiency
    programs; facilitated coordination of Federal funding for small system
    projects, and on-site technical support by circuit riders providing
    managerial and operational assistance.
        In addition, the Agency will continue to work with our Federal
    partners such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department
    of Veteran Affairs to collaborate on programmatic missions that will
    enhance the implementation of the drinking water program.
                small and rural communities technical assistance
        Question. Recently I joined Senator Wicker in cosponsoring the
    Small and Rural Community Clean Water Technical Assistance Act, which
    would identify and define small and medium-sized communities and set
    aside funding for technical assistance for these water systems. Many
    communities in West Virginia fit into this ``small treatment works''
    definition, having less than 10,000 individuals being served by a water
    system.
      --Do you support that approach?
        Answer. Over 90 percent of public water systems in the United
    States are classified as small systems. As a result, the Safe Drinking
    Water Act has a significant focus on support for small public water
    systems. EPA, State staff, and our stakeholder groups have been
    directing technical and financial assistance to small systems capacity
    building for several years. EPA financial assistance has been provided
    through two main sources of funding--the Drinking Water State Revolving
    Fund (DWSRF) and the National Training and Technical Assistance Grants.
    EPA continues to make significant investment in technical assistance
    and training as our water sector stakeholders continue to reinforce the
    need these systems have for assistance. Additionally, to the extent
    that EPA can provide technical assistance to your office and Senator
    Wicker's office to improve how EPA responds and assists our small
    communities and systems, we would be eager to work with you in that
    opportunity.
        Question. Would you agree that solutions for fixing and maintaining
    small water systems must differ from larger systems in urban areas?
        Answer. Over 90 percent of public water systems in the United
    States are classified as small systems. As a result, the Safe Drinking
    Water Act has a significant focus on support for small public water
    systems. EPA, State staff, and our stakeholder groups have been
    directing technical and financial assistance to small systems capacity
    building for several years. EPA financial assistance has been provided
    through two main sources of funding--the Drinking Water State Revolving
    Fund (DWSRF) and the National Training and Technical Assistance Grants
    and more recently through the Water Infrastructure Finance and
    Innovation Act (WIFIA). EPA continues to make significant investment in
    technical assistance and training as our water sector stakeholders
    continue to reinforce the need these systems have for assistance.
    Additionally, to the extent that EPA can provide technical assistance
    to your office and Senator Wicker's office to improve how EPA responds
    and assists our small communities and systems, we would be eager to
    work with you in that opportunity.
        Question. Can you commit to working with us here in Congress to
    find solutions that work for our small communities' water systems?
        Answer. Without question. EPA is eager to work with Congress to
    identify and implement solutions that best address the needs of public
    water systems to enhance their technical managerial, and financial
    capacity to address long-term compliance with the National Primary
    Drinking Water Regulations.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                               california waiver
        Question. Under the Clean Air Act, California has the ability to
    set its own vehicle emissions standards. California's standards
    currently mirror the Federal standards, thanks to a carefully
    negotiated consensus. But, if this Administration were to weaken
    Federal standards, California would be able to maintain its stronger
    standards through 2025 under a routine waiver that was granted by the
    Obama administration.
        During your confirmation hearing, you told Senator Kamala Harris
    that you might consider reviewing, and presumably revoking,
    California's waiver, which would be unprecedented and without a
    statutory basis. But at a hearing this month, you told Representative
    Ken Calvert that California's waiver is not currently under review.
      --I was glad to see you testify that California's waiver is ``not
            currently being reviewed,'' but has a firm decision been made
            not to re-open the waiver in the future?
      --Will you commit to keep this committee informed if California's
            waiver comes under review in the future?
        Answer. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA shall waive Federal preemption
    of California's standards for mobile sources when certain specific
    statutory criteria are met. At this time, EPA is not reviewing waivers
    for California's standards for light-duty vehicles.
       vehicle emissions standards: collaboration with the department of
             transportation and the california air resources board
        Question. The vehicle emissions standards are a shared
    responsibility between your agency, the Department of Transportation,
    and the California Air Resources Board.
        One of the main reasons that this program has been a success is
    because all three agencies have worked very hard to achieve consensus.
    That's why we currently have one coordinated national program that
    provides certainty for the auto industry.
        If EPA does not maintain the current consensus, it would likely
    lead to years of protracted litigation from all sides. This is an
    outcome that everyone, including even the auto industry, seems to want
    to avoid. Given how much President Trump has talked about wanting to
    protect the auto industry, I hope you will recognize that the best way
    forward is to maintain an effective national consensus.
        The country needs you to engage in good-faith negotiations, based
    on sound science, with the intention of maintaining consensus.
      --What steps will you take to involve California from the outset in
            your review of the coordinated national program?
      --Are you working with the Department of Transportation to coordinate
            your review of the vehicle emission standards with their rule
            making on the fuel economy standards?
      --Are you allowing the EPA technical experts to collaborate with the
            Department of Transportation experts and provide unbiased
            assessments?
        Answer. The Agency's positive environmental agenda builds on
    cooperative Federalism between the Federal Government and implementing
    partners. It is essential for EPA, in conjunction with other Federal
    agencies, including the Department of Transportation, to work with
    State and Tribal governments to provide the environmental protection
    our laws demand and the American people deserve. EPA is working to
    engage in meaningful discussion about how shared environmental goals
    can best be achieved.
        The Administrator announced, in March 2017, his intention to
    reconsider the January 2017 Final Determination and his plans to issue
    a new Final Determination no later than April 1, 2018. As part of this
    reconsideration, EPA plans to coordinate with the Department of
    Transportation in support of a national harmonized program. EPA expects
    California will work with us to be part of the process and with their
    participation, this reconsideration will be based on the best available
    data and part of a robust, timely, and inclusive process.
                          investing in infrastructure
        Question. Administrator Pruitt, I was deeply disturbed to see that
    your fiscal year 2018 budget eliminated funding for critical State and
    local grant programs, particularly the San Francisco Bay Restoration
    Program and the U.S.-Mexico Border Infrastructure program.
        President Trump repeatedly promised to reinvest in our cities and
    in America's infrastructure. But in light of these EPA cuts, it appears
    to me that President Trump has turned his back on America's cities and
    reneged on his promise to invest in America's infrastructure.
      --Administrator Pruitt, how do you square the budget you're
            presenting today with President Trump's promise to invest in
            our cities and our infrastructure?
        Answer. EPA is committed to working with States, cities, and
    private companies to invest in our water infrastructure through the
    Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds and the Water
    Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act. EPA will continue to discuss
    cross-border environmental issues with stakeholders. EPA maintains a
    border office in San Diego dedicated to working with the Federal, State
    and local partners dedicated to eliminating the pollution and dangers
    emanating from Mexico. EPA is consistently engaged with the
    International Boundary and Water Commission (``IBWC''), California
    Regional Water Council, CONAGUA, the local government of Tijuana, City
    of Imperial Beach, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol as well as the
    Agents' representatives the National Border Patrol Council AFGE Local
    1613 to find solutions to the problems and continue to help bring
    Mexico into compliance with its obligations.
                       u.s.-mexico border infrastructure
        Question. After heavy rain, the Tijuana River carries wastewater,
    trash, and sediment from Tijuana, Mexico into the United States,
    resulting in flooding, pollution, and beach closures in San Diego
    County. Beyond damaging public and private property, transboundary
    flows harm sensitive wildlife areas, including the Tijuana River's
    National Estuarine Research Reserve, River Mouth State Marine
    Conservation Area, and River Valley Regional Park Preserve, which
    provide habitat for over 300 species of birds as well as marine animals
    such as leopard sharks and bottlenose dolphins.
        In February 2017, approximately 28 million gallons of raw sewage
    was discharged from Mexico into the Tijuana River Valley negatively
    impacting the health and human safety of U.S. citizens and Border
    Patrol Agents operating in the area. Given these cross-national
    challenges, which affect our beaches, wildlife habitats, public and
    private property, health and human safety, and border patrol
    operations, I believe we must fully fund environmental programs along
    the U.S.-Mexico border.
      --Given the risk to U.S. citizens, including Border Patrol Agents,
            why has EPA eliminated funding for Border Environmental
            Infrastructure Fund?
      --If Congress were to accept the proposed elimination of funding for
            this program, how would EPA protect human health along the
            border and ensure that the United States is protected from
            infrastructure deficiencies in Mexico?
      --Other than the U.S.-Mexico Border Infrastructure Program, what
            other Environmental Protection Agency programs are currently
            directing efforts and funding to the region to monitor and
            mitigate cross-border pollution?
        Answer. The State Revolving Funds and the Water Infrastructure
    Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program are sources of
    infrastructure funding that can continue to fund water system
    improvements in U.S. communities along the border. The fiscal year 2018
    President's budget request for EPA includes a total of over $2.2
    billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
    programs and $20 million for the WIFIA program. In addition, the EPA
    maintains a border office in San Diego dedicated to working with the
    Federal, State and local partners on border dedicated to eliminating
    the pollution and dangers emanating from Mexico. The EPA is
    consistently engaged with the International Boundary and Water
    Commission (``IBWC''), California Regional Water Council, CONAGUA, the
    local government of Tijuana, City of Imperial Beach, U.S. Customs and
    Border Patrol as well as the Agents' representatives the National
    Border Patrol Council AFGE Local 1613 to find solutions to the problems
    and continue to help bring Mexico into compliance with its obligations.
                         imperial county air pollution
        Question. Imperial County, like many regions in California
    including the Los Angeles Basin and the Central Valley, has significant
    hospitalization rates for childhood asthma, especially among low-income
    and Hispanic families.
        For Imperial County specifically, particulate matter and air
    pollution is carried across the U.S.-Mexico border and throughout the
    region by strong desert winds. According to State public health
    officials, approximately 12,000 children in Imperial County have been
    diagnosed with chronic respiratory illness. Imperial County has more
    than double California's rate of asthma-related emergency room visits
    and hospitalizations for children, between ages 5 and 17. Given these
    ongoing challenges, I believe it is imperative that the environmental
    programs along the U.S.-Mexico border be fully funded.
      --What is EPA currently doing to protect children and families in
            Southern California, specifically Imperial County, from air
            pollution coming across the border from Mexico?
        Answer. EPA works closely with the Imperial County Air Pollution
    Control District, the California Air Resources Board, and other local
    organizations to develop air quality plans to meet national ambient air
    quality standards, implement projects to address asthma, enhance
    monitoring of air pollution, and engage with Mexican colleagues to
    reduce air pollution. Recognizing that Imperial is the only county in
    the U.S. that is currently designated as not meeting three different
    EPA air quality standards (for ozone, fine particulate, and dust), EPA
    has focused financial, policy, and enforcement resources in Imperial
    County.
        Question. How will these efforts be impacted by the cuts proposed
    in the fiscal year 2028 budget?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2018 budget request continues
    to provide support for EPA, State and local governments, and local
    communities, across the country, to advance programs that protect human
    health and the environment.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Merkley
                         states' budgets and resources
        Question. Administrator Pruitt, in your Senate confirmation
    hearing, you highlighted that States should be at the forefront of
    environmental protection and said that States ``remain our Nation's
    frontline environmental implementers and enforcers.'' As you are
    probably aware, approximately 65 percent, or $5.3 billion, of the EPA's
    budget went out as grants to States, Tribes, and municipalities in
    2016. However, while you are asking States to take on more
    responsibility, the President's budget cuts grants to States and Tribes
    by 30 percent. If you take out the nearly level funding for the State
    water revolving funds, then total State funding is cut by over 50
    percent. These are the core categorical grants that go towards
    protecting our air and water, and enforcing environmental standards and
    protections.
      --Moving forwards, how will your agency guarantee that States have
            the budget and resources, including technical assistant from
            the EPA, to ensure that core environmental and public health
            protections are maintained, including air and water monitoring,
            restoration, enforcement, and compliance? Please show the
            analysis on State budget impacts that the EPA conducted prior
            to submitting its fiscal year 2018 budget request.
        Answer. The Agency's positive environmental agenda builds on
    cooperative Federalism between the Federal Government and implementing
    partners, better engagement with communities through technical
    assistance, and optimization of the regulatory and permit process. This
    agenda is designed to strengthen EPA's ability to faithfully execute
    and administer environmental laws, as outlined in the statutes, in
    order to protect human health and the environment for all Americans.
        EPA's resources support our core mission of protecting human health
    and the environment, and not on activities beyond the scope of EPA's
    regulatory authority or those that can be led by State and local
    partners.
                                  energy star
        Question. The EPA's fiscal year 2018 budget proposed cutting the
    EnergyStar program.
      --Please detail the amount of funds the Federal Government has spent
            on EnergyStar, and the resulting savings to consumers in lower
            electricity use and bills.
        Answer. The Energy Star Program began in year 1992 and in fiscal
    year 2016, EPA spent $43.2 million on the Program.
        Question. Please also outline the overall cost-benefit ratio of the
    EnergyStar program, and describe the communications with relevant
    energy and industry groups prior to proposing the elimination of this
    highly successful and popular program.
        Answer. EPA will continue to find ways to partner with stakeholders
    in the private sector to innovate, improve our environment, and
    strengthen our economy.
                                climate research
        Question. Administrator Pruitt, the EPA's fiscal year 2018 budget
    would virtually eliminate every climate research program in the agency.
    This position contradicts the statement you made during your
    confirmation hearing that climate science should continue to be
    debated.
      --Since the EPA's budget cuts this research, does that mean you know
            longer need convincing, and that you acknowledge that the EPA
            has determined that the accumulation of carbon dioxide air
            pollution in the atmosphere endangers public health and
            welfare, and that power plants significantly contribute to that
            air pollution?
        Answer. Sound science is the backbone of EPA's rulemaking process
    and the statutes passed by Congress outline the agencies authorities.
    EPA will continue to conduct a range of economic, scientific, and
    technical analyses for Clean Air Act (CAA) regulatory actions,
    technical input, and policy support.
        Question. Do you therefore acknowledge that EPA has a legal
    obligation under the Clean Air Act to limit power plant carbon dioxide
    emissions?
        Answer. The Supreme Court ruled, in Massachusetts v. EPA, that EPA
    has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant under
    the Clean Air Act. Congress as a body, however, has not weighed in on
    the question about whether the Agency is obligated to regulate carbon
    dioxide.
                               climate briefings
        Question. Administrator Pruitt, have you ever had a briefing on
    climate change science by EPA's climate scientists and/or experts?
      --If yes, please list the date(s) of these briefings, the presenters,
            and the content.
      --If no, have you ever asked for such a briefing and do you believe
            that such a briefing could inform your work as you are
            attempting to cut programs that the EPA has stood by as
            important mechanisms to protect public health in the past?
        Answer. The Administrator welcomes and holds briefings with EPA
    experts on a variety of issues that that could inform work at EPA.
        Question. Have you ever had a briefing from EPA scientists on the
    impacts of climate change on public health and welfare in America or
    globally?
      --If yes, please list the date(s) of these briefings, the presenters,
            and the content.
      --If no, have you ever asked for such a briefing and do you believe
            such a briefing could inform your work as you make decisions
            impacting public health?
        Answer. The Administrator welcomes and holds briefings with EPA
    experts on a variety of issues that that could inform work at EPA.
        Question. Have you ever had a briefing the subjects in question 4
    or question 5 by scientists and experts from NASA, NOAA, the U.S.
    Global Change Research Program, or the National Centers for Disease
    Control?
        Answer. The Administrator welcomes and holds briefings with experts
    on a variety of issues that that could inform work at EPA.
                  executive order 13783 and climate briefings
        Question. The ``Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy
    Independence and Economic Growth'' (Executive Order 13783) was released
    on March 28, 2017. This Executive order calls for the review and
    possible repeal of virtually all climate-related regulations.
      --While this Executive order was being prepared, did you discuss
            climate science or impacts with the President?
        Answer. The Executive order does not call for the review and
    possible repeal of ``virtually all climate-related regulations,'' but,
    rather Section 3 says ``Certain Energy and Climate-Related Presidential
    and Regulatory Actions.'' The President and I have both made our views
    on climate science clear many times.
        Question. Did the President receive any briefing on climate science
    or impacts from any of the science agencies, including NOAA, NASA, the
    Centers for Disease Control, or the U.S. Global Change Research
    Program?
        Answer. NOAA, NASA, CDC are not part of the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency. The U.S. Global Change Research Program is overseen
    by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
    Please reach out to those agencies directly for details about their
    discussions and briefings with the President.
        Question. Similarly, in preparations for the President's June 1,
    2017, announcement of his intention to withdraw from the Paris Climate
    Agreement, did you discuss climate science or impacts with the
    President?
        Answer. All my discussions with the President leading to
    President's courageous decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement
    focused on whether or not the Paris Agreement was a good deal for this
    country.
        Question. Did the President receive any briefing on climate science
    or impacts from any of the above mentioned science agencies?
        Answer. Please reach out to those agencies directly for details
    about their discussions and briefings with the President.
             federal vehicle and fuels standards and certification
        Question. By any measure, the EPA greenhouse gas emissions
    standards for cars, known as the CAFE standards, have been extremely
    successful: sparking technology innovation, saving consumers far more
    dollars at the pump than they spend in the showroom for the improved
    technology, increasing vehicle sales and jobs, and reducing pollution.
    Prior to the implementation of these standards, two of the three U.S.
    based car companies had fallen behind on technology and had to be
    bailed out. Now U.S. car companies are thriving.
      --Why reduce funding for vehicle pollution work that is helping to
            remake and revive America's auto industry?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2018 President's budget request for EPA
    reflects the success of environmental protection efforts, a focus on
    core legal requirements, and the important role of Federal-State
    partnerships in implementing the Nation's environmental laws. In fiscal
    year 2018, under the Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and
    Certification program, EPA will focus its efforts on the certification
    decisions that are required under the Clean Air Act.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Chris Van Hollen
              chesapeake bay program office in annapolis, maryland
        Question. The Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983 established the
    Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO), a formal program designed to
    coordinate Federal, State, local and non-profit efforts to restore and
    protect the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem in a ``partnership-based office''
    in Annapolis, Maryland:

            ``We recognize that the findings of the Chesapeake Bay Program
            have shown an historical decline in the living resources of the
            Chesapeake Bay and that a cooperative approach is needed among
            the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the State of
            Maryland, the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia, and
            the District of Columbia (the States) to fully address the
            extent, complexity, and sources of pollutants entering the Bay.
            We further recognize that EPA and the States share the
            responsibility for management decisions and resources regarding
            the high priority issues of the Chesapeake Bay. Accordingly,
            the States and EPA agree to the following actions: a liaison
            office for Chesapeake Bay activities will be established at
            EPA's Central Regional Laboratory in Annapolis, Maryland, to
            advise and support the Council and committee.''

        In 1987, the Chesapeake Executive Council (EPA Administrator
    representing the Federal Government, along with the Governors of
    Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the Mayor of the District of
    Columbia, and the Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission) signed a new
    agreement--the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement--which included the
    following commitment to co-locating program participants in one office:

            ``To achieve these goals we agree to strengthen the Chesapeake
            Bay Liaison Office by assigning, as appropriate, staff persons
            from each jurisdiction and from participating Federal agencies
            to assist with the technical support functions of that
            office.''

        Currently, the CBPO in Annapolis, MD houses 30 CBPO staff, 35 non-
    Federal partners, 25 NOAA staff, 20 U.S. Fish and Wildlife staff, 4
    U.S. Forest Service staff, 4 USGS staff and 25 NPS staff--all of whom
    collaborate to fully restore the Bay's health. The current lease on the
    Chesapeake Bay Program Office space is scheduled to expire in February
    2019.
      --Will you commit to ensuring that the Chesapeake Bay Program Office
            remains in Annapolis as established in the original Chesapeake
            Bay Agreement to ensure continued, effective collaboration
            between Bay partners?
        Answer. EPA is committed to maintaining effective collaboration
    between the Bay partners. As our lease is expiring for the current
    office, we are committed to remain in close proximity of the Bay and,
    in keeping with the Federal Asset Sale and Transfer Act, best utilize
    existing space.
                             chesapeake bay program
        Question. In addition to eliminating the Chesapeake Bay Program,
    the budget eliminates the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution grant
    program, which Maryland and other Bay States use to address nonpoint
    source pollution from stormwater and agriculture, which are major
    challenges for the Bay. The EPA budget says that the agency will work
    with USDA to address runoff, but the USDA budget proposes eliminating
    the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, which is intended to
    help critical watersheds like the Bay.
      --Should these cuts go into effect, how much direct assistance (in
            dollars) would EPA commit to the Chesapeake Bay States for the
            cleanup process? Where would those dollars come from?
        Answer. Based on the percentage of Bay States' surface area within
    the Chesapeake Bay, EPA can reasonably estimate that EPA would spend
    approximately $79 million in Clean Water State Revolving Fund and
    Section 106 Pollution Control grant funding in the region. EPA looks
    forward to continuing to work with the Chesapeake Executive Council and
    its Principals' Staff Committee and relevant partners to achieve the
    shared environmental goals of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement
    and the Chesapeake Bay TMDL.
        Question. Should these cuts go into effect, will staff with
    institutional knowledge of the cleanup process be reassigned to other
    departments? How many staff will EPA commit to work directly with the
    Bay States to provide coordination and technical assistance?
        Answer. EPA is committed to working with the Bay States and other
    relevant partners to achieve the shared environmental goals of the
    Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement and the Chesapeake Bay TMDL.
                             environmental justice
        Question. Too often in our country, pollution and polluting
    industries are concentrated in communities where people don't have the
    political power to prevent them. Or, as in the case of Flint, Michigan,
    the cries of a vulnerable community about poisons in their environment
    go unheard. The EPA's Office of Environmental Justice, which was
    founded under President George H.W. Bush as the Office of Environmental
    Equity, is intended to hear them, often poor and minority communities,
    and help solve their problems. With proper funding and authority, the
    Office of Environmental Justice should ensure that equity and fairness
    is a clear priority throughout the EPA and that no community has an
    undue burden of pollution and waste.
        Under this budget, the Office of Environmental Justice isn't just
    cut--it is completely eliminated. According to the budget,
    ``Environmental Justice will continue to be supported in the work done
    at the EPA, when applicable.''
      --Can you name specific instances when you would deem environmental
            justice an applicable consideration for EPA programs?
        Answer. The Agency remains committed to working with communities to
    develop solutions to the environmental and public health challenges
    they face. Environmental Justice will not only continue to be
    considered within the work done at EPA, but EPA is moving it back into
    the Office of the Administrator under this administration to ensure it
    remains a key component of all rulemakings, guidance, and actions.
        Question. The budget goes on to say, ``EJ work impacting the entire
    agency will be incorporated into future policy work within the
    Integrated Environmental Strategy program.'' IES has primarily worked
    with developing countries on public health initiatives.
      --What is the strategy for ensuring that environmental justice is a
            key part of the EPA's domestic work?
        Answer. The Agency remains committed to working with communities to
    develop solutions to the environmental and public health challenges
    they face. Environmental justice will continue to be considered within
    the work done at EPA and also is specifically incorporated into policy
    work within the Office of the Administrator.
     military advisory board report: ``national security and the threat of
                                climate change''
        Question. In 2007, the Military Advisory Board, a group of retired
    three- and four-star flag and general officers from the Army, Navy, Air
    Force, and Marine Corps, released a report, ``National Security and the
    Threat of Climate Change,'' in which they wrote: ``The nature and pace
    of climate changes being observed today'' that's in 2007, 10 years ago
    ``are grave and pose equally grave implications for our national
    security.''
      --Are you aware of the military's concerns about climate change and
            its impact as a ``threat multiplier'' on our national security?
        Answer. EPA is aware of the Military Advisory Board's report and
    concerns.
                                research budget
        Question. You've talked about having a ``Red Team, Blue Team''
    approach to climate debate to come to scientific consensus.
      --If you do want to repeat the exhaustive scientific debate that has
            already occurred--over 830 experts weighing in on the
            Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, over 300 on the
            National Climate Assessment--why does the budget slash climate
            research, including eliminating the Global Change Research
            Program?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2018 President's budget includes $276.8
    million to support EPA's Office of Research and Development and support
    science, the backbone of EPA's rulemaking process. In fiscal year 2018,
    ORD will shift its programmatic resources to focus on core Agency
    responsibilities that relate to statutory requirements or that support
    basic and early stage research and development activities.
                                climate website
        Question. You have indicated that the EPA's climate change website
    has been taken down for updating.
      --When will the climate change website be back online?
        Answer. The climate change web content from previous
    administrations is still publicly accessible in EPA's web archive.
        Question. Will you commit to including the peer-reviewed scientific
    data and guides on safeguarding health and communities on the site when
    it goes back online?
        Answer. Science provides the foundation for EPA's policies,
    actions, and decisions made on behalf of the American people. EPA
    research incorporates science and engineering that meets the highest
    standards for integrity, peer review, transparency, and ethics. The
    process of incorporating high-quality science into agency
    decisionmaking is coordinated by science organizations within the
    Agency. It is guided by EPA's scientific integrity policies. In
    addition, the Agency's stringent scientific peer review processes are
    designed to ensure that all EPA decisions are founded on credible
    science and data.
        Question. Please provide justifications for any changes made to the
    website.
        Answer. EPA is evaluating content on its website to ensure
    accuracy, consistency, and reliability.
                           steam electric plants rule
        Question. In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency updated a
    rule from 1982 on toxic discharges from steam electric plants. New
    technologies and implementation of air pollution controls necessitated
    reform to the rule to curb power plant discharges of toxic pollutants
    like arsenic, lead, selenium, mercury, chromium, and cadmium to surface
    waters. EPA estimated that the new rule would reduce toxic pollutant
    discharge by 1.4 billion pounds a year.
        EPA has now proposed postponing compliance dates for fly ash
    transport water, bottom ash transport water, flue gas desulfurization
    wastewater, flue gas mercury control wastewater, and gasification
    wastewater.
      --Do you believe that updates to the 1982 rule are necessary to
            safeguard water?
      --What is the timeline for review of this rule?
      --What are key considerations for EPA in reviewing the rule and its
            compliance dates?
        Answer. In response to petitions for reconsideration sent to EPA,
    on April 12, 2017, the Administrator sent a letter to the Small
    Business Administration Office of Advocacy and the Utility Water Act
    Group indicating that he would reconsider the 2015 final rule in order
    to determine whether or not to begin a rulemaking in order to modify or
    repeal part or all of the rule. On April 25, 2017 EPA published a
    Federal Register notice issuing an administrative stay of the
    compliance dates in the 2015 final rule pending the ongoing judicial
    review of that rule. Then, on June 6, 2017 EPA published a proposed
    rule in the Federal Register to postpone certain compliance dates in
    the 2015 final rule. This rule has not been finalized. On August 11,
    2017, the Administrator signed a letter to the Small Business
    Administration Office of Advocacy and the Utility Water Act Group
    indicating his determination that it is appropriate and in the public
    interest to conduct a rulemaking to potentially revise the new, more
    stringent effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for existing
    sources for bottom ash transport water and flue gas desulfurization
    (FGD) wastewater. On August 14, 2017, DOJ filed a motion to govern
    further proceedings in the litigation challenging the 2015 final rule
    in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The motion asked
    the court to sever and hold in abeyance all proceedings relating to the
    portions of the 2015 final rule concerning the new, more stringent
    effluent limitations and pretreatment standards applicable to bottom
    ash transport water, FGD wastewater, and gasification wastewater.
    (Through a separate administrative action, on August 7, 2017, EPA
    Region 5 proposed to grant a variance of certain limits applicable to
    the only facility that would be subject to the gasification part of the
    2015 rule). On August 22, 2017, the court granted DOJ's motion. Key
    considerations include the concerns from the Small Business
    Administration Office of Advocacy and the Utility Water Act Group
    expressed in petitions for reconsideration sent to EPA, as well as
    ensuring that these regulations accurately reflect current operations
    and the best available technologies that are economically achievable in
    the steam electric power industry.
        The draft final rule to delay compliance was signed by the
    Administrator on September 12, 2017.
                      energy star-impacts from elimination
        Question. The energy efficiency sector employs 2.2 million
    Americans, including 67,000 Marylanders, and provides employment
    opportunities for workers with both technical training and advanced
    degrees. The ENERGY STAR program helps consumers identify energy
    efficient products and save on their energy bills.
        The budget eliminates ENERGY STAR, which would deprive Americans of
    non-biased, up-to-date information as they make energy purchases for
    their homes and businesses.
      --Has EPA analyzed potential impacts from eliminating ENERGY STAR on
            the energy efficiency sector and consumer purchasing?
      --What data was used in the decision to eliminate this ENERGY STAR?
        Answer. EPA will continue to find ways to partner with stakeholders
    in the private sector to innovate, improve our environment, and
    strengthen our economy.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Murkowski. Very good. Thank you. And with that, we
    stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., Tuesday, June 27, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

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

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2017

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

        The subcommittee met at 9:36 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski (Chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Murkowski, Hoeven, Daines, Udall, Tester,
    and Van Hollen.

                             INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

    STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL MICHAEL WEAHKEE, ACTING
                DIRECTOR
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            REAR ADMIRAL CHRIS BUCHANAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
            GARY HARTZ, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND
                ENGINEERING
            ELIZABETH FOWLER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Good morning. The subcommittee will come
    to order.
        I would like to welcome everyone this morning to the final
    budget hearing. I cannot believe it is already the final.
        Senator Udall. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. It seems like we just got started.
        Senator Udall. We are roaring through them.
        Senator Murkowski. Yes. Anyway, this is an important one
    this morning for the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee.
        Today, we will examine the budget request for the Indian
    Health Service, IHS. I would like to thank and welcome Rear
    Admiral Michael Weahkee, the new Acting Director for the Indian
    Health Service, appearing before us today.
        I think we all recognize that the head of IHS is a tough
    job and it is also a critical one. It is certainly critical for
    us in Alaska. I know for Senator Udall, it is equally important
    and critical in his State, but recognizing that, again, we
    appreciate the role that you play here today.
        Director Weahkee is accompanied by Rear Admiral Chris
    Buchanan, the Deputy Director for IHS; Gary Hartz, the Director
    of the Office of Environmental Health and Engineering; and
    Elizabeth Fowler, the Deputy Director for Management
    Operations. So we welcome all of you.
        The IHS budget request for fiscal year 2018 is $4.7 billion
    for programs within this subcommittee's jurisdiction. This is a
    decrease of $300 million, 6 percent below last year's enacted.
    By comparison, other agencies within the Department of Health
    and Human Services were reduced by an average of 18 percent. So
    I think when you compare it on balance, it is important to
    recognize that I think there was some effort to mitigate the
    impacts on the IHS budget relative to other agencies.
        I am pleased to recognize that the budget does provide full
    funding for Contract Support Costs by maintaining the
    indefinite appropriations language that I first included in the
    fiscal year 2016 appropriations bills. I think that this has
    helped provide a level of certainty for Tribes as well as
    protecting other IHS programs. What we were seeing was
    effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul, borrowing from other
    accounts. And while it may have helped one, it was at the
    expense of others, which I think we recognized was not a good
    direction in how we meet the Government's legal obligations.
        Now having said that, I support where we are with contract
    support, and appreciating the fact that the cuts that we are
    seeing within the IHS budget are not as severe as they are in
    other areas, I am very, very concerned that the budget request
    does not adequately meet the needs for healthcare in Indian
    country. I think we recognize the disparities between health
    outcomes for American Indian and Alaska Native people compared
    to the population at large are staggering, just staggering.
        For example, American Indians and Alaska Natives are three
    times more likely to die from diabetes. The drug-related death
    rate for Native Americans has increased 454 percent since 1979
    to almost twice the rate for all other ethnicities. Of course,
    we unfortunately talk far too often about the incidence of
    suicide. The suicide rate amongst our First Peoples is roughly
    twice that for the rest of the population.
        So in order to improve healthcare delivery, the IHS must do
    a better job at hiring, as well as retaining, an adequate
    number of qualified doctors and nurses. The IHS must also do a
    better job of maintaining a large facilities infrastructure
    that serves 2.2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives,
    and this requires significant resources. We all recognize and
    appreciate that.
        Currently, the vacancy rate for IHS doctors, dentists, and
    physician assistants is roughly 30 percent. The backlog of
    facilities maintenance at IHS hospitals is over half a billion
    dollars and this according to the agency's own budget
    documents. The average age of its facilities is roughly four
    times that of its private sector counterparts.
        And I think we recognize that additional resources are not
    the only answer. So much of this comes down to the quality of
    the existing workforce.
        I read, and I am sure that my colleagues also read, several
    of the articles that appeared in the ``Wall Street Journal''
    just last week on July 7. And I have to tell you, I was
    horrified. I was sickened. I was mad. There was a whole range
    of emotions as I read that because this is our IHS. These are
    our facilities that are supposed to care for our First People.
        The stories that were detailed were shocking. There are
    deplorable conditions that we see, unfortunately, at several of
    our IHS facilities at the Great Plains.
        In one case, a 35-year-old man stopped breathing in his
    hospital room. You have nurses that are responding to the
    emergency and they cannot find a crucial medical device that is
    needed to prop open airways to his lungs. It is a device that
    should have been stored in an emergency supply cart. It cost
    them a crucial 20 minutes.
        Later in the internal report, they found that that 20-
    minute delay cost the patient his life. The investigation also
    revealed that the responding nurses were unfamiliar with how to
    use the hospital's intercom system or defibrillator.
        In another case, a 45-year-old woman died 10 hours after
    IHS nurses ignored a doctor's orders to stop giving the patient
    a powerful cocktail of narcotics. A Federal inspection report
    found that two different doctors told staff that they were
    concerned that the patient was being over sedated.
        One of the doctors ordered nurses to stop giving the
    patient morphine and to remove a patch that dispensed fentanyl.
    The patch was never removed and when the patient fell off her
    bed that night, nurses gave her even more pain medicine
    including a sleeping pill and oxycodone. As she fell into a
    catatonic state, coughing and frothing at the mouth, nurses
    failed to alert doctors. She was later found dead.
        I will have both of these articles from the ``Wall Street
    Journal'' from July 7, 2017 included as part of the record.
        [The information follows:]

         [Articles from the Wall Street Journal, Friday, July 7, 2017]

    _______________________________________________________________________

         FAMILIES SPEAK OUT: STORIES OF INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE PATIENTS

        Regulators cite facilities of Federal health agency for Native
                Americans for dangerous care, unnecessary deaths

                     (By Dan Frosch and Christopher Weaver)

        The Indian Health Service is responsible for providing medical care
    to about 2.2 million Tribal members across the U.S., but the system is
    in crisis after IHS hospitals repeatedly failed inspections, shut down
    services or lost access to crucial Federal funds.
        The facilities, which operate in some of the poorest areas of the
    country, have rendered dangerous care and caused unnecessary deaths,
    according to Federal regulators, agency documents and interviews.
        The families of some IHS patients who died say the agency is
    responsible for their deaths. An IHS spokeswoman, Jennifer Buschick,
    provided a written statement saying the agency, a unit of the
    Department of Health and Human Services, declined to comment on
    specific medical cases, lawsuits or regulatory findings.
    Debra Free
        Ten hours after nurses ignored a doctor's orders to stop giving
    Debra Free a powerful cocktail of narcotics, she died of an apparent
    opioid overdose at the Indian Health Service hospital in Winnebago,
    Neb.
        Federal hospital regulators laid the blame for her death at the
    feet of the hospital's medical staff, who they said disregarded
    concerns that the 45-year-old food-services worker was being over-
    sedated, documents from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
    show.
        Ms. Free was initially admitted to the Winnebago IHS facility on
    April 5, 2011, for complications from toe amputations due to her
    chronic diabetes, a common condition among Native Americans that the
    agency often treats.
        A Federal inspection report found that on April 8, two different
    doctors told staff they were concerned that Ms. Free was being
    oversedated. At one point, one of the doctors ordered nurses to stop
    giving Ms. Free morphine and to remove a patch that dispensed Fentanyl,
    a highly potent synthetic narcotic. But that never happened, regulators
    found. Instead, a nurse who was told to remove the Fentanyl patch
    mistakenly thought she was meant to leave it on until it expired in 72
    hours.
        When Ms. Free fell off her bed that night, medical staff responded
    by plying her with more pain medicine--a sleeping pill and oxycodone--
    regulators said.
        Ms. Free soon drifted into a catatonic state, sometimes coughing
    and frothing at the mouth, the report said. But even as her condition
    deteriorated, nurses never alerted doctors. Ms. Free was found dead in
    her bed by hospital staff in the early morning hours of April 9.
        According to Ms. Free's death certificate, the cause was cardiac
    arrest.
        CMS declined to comment on its report.
        Ms. Free's niece, Tori Kitcheyan, a Winnebago Tribal councilor,
    helps take care of Ms. Free's only daughter, Angelina, now 15. Last
    year, Ms. Kitcheyan told her aunt's story before a congressional
    committee. She blames the IHS for Ms. Free's death and is leading a
    push for the Tribe to take over operations of the hospital from the
    IHS.
        Ms. Kitcheyan recalled her aunt as a passionate cook, who devoted
    hours to preparing meals for family events.
        ``She was a constant presence in our lives. Our family has never
    been the same since she died. It has been devastating,'' she said.

    Charles White Pipe

        Charles White Pipe, 68, a former Tribal treasurer and council
    member for the Rosebud Sioux, was first diagnosed with lymph-node
    cancer on April 2, 2016. But it took the Indian Health Service until
    early May to approve specialized treatment at a private hospital, his
    daughter said. By then, Mr. White Pipe was near death and had
    complained of untreated pain for weeks.
        The IHS's program for referrals is often short on funding, leaving
    patients waiting, IHS records show. An agency budget document said it
    rejected around 40 percent of such claims for needed treatment in 2015
    because of a lack of funding.
        Lisa White Pipe, Charles's daughter and a Rosebud Tribal councilor,
    said that after her father was diagnosed, he attempted several times to
    seek relief and treatment at the reservation's Indian hospital.
        On April 21, Mr. White Pipe, unable to hold down any food, called
    the Rosebud hospital to say his pain was increasing, but he was told to
    wait at home for a referral to a cancer specialist, she said. A few
    days later, when he called again, a medical staffer said the facility
    was too crowded, his daughter said, noting that he wasn't prescribed
    additional medication for his pain.
        On the night of April 27, her father now barely able to walk, his
    legs and feet swollen, Ms. White Pipe drove him to the Rosebud
    hospital. Medical providers there informed Mr. White Pipe that his
    condition was terminal, gave him more pain medication and told him to
    keep waiting for his referral, his daughter said.
        When Mr. White Pipe finally received a referral to a Sioux Falls,
    South Dakota, cancer center, doctors there said it was too late to
    determine where the cancer originated and that there was little they
    could do, she recounted.
        He died on May 28.
        ``It felt undignified how he was treated,'' Ms. White Pipe said.
    ``He was in pain and just pushed to the side.''

    Shiree Wilson

        Hours after she was discharged from the Indian Health Service
    hospital in Belcourt, North Dakota, with a diagnosis of pneumonia,
    Shiree Wilson, a 24-year-old new mother, collapsed on the floor of her
    home and later died.
        Eight days earlier, on Jan. 14, 2014, Ms. Wilson's son had been
    delivered by caesarean section at the IHS hospital.
        Ms. Wilson, who was diagnosed with a mild cough and high white
    blood cell count in the days before she gave birth, returned to the
    facility on Jan. 22, complaining that her cough had worsened.
        According to a wrongful-death lawsuit filed by Ms. Wilson's mother,
    Christine Fluhrer, tests conducted during that visit revealed fluid was
    possibly seeping into her lungs, her white blood cell count had risen
    and her heart was ``mildly enlarged.'' After diagnosing Ms. Wilson with
    pneumonia, doctors sent her home with decongestants and antibiotics.
        After she died, the Grand Forks County coroner found Ms. Wilson's
    heart weighed 580 grams, twice the normal heart weight for someone her
    age, and that she suffered from severe pulmonary congestion and edema,
    according to the court filings.
        The lawsuit alleges IHS medical staff failed to follow up, despite
    warning signs. A doctor also noted in Ms. Wilson's chart that he was
    concerned about a pulmonary embolism, the suit said. The IHS
    acknowledged the basic facts of Ms. Wilson's treatment and medical
    ailments, court filings show, though the agency denied any wrongdoing
    in her death.
        In November, the IHS settled the lawsuit for an undisclosed sum,
    Ms. Fluhrer's lawyer, Reed Soderstrom, said. He declined to comment
    further. Ms. Fluhrer said she didn't wish to discuss her daughter's
    death.
        According to an obituary, Ms. Wilson had worked at a local cafe for
    many years and wanted to learn how to cook. She loved swimming at the
    local pool and going to horse races. Her newborn son, Paxton, was her
    only child.

    Paul West

        When Paul West stopped breathing in his hospital room, nurses
    responding to the ``code blue'' couldn't find a crucial medical device
    used to prop open airways that was supposed to be stored in their
    emergency supply cart.
        That problem cost the team of nurses and doctors responding to the
    incident a critical 20 minutes--and Mr. West, his life--according to an
    internal report by an Indian Health Service nurse and a lawsuit brought
    by his family.
        Mr. West, a 35-year-old porter at the local casino, was declared
    dead at the Winnebago hospital on April 17, 2014.
        ``Delay in care for patient, and ultimately death of patient,''
    said the internal report, called a Code Blue Critique, examining the
    case. The report, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal,
    concluded the hospital should ``stock the Crash Cart'' and practice
    code blues--emergency situations typically demanding patient
    resuscitations--at least monthly.
        Regulators separately said nurses responding to the incident were
    unfamiliar with how to operate equipment ranging from the hospital's
    intercom system to the defibrillator.
        The IHS said in a statement after this article was published online
    that the Winnebago hospital ``holds monthly practice `code blues',''
    reviews logs of those practice sessions quarterly and checks crash cart
    inventory daily.
        Some of the medical staff who participated in his care said in
    emails at the time and in interviews with the Journal that the
    Winnebago staff missed other chances to save Mr. West, too. Mr. West,
    who was obese and had a variety of chronic illnesses, had been getting
    sicker throughout the morning before he died. He had begun falling
    asleep while talking, and could no longer breathe without leaning
    forward, his family said in the lawsuit. U.S. lawyers denied many of
    the family's allegations in a court filing, saying alleged injuries
    weren't caused by negligent acts by government employees.
        The death of Mr. West, who was described by Tribal members as a
    gregarious personality who made lighthearted jokes, shocked the
    Winnebago reservation, because of his young age and popularity. His
    family declined to comment through their lawyer.
    _______________________________________________________________________

            ``PEOPLE ARE DYING HERE'': FEDERAL HOSPITALS FAIL TRIBES

    Indian Health Service facilities sanctioned for dangerous, faulty care,
      leaving often-impoverished patients on remote reservations without
                            services required by law

                     (By Dan Frosch and Christopher Weaver)

        Service hospital in Pine Ridge, South Dakota, a 57-year-old man was
    sent home with a bronchitis diagnosis--only to die five hours later of
    heart failure. When a patient at the Federal agency's Winnebago,
    Nebraska, facility stopped breathing, nurses responding to the ``code
    blue'' found the emergency supply cart was empty, and the man died. In
    Sisseton, South Dakota, a high school prom queen was coughing up blood.
    An IHS doctor gave her cough syrup and antianxiety medication; within
    days she died of a blood clot in her lung.
        In some of the Nation's poorest places, the government health
    service charged with treating Native Americans failed to meet minimum
    U.S. standards for medical facilities, turned away gravely ill patients
    and caused unnecessary deaths, according to Federal regulators, agency
    documents and interviews.
        But that system has collapsed in the often-remote corners of Indian
    Country, where patients live hours from other medical providers, often
    have no insurance and depend on the Federal service. ``We've lost faith
    in the IHS, but we have no alternatives to go anywhere else,'' said
    Lisa White Pipe, a Tribal Council member for the Rosebud Sioux, whose
    father died last year after a delay in cancer treatment that she blames
    on the agency. Read more about his and other cases, and see the
    regulator's reports.
        The problems have come to a head in recent months after IHS
    hospitals repeatedly failed inspections, shut down services or lost
    access to crucial Federal funds. Such failures have prompted new calls
    for broader oversight of the IHS by Congress. The Rosebud Tribe, whose
    reservation stretches across a rural swath of South Dakota, is also now
    suing the agency in Federal court, alleging that the IHS has failed to
    fulfill its treaty responsibility to care for Tribal members.
        ``People are dying here as a result of the care they are not
    receiving, or the care they are receiving,'' said U.S. Senator John
    Barrasso, (Republican, Wyoming), who until January chaired Congress's
    Indian Affairs Committee, in an interview.
        The IHS, a unit of the Department of Health and Human Services,
    operates a network of hospitals and clinics, much like the Veterans
    Health Administration. Under U.S. treaties that date back generations,
    the service is legally responsible for providing medical care to about
    2.2 million Tribal members.
        The latest crisis has arisen after the IHS and the Health
    Department failed to address a chorus of warnings over many years about
    neglect at the agency's facilities. The warnings came from lawmakers in
    both parties, internal whistleblowers and the families of patients who
    died. Over and over, they reported that IHS hospitals were plagued by
    inadequate supplies, poor training, overwhelmed staff and critical
    positions left unfilled.
        The agency has lacked a permanent director since 2015. People
    familiar with the matter said they expect a nominee for that post to be
    announced soon.
        Rear Adm. Michael D. Weahkee, the agency's current acting director,
    said in a statement after this article was published online, ``IHS is
    committed to improving patient safety and the quality of healthcare
    across the agency. We are faced with many challenges, but that is no
    excuse for substandard care.'' He said the agency is ``holding all
    employees fully accountable and working to improve the systems that
    recruit, retain, and support those employees to meet standards.''
        Adm. Weahkee, a member of the U.S. Public Health Service
    Commissioned Corps, which provides medical staff to Federal agencies,
    was appointed to temporarily lead IHS in June. Back in 2010, a
    commission chaired by then-Senator Byron Dorgan, (Democrat, North
    Dakota), found improperly credentialed medical staff were treating
    patients at some remote hospitals and employees accused of misconduct--
    even crimes, including stealing drugs from hospital pharmacies--weren't
    disciplined.
        The agency promised changes, but the situation has only
    disintegrated since, according to interviews with Tribal officials,
    civil and criminal court records, and a raft of Federal inspection
    reports.
        Wilmer Spotted Wood hobbled into the IHS hospital in Winnebago but
    was sent home without treatment despite medical staff documenting his
    severe back pain--10 on a scale of 10--and ashen skin color, according
    to one of those reports.
        Hours later, a nurse read a test result that showed his kidneys
    were shutting down. The finding would normally lead to hospitalization,
    doctors say. Instead, the nurse left a phone message telling Mr.
    Spotted Wood to avoid calcium products like the antacid Tums and come
    back in two days, a Federal inspection report said.
        One of his sisters, Betsy Spotted Wood, herself an IHS nurse who
    was at the hospital that day, said ``his skin coloring was way off. You
    could tell something was seriously wrong.'' Mr. Spotted Wood didn't
    make it to his follow-up appointment. He died in his bed of kidney
    failure on Jan. 1, 2015, the day he had planned to return to the
    hospital.
        An IHS spokeswoman, Jennifer Buschick, provided a statement saying
    the agency wouldn't comment on specific medical cases, lawsuits or
    regulatory findings. Officials at the IHS's Maryland headquarters
    fielded queries from The Wall Street Journal related to the agency's
    individual hospitals and clinics.
        Following Mr. Spotted Wood's death, U.S. hospital regulators found
    the Winnebago facility failed to meet basic standards in 11 of 30
    random cases they reviewed, including his case, during a routine
    inspection.
        Winnebago is one of seven IHS hospitals that the regulator, the
    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said had put patients in
    danger since 2010--more than a quarter of the 26 hospitals the IHS
    manages around the country.
        The IHS and Tribal health advocates say Congress underfunds the
    agency, and the Trump administration's 2018 budget proposes cutting
    about $300 million, a roughly 6 percent decrease from its 2017 level.
        The IHS spent $3,688 on care for the average patient in 2015,
    according to an agency document. The Veterans Health Administration,
    for comparison, spent an average of $11,056 on medical services for
    each veteran receiving VA healthcare in 2015, that agency's records
    show. The two agencies count the users of their services differently,
    and their populations vary.
        Obesity and diabetes on the Rosebud and Pine Ridge reservations are
    more than 40 percent higher than nationwide, according to a Journal
    analysis of data from the University of Wisconsin. At least 50 percent
    of residents of those two reservations, as well as a third of those
    served by the Winnebago hospital, earned less than the Federal poverty
    line, 2015 data show.
        Such factors, coupled with remoteness--Rosebud is more than 100
    miles from the nearest Wal-Mart--make recruitment difficult. The IHS
    said vacancy rates for medical staff at its Great Plains facilities run
    as high as 37 percent. By contrast, the Massachusetts Health and
    Hospital Association reported only about 6 percent of nursing jobs
    vacant in 2015.
        Earlier this year, a longtime Pine Ridge pediatrician was indicted
    for allegedly sexually assaulting his patients. The doctor, Stanley
    Patrick Weber, who resigned last spring from the agency, pleaded not
    guilty. His lawyers didn't respond to a request for comment.
        The top medical officer at Winnebago was indicted late last year on
    allegations he defrauded Tennessee's Medicaid program before joining
    the IHS, court records show. The doctor, Scott McLain, had been brought
    on in a shake-up the IHS said showed commitment to high-quality care.
        Dr. McLain entered a plea of not guilty and has asked a judge to
    dismiss the case, his lawyer said. He said Dr. McLain had resigned from
    the IHS.
        In its written statement, the IHS declined to comment on the
    indictments. It said the agency has revamped staff credentialing
    procedures, overhauled management of many hospitals and brought in
    outside contractors to fill vacancies.
        The agency's seven sanctioned hospitals--in Pine Ridge, Rosebud and
    Rapid City, South Dakota; Cass Lake, Minnesota; Crow Agency, Montana;
    Acoma, New Mexico; and the Winnebago facility that treated Mr. Spotted
    Wood--all put patients in ``immediate jeopardy'' of harm and failed to
    meet hospital requirements, according to Federal regulators.
        The South Dakota and Nebraska facilities have each been cited for
    putting patients in danger multiple times. Since 2011, regulators
    reviewing cases at those four IHS hospitals said inadequate care
    contributed to at least 11 deaths, documents show.
        In a second statement after this article was published online, the
    IHS said it complies with widely accepted ``death review processes''
    and reviews adverse events at the regional level, but doesn't report
    nationwide tallies of such incidents.
        The agency said, ``Any deficiency in service to patients receiving
    care at any IHS facility is unacceptable and does not reflect the
    organization's commitment to delivering a high quality of care to its
    patients. Upon learning of these survey results IHS immediately began
    instituting improvements at each hospital.''
        In many cases, the hospitals haven't fixed their problems,
    according to regulatory documents. In April, inspectors cited ongoing
    failures at the Rosebud hospital for at least the third time in a row;
    in 2015 and 2016, its emergency room was closed for 7 months. In May,
    inspectors found the Pine Ridge facility had failed U.S. hospital
    requirements for the second time in 5 months. The Winnebago hospital
    has been barred since 2015 from billing Medicare because it failed to
    meet requirements for hospitals participating in Federal programs, a
    punishment given to just five general hospitals in the U.S. that year,
    Federal data show.
        In its initial written statement, the agency cited data showing
    many non-IHS hospitals in North and South Dakota and Nebraska also
    failed to meet requirements. It is less common though for regulators to
    cite hospitals for putting patients in danger in connection with such
    failures. Regulatory data show half of the eight facilities run by the
    IHS in the three States were found to have put patients in danger from
    2011 to 2015. The data show the proportion for all non-IHS general
    hospitals with a patient-harm finding in those States was 7 percent.
        Some of the families of patients who died unexpectedly under the
    IHS's care said the toll extends beyond the hospitals that have been
    sanctioned. Among them, is Wakanda Gonsalves, a high school senior and
    prom queen, who went to an IHS clinic in Sisseton, South Dakota, on May
    4, 2012, because she was coughing up blood. She was sent home that same
    day, with cough syrup, an inhaler and antianxiety medication. Two
    nights later, her parents woke to Ms. Gonsalves's screams, her mother,
    Lisa, recalled. They found her convulsing in bed before she went limp.
    ``My husband kept doing CPR and chest compressions. Over and over,''
    Lisa Gonsalves said. ``But she had no pulse.''
        An autopsy showed Ms. Gonsalves suffered a blood clot in her lung.
    The IHS-contracted doctor who treated her said in a court deposition he
    didn't review an X-ray showing a lung abnormality, or follow up after
    an irregular blood test. The staffing agency that employed the doctor
    settled a lawsuit with Ms. Gonsalves's family for an undisclosed sum in
    2015.
        In court filings, both the doctor and the contractor denied any
    wrongdoing. Lawyers for both didn't respond to requests for comment.
        When confronted with regulatory failures, top IHS officials
    prioritized other matters, and Health Department leadership brushed
    aside warnings, records and interviews show.
        After a 2010 Senate hearing on Senator Dorgan's probe outlining
    serious deficiencies in care and training, then-IHS director Yvette
    Roubideaux emailed agency employees, acknowledging problems and saying
    fixes ``cannot happen overnight.'' She asked staff to, among other
    things, ``put a story in the local newspaper about all the good things
    you are doing,'' according to a 2010 email reviewed by the Journal.
        In 2014, despite complaints of understaffing, Dr. Roubideaux
    dispatched 21 IHS medical staffers to West Africa to aid the U.S.
    response to the Ebola outbreak, over protests of Tribal health
    officials.
        ``If the Federal Government is going to send public health
    officials anywhere it should be sending them to Indian Country,'' a
    Tribal health committee wrote to Dr. Roubideaux.
        Dr. Roubideaux argued the outbreak was an unprecedented epidemic.
    The agency statement to the Journal said the staff was needed to help
    prevent a potential U.S. outbreak.
        Dr. Roubideaux, a Rosebud Tribal member and Harvard-trained doctor
    who left the agency in 2015, referred inquiries from the Journal to the
    IHS about what she called ``longstanding'' problems.
        At a meeting of regional IHS heads in 2013 called by agency
    leadership, ``we were basically told, `these are your problems, you
    deal with it,' '' said Anna Whiting Sorrell, who formerly ran the IHS's
    Billings, Montona-based region, where a hospital was sanctioned for
    dangerous care in 2014. The agency told the Journal that the IHS's
    regional chief medical officers have ``primary responsibility for
    clinical issues.''
        One doctor, Alida Asencio, said she was ridiculed at staff meetings
    after telling the Winnebago medical director about problems in 2014.
    Dr. Asencio later raised a concern about a death at the hospital with
    regulators, who, documents show, concluded it was avoidable. She later
    complained to top agency officials that her supervisor pressured her to
    take paid leave ahead of an inspection to keep her from raising further
    concerns, an email viewed by the Journal shows.
        The agency said its ``leadership maintains a culture where
    employees are encouraged and expected to report any reasonable
    suspicion of wrongdoing, misconduct, waste, or abuse, particularly when
    it involves the safety and wellbeing of patients or employees.'' It
    said such disclosures can ``save lives.''
        Then-U.S. Senator Mark Begich, an Alaska Democrat, said he met with
    former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in 2012 to
    discuss IHS concerns. He said it was clear from the conversation that
    implementing the Affordable Care Act ``eclipsed things.''
        Ms. Sebelius said in an interview ``it's totally appropriate for
    him to say, `they just didn't do enough,' '' referring to her own
    department. She said she took the IHS's failures seriously and tried to
    address them by seeking more funds and improving communication with
    tribes. The current Health Department secretary, Tom Price, said during
    his confirmation hearing in January he was committed to turning the IHS
    around.
        Some people who rely on the troubled hospitals said they are afraid
    to seek treatment there. Among them is the family of Tonya Drapeau, a
    39-year-old mother of five from the Omaha reservation, who died
    suddenly in March 2016 after a visit to the Winnebago hospital. Days
    later, a government doctor wrote in a letter to an IHS official that
    Ms. Drapeau's treatment ``was below the standard of care.''
        Her family filed a legal claim alleging negligence in February with
    the Health Department, their lawyer said, the first step in filing a
    lawsuit against the U.S. Government. Medical records show Ms. Drapeau
    went to Winnebago because she was having trouble breathing.
        The agency's records of her past care, which medical staff reviewed
    that morning, showed she had diabetes and a history of respiratory
    complications. A doctor didn't check her blood sugar and sent her home
    later that day with antianxiety pills.
        Hours later, Ms. Drapeau's teenage son found her unconscious. The
    records show she died, after being airlifted to a private hospital, of
    diabetic shock.

        Senator Murkowski. But again, I think when we read these as
    lawmakers--and certainly as one who has oversight of IHS
    through this appropriations subcommittee, but as one who serves
    on the Indian Affairs Committee--this is not acceptable.
        I know that oftentimes they say when it is not about the
    funding, it really is about the funding. But it is about the
    funding. It is about the quality of the individuals. It is
    about the ability to get good people in. It is about making
    sure that the infrastructure is maintained. We are not doing
    right by our Native peoples and this must be remedied.
        Last year, we had the Acting Director of IHS, Mary Smith,
    before the subcommittee and I asked what the agency was doing
    to fix the serious problems in the Great Plains region at the
    Pine Ridge, Rosebud, and Winnebago hospitals, all of which were
    mentioned in these ``Wall Street Journal'' articles. She
    indicated at the time that the agency was committed to doing,
    quote, ``whatever it takes,'' to deliver quality care.
        Well, here we are. I do believe that the agency is aware,
    does understand, is sincere in its desire to fix these
    problems, but we cannot move from year to year and continue to
    see a degradation in the services.
        The Winnebago hospital has not received certification from
    CMS. The Rosebud Hospital and the Pine Ridge Hospital are still
    operating under System Improvement Agreements with CMS. So it
    is one thing to come before the subcommittee and say, ``We are
    going to try to do better.'' But we have to have better
    results, and I think you know that.
        In the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus Appropriations, the
    subcommittee provided an additional $29 million to address
    problems at these facilities.
        So I would hope that today we will hear how the agency is
    allocating these funds, and if there was a shortage, why you
    did not request further funding for the problems that we have
    seen in the Great Plains region for fiscal year 2018.
        I think, again, the situation is absolutely unacceptable,
    intolerable, and we need to have a clear and specific plan as
    to how to address it.
        So I now turn to my Ranking Member for his comments, and
    then we look forward to responses from the panel and questions
    from us.

                         STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM UDALL

        Senator Udall. Thank you, so much, Madam Chair.
        And I join you on your outrage on the situation in the
    Great Plains region. It is a really deplorable situation, which
    we hope you can assure us that we are going to get on a path,
    so we can remedy this.
        I want to offer a warm welcome to the new IHS Acting
    Director, Rear Admiral Michael Weahkee, who hails from New
    Mexico. I believe the Zuni Pueblo. I am told that you have a
    lifetime experience with the IHS system starting from the very
    beginning when you were born in an IHS hospital in Shiprock,
    New Mexico.
        I also want to welcome Rear Admiral Chris Buchanan, IHS
    Deputy Director; Mr. Gary Hartz, Director, IHS Office of
    Environmental Health and Engineering; and Ms. Elizabeth Fowler,
    IHS Deputy Director for Management Operations. We really look
    forward to hearing from you here today.
        Before we get to the budget, I want to recognize the
    leadership of Senator Murkowski, who has done a tremendous job
    as Chair of this subcommittee, and is someone I am really proud
    to work with. Senator Murkowski, and all the Members of this
    subcommittee, understands the value and importance of IHS for
    all Native communities. We have made real progress to secure
    funding to improve healthcare in Indian country.
        I am proud of the subcommittee's work that included an
    increase for IHS in the most recent Omnibus. Securing a 5
    percent increase for IHS for fiscal year 2017--one of the
    largest increases in the entire appropriations bill--was no
    small feat. But the Members of this subcommittee believe that
    these investments are critical for healthy Native communities
    and families.
        I look forward to continuing our work together as a
    subcommittee and to continued cooperation on a bipartisan
    basis.
        The budget proposed by the administration for fiscal year
    2018 is a complete departure from the progress we have made to
    rebuild the IHS budget. This proposal would not provide the
    resources needed for the health and wellbeing of American
    Indians and Alaska Natives. It is wholly insufficient to
    effectively serve communities in dire need of healthcare
    services.
        Passing the President's budget would mean less money for
    inpatient services, preventive healthcare programs, drug
    addiction treatment, mental health programs, and specialty
    care. It would mean fewer resources to recruit and retain a
    qualified workforce and to address already underfunded facility
    infrastructure needs.
        With a proposed overall cut to the service of $300.5
    million, this budget would eviscerate the gains we made in
    fiscal year 2017 by instituting a 6 percent reduction, and undo
    the progress we have made to restore IHS funding levels to the
    pre-2013 sequestration levels.
        My experiences have taught me that healthcare in Indian
    country suffers from generations of underfunding. It is
    disheartening to see this administration put forward a budget
    that would force entire Tribal communities to fully return to a
    cruel system of healthcare rationing. Life or limb is no way to
    run a hospital and no way to promote healthy Native communities
    and families.
        The President's proposed fiscal year 2018 budget
    systematically cuts the legs out from that progress. I am
    concerned and I know that Tribes are as well.
        I am concerned that this budget cuts $99 million from IHS
    facilities despite the Service's estimated $10 billion
    construction backlog.
        I am concerned that it cuts funding for hospitals and
    health clinic services by $64 million.
        I am concerned it cuts $22 million from mental health and
    substance abuse programs.
        And I am concerned it cuts $6 million from loan repayment
    and scholarship programs needed to fill critical vacancies at
    IHS facilities.

                                    MEDICAID

        Finally, I would quickly like to address the issue of the
    larger 2018 budget and the cuts it assumes to Medicaid. For
    decades, Medicaid has been a crucial program for fulfillment of
    the Federal Government's trust responsibilities.
        It is clear to me that any potential changes to national
    policy regarding Medicaid and health insurance programs--like
    those contained in the Senate Republicans' Better Care
    Reconciliation Act--will directly impact Tribal communities and
    Native lives.
        So for the record, I would like to urge the majority on all
    committees to follow regular order, hold hearings, and seek
    Tribal consultation on any proposal that would cut access to
    critical healthcare programs.
        Now is not the time to lose ground on the progress we have
    made. We know that Tribal communities can thrive when they have
    adequate access to healthcare. We know that Tribal health
    outcomes improve when access to quality, preventative care is
    expanded, like what we have seen over the past 20 years with
    the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, SDPI, and like we
    have seen over the past few years with Medicaid expansion and
    third party billing revenue increases.
        I look forward to speaking with all of you today about how
    we can do more for Indian country. And I look forward to the
    work of this subcommittee to secure the resources necessary to
    make this happen.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall.
        At this time, we will hear from Rear Admiral Michael
    Weahkee, who is, again, the Acting Director for IHS.
        So do I understand correctly that the others will just be
    there as back up, or will you, Rear Admiral Buchanan, or Mr.
    Hartz, or Ms. Fowler be addressing the subcommittee as well?
        Admiral Weahkee. Yes, ma'am. I will make the primary
    comments and call on my colleagues as needed.
        Senator Murkowski. Great. Thank you.
        Admiral Weahkee. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. If you will proceed, thank you.

               SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL MICHAEL WEAHKEE

        Admiral Weahkee. Good morning, Madam Chairman, and Members
    of the subcommittee.
        As mentioned, my name is Michael Weahkee, Rear Admiral in
    the U.S. Public Health Service and Acting Director of the
    Indian Health Service.
        I am here today with three of my colleagues, Rear Admiral
    Chris Buchanan, the Permanent Deputy Director with the Indian
    Health Service; Elizabeth Fowler, the Deputy Director for
    Management Operations; and Gary Hartz, Director of Office of
    Environmental Health and Engineering.
        Today, I am providing testimony on the President's fiscal
    year 2018 budget request for the Indian Health Service, which
    will allow us to maintain and address our agency mission to
    raise the physical, mental, social, and spiritual health of
    American Indians and Alaska Natives to the highest level.
        Our four agency priorities of people, partnerships,
    quality, and resources put our patients at the center of
    everything we do. In addition, IHS is proud of the work we are
    doing in aligning with our Secretary's three health priorities
    on childhood obesity, mental health, and opioids.
        The IHS is responsible for providing Federal healthcare
    services to approximately 2.2 million American Indians and
    Alaska Natives from 567 federally recognized Tribes located in
    36 States across our Nation.
        Health services are provided through facilities managed
    directly by the Indian Health Service, by Tribes and Tribal
    organizations, and through urban Indian health programs.
        Our budget plays a critical role in providing a path to
    fulfill our commitment to ensure a healthier future for all
    American Indians and Alaska Natives.
        The fiscal year 2018 President's budget proposes a total
    discretionary budget authority for IHS of $4.7 billion, which
    was $59 million below the fiscal year 2017 annualized
    continuing resolution. The fiscal year 2017 annualized
    continuing resolution was the planning base level for this
    budget.
        This budget reflects the administration's high priority
    commitment to protecting direct Indian healthcare investments,
    and reducing IHS's overall program level by only 0.9 percent in
    the context of an 18 percent reduction within the overall HHS
    discretionary budget.
        The budget also supports self-determination by continuing
    the separate, indefinite appropriation account for Contract
    Support Costs.
        In order to prioritize funding for direct healthcare
    services for our people, the budget includes a reduction to the
    funding level for facilities infrastructure projects and
    management activities of $75 million below the fiscal year 2017
    annualized continuing resolution.
        The IHS remains committed to addressing behavioral health
    challenges including high rates of alcohol and substance abuse,
    mental health disorders, and suicide in our American Indian and
    Alaska Native communities. The budget for these services is
    maintained at the fiscal year 2016 level for a total of $288
    million.
        The IHS, in partnership with Tribes, uses evidence-based
    practices to reduce the incidence of preventable disease and
    improve the health of individuals, families, and communities
    across Indian country.
        Programs such as public health nursing, health education,
    and community health representatives play integral roles in
    delivering culturally appropriate services to American Indians
    and Alaska Natives who live in rural and isolated communities.

                                    DIABETES

        The Special Diabetes Program for Indians, or SDPI, provides
    grants for evidence-based diabetes treatment and prevention
    services across Indian country. Diabetes health outcomes have
    improved significantly in American Indian and Alaska Native
    communities since the inception of the SDPI.
        Within our communities, the longtime trend of increasing
    rates of diabetes ended in 2011. One of the most important
    improvements has been an 8 percent reduction in the average
    blood sugar level of American Indian and Alaska Natives with
    diagnosed diabetes between the years 1997 and 2015.
        Improved blood sugar control reduces complications from
    diabetes. In addition, new cases of kidney failure due to
    diabetes have declined by 54 percent among American Indians and
    Alaska Native adults from 1996 to 2013.
        The budget request includes $20 million to support staffing
    and operating costs for two joint venture construction program
    projects that include the Choctaw Nation Regional Medical
    Clinic in Oklahoma and the Flandreau Health Center in South
    Dakota.
        The IHS, through these joint venture agreements, and
    partners with Tribes to provide funds for staffing, equipment,
    and operating the facilities while the Tribes invest in the
    design and construction costs associated with the new
    facilities.
        The healthcare facilities construction budget includes
    funding for three facility projects including the Alamo Health
    Center in New Mexico, the Rapid City Health Center in South
    Dakota, and the Dilkon Alternative Rural Health Center in
    Arizona.
        IHS has a lot of positive information to share about the
    care we are providing throughout the system. Some examples
    include launching a new pilot project to integrate trauma
    informed care at IHS and Tribal facilities in conjunction with
    the Pediatric Integrated Care Collaborative, which is part of
    the Johns Hopkins Center for Mental Health Services.
        Advancing innovation and new technologies bring emergency
    medicine expertise to our emergency departments in both the
    Great Plains and the Billings areas, and initiating telehealth
    services in the Portland and Albuquerque areas with direct
    support from the University of New Mexico's Project ECHO.
        Continued implementation of our improving patient care
    initiative, such as the Lawton Indian Hospital in the Oklahoma
    City area, has been able to reduce their emergency room's
    medium length of stay from 138 minutes down to 86 minutes.
        All of our IHS areas are continually engaging in training
    and accreditation readiness survey activities. For example, in
    our Portland area, an area survey readiness team has been
    established which includes inter-facility participation by both
    chief executive officers and clinic directors to learn and
    share best practices.

                               QUALITY FRAMEWORK

        Finally, we are continuing to focus our efforts to improve
    quality. In November of 2016, we launched our quality framework
    to strengthen the quality of care that the IHS delivers to the
    patients that we serve.
        Implementation of the quality framework will strengthen
    organizational capacity to improve quality of care, improve our
    ability to meet and maintain accreditation for our IHS direct
    service facilities, align service delivery processes to improve
    the patient experience, ensure patient safety, and improve
    processes and strengthen communications for early
    identification of risks. This framework will be reviewed and
    updated as necessary in partnership with our Tribes and other
    stakeholders.
        Despite all the challenges, I am firmly committed to
    improving quality, safety, and access to healthcare for
    American Indians and Alaska Natives in collaboration with HHS,
    our partners across Indian country, and in collaboration with
    Congress.
        I appreciate all your efforts in helping us provide the
    best possible healthcare services to the people we serve to
    ensure a healthier future for all American Indians and Alaska
    Natives.
        Thank you.
        And I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.
        [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral Michael Weahkee
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee:

        Good morning. I am RADM Michael Weahkee, Acting Director of the
    Indian Health Service (IHS). I am pleased to provide testimony on the
    President's fiscal year 2018 budget request for the IHS, which will
    allow us to maintain and address our agency mission to raise the
    physical, mental, social, and spiritual health of American Indians and
    Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) to the highest level. Our four agency
    priorities put our patients at the center of everything we do, and
    these include recruiting, developing, and retaining a dedicated,
    competent, caring workforce; building, strengthening and sustaining
    collaborative relationships; excellence in everything we do to assure a
    high-performing Indian health system; and securing and effectively
    managing the assets needed to promote the IHS mission.
        The IHS, an agency within the Department of Health and Human
    Services (HHS), is responsible for providing Federal health services to
    approximately 2.2 million AI/ANs from 567 federally recognized Tribes
    in 36 States. The IHS system consists of 12 Area offices, which oversee
    170 Service Units that provide care at the local level. Health services
    are provided through facilities managed directly by the IHS, by Tribes
    and Tribal organizations under authorities of the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), through services
    purchased from private providers, and through contracts and grants
    awarded to urban Indian organizations authorized by the Indian Health
    Care Improvement Act.
        Our budget plays a critical role in providing a path to fulfill our
    commitment to ensure a healthier future for all AI/AN people and to
    maintain progress made to date. The fiscal year 2018 President's budget
    proposed a total discretionary budget authority for IHS of $4.7
    billion, which was $59 million below the fiscal year 2017 Annualized
    Continuing Resolution and proposes Program Level funding of $6.1
    billion, which was $56 million below the fiscal year 2017 Annualized
    Continuing Resolution. The fiscal year 2017 Annualized Continuing
    Resolution was the planning base level for this budget.
                       prioritizing health care services
        The IHS provides comprehensive healthcare, including but not
    limited to primary medical services, dental care, behavioral health
    services, community health services, and public health services such as
    environmental health and sanitation facilities, through a network of
    662 hospitals, clinics, and health stations in and near Indian
    reservations. The budget reflects the administration's high priority
    commitment to Indian Country, protecting direct healthcare investments
    and reducing IHS's overall program level by only 0.9 percent when
    compared to the Annualized Continuing Resolution, in the context of an
    18 percent reduction within the overall HHS discretionary budget. In
    order to prioritize funding for direct healthcare services to AI/ANs
    and the staffing and operating costs for newly-constructed Joint
    Venture healthcare facilities scheduled to open in fiscal year 2017,
    the budget includes a reduction to the funding level for facilities
    infrastructure projects and management activities of $75 million below
    the fiscal year 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution. Direct
    healthcare services include outpatient and inpatient care in hospitals
    and clinics, behavioral health services, and dental health services.
        The budget maintains the Purchased/Referred Care program funding
    that is essential for ensuring access to care by our AI/AN patients at
    $914 million, which is $2 million above the fiscal year 2017 Annualized
    Continuing Resolution. This program provides critical healthcare
    services that IHS and tribally-managed facilities are otherwise unable
    to provide through contracts with hospitals and other healthcare
    providers to purchase such specialized or critical care. In addition,
    it supports high cost medical care for catastrophic injuries and
    specialized care.
        The IHS remains committed to addressing behavioral health
    challenges, including high rates of alcohol and substance abuse, mental
    health disorders, and suicide in AI/AN communities. The budget for
    these services is maintained at the fiscal year 2016 level for a total
    of $288 million, which is $1 million above the fiscal year 2017
    Annualized Continuing Resolution.
        Funding for preventive health services is preserved at the fiscal
    year 2016 level as well for a total of $157 million, which is $1
    million above the fiscal year 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution.
    The IHS, in partnership with Tribes, uses evidence-based practices at
    the local level to reduce the incidence of preventable disease, and
    improve the health of individuals, families, and communities across
    Indian Country. Programs such as public health nursing, health
    education, and community health representatives play integral roles in
    delivering culturally appropriate services to AI/ANs and ensuring
    access to care for homebound patients and others who live in rural and
    isolated communities.
                      special diabetes program for indians
        The Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) provides grants for
    evidence-based diabetes treatment and prevention services across Indian
    Country. Diabetes health outcomes have improved significantly in AI/AN
    communities since the inception of the SDPI. Within our communities,
    the longtime trend of increasing rates of diabetes ended in 2011. One
    of the most important improvements has been an 8 percent reduction in
    the average blood sugar level of AI/ANs with diagnosed diabetes between
    1997 and 2015. Improved blood sugar control reduces complications from
    diabetes. In addition, new cases of kidney failure due to diabetes
    declined by 54 percent among AI/AN adults from 1996 to 2013.
        The SDPI grant program provides funding for diabetes treatment and
    prevention to 301 Indian health, Tribal, and Urban health programs.
    Most recently, the SDPI was reauthorized through September 2017.
                        health insurance reimbursements
        The budget assumes $1.2 billion in estimated health insurance
    reimbursements from third party collections. The collection of health
    insurance reimbursements for the provision of care to patients covered
    by Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Health Administration, and private
    insurance allows IHS and tribally-managed programs to meet
    accreditation and compliance standards and expand the provision of
    healthcare services by funding staff positions, purchasing new medical
    equipment, and maintaining and improving buildings.
     access to quality health care services through improved infrastructure
        The budget proposes $20 million for staffing of newly-constructed
    healthcare facilities. This funding will support staffing and operating
    costs for two Joint Venture Construction Program (JVCP) projects: the
    Choctaw Nation Regional Medical Clinic in Oklahoma and the Flandreau
    Health Center in South Dakota. Through JVCP agreements, the IHS
    partnered with the Tribes to provide funds for staffing, equipping, and
    operating the facilities while the Tribes invested in the design and
    construction costs associated with the new facilities. These funds will
    allow the new facilities to expand the provision of healthcare in areas
    where the existing capacity is overextended.
        The Health Care Facilities Construction budget includes funding for
    the following three facilities projects: (1) to design the Alamo Health
    Center in New Mexico, (2) to complete replacement of the Rapid City
    Health Center in South Dakota, and (3) to continue construction of the
    Dilkon Alternative Rural Health Center in Arizona.
                      supporting indian self-determination
        The budget supports self-determination by continuing the separate
    indefinite appropriation account for contract support costs (CSC)
    through fiscal year 2018. Authorized and required by the ISDEAA, CSC
    funding supports certain operational costs of Tribes and Tribal
    organizations administering healthcare service programs under self-
    determination contracts and self-governance compacts. The budget
    includes an estimate of $718 million to fully fund CSC, which is $1
    million above the fiscal year 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution.
    Maintaining the flexible funding authority of an indefinite
    appropriation allows the IHS to guarantee full funding of CSC, as
    required by the law, while protecting services funding for direct
    services Tribes.
                                ihs health care
        IHS has a lot of positive information to share about the care we're
    providing throughout the IHS system. Some examples include: launching a
    new year-long pilot project at 10 locations to integrate trauma-
    informed care at IHS and tribal facilities, in conjunction with the
    Pediatric Integrated Care Collaborative, part of the Johns Hopkins
    Center for Mental Health Services in Pediatric Primary Care; advancing
    innovation and new technologies to bring emergency medicine expertise
    to emergency departments in the Great Plains and Billings Areas through
    a telehealth contract and initiating telehealth services in the
    Portland and Albuquerque Areas to screen, diagnose, and treat chronic
    hepatitis C with direct support from the University of New Mexico's
    Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (Project ECHO) hepatitis C
    program, which has resulted in screening rates of 92 percent in the
    Portland target population, up from 67 percent in 2015; and continued
    implementation of the Improving Patient Care initiative, such as at the
    Lawton Indian Hospital in the Oklahoma City Area which has reduced
    their Emergency Room's Median Length of Stay from 138 minutes in April
    of 2016 to 86 minutes in June of 2017. All Areas also continually
    engage in training and accreditation survey readiness activities, with
    a few notable examples. The Claremore Indian Hospital embarked on an
    initiative to design a better clinical skills and competency nurse
    training program in fiscal year 2016. Claremore implemented the use of
    the METIMan Patient Simulator, which allows local nursing staff to
    have available the most advanced physiological modeling system
    incorporated into their training and competency program. Claremore
    hired nurse educators with experience in clinical simulations and
    integrated simulation in their curriculum in multiple locations in the
    hospital. Nursing staff has reporting increased satisfaction with
    clinical training since the integration of clinical simulations. The
    Albuquerque Area utilizes a laboratory team made up of the Area Lab
    Consultant and Service Unit Lab Supervisors to stay in continuous
    readiness for laboratory accreditation. As a result, the Mescalero
    Indian Hospital received national recognition and received their
    National Excellence Award in 2016. In the Portland Area, an Area Survey
    Readiness Team has been established which includes interfacility
    participation by Chief Executive Officers and Clinical Directors to
    learn and share best practices. In addition, in the Bemidji Area, the
    White Earth clinic achieved the highest scores possible when it
    received accreditation from the Accreditation Association for
    Ambulatory Health Care.
        Finally, we are continuing to focus our efforts to improve quality.
    The position of Deputy Director for Quality Health Care was established
    as part of the senior leadership team at Headquarters to provide
    specific expertise in advising me as acting IHS Director and providing
    leadership and guidance to the field on all aspects of assuring quality
    healthcare. In November 2016, we launched our 2016-2017 Quality
    Framework and Implementation Plan to strengthen the quality of care
    that the IHS delivers to the patients we serve. Implementation of the
    Quality Framework will strengthen organizational capacity to improve
    quality of care, improve our ability to meet and maintain accreditation
    for IHS direct service facilities, align service delivery processes to
    improve the patient experience, ensure patient safety, and improve
    processes and strengthen communications for early identification of
    risks. This framework will be reviewed and updated as needed in
    partnership with Tribes.
        IHS also has worked collaboratively with HHS staff and operating
    divisions to identify Department-wide strategies and resources that can
    be used to address issues affecting the quality of healthcare provided
    to AI/ANs served by IHS facilities. Through this work IHS was able to
    leverage additional staff support for patient care and technical
    assistance and accomplish policy changes that helped IHS complete
    salary negotiations and relocation allowances more efficiently to
    improve the recruitment process. IHS continues to actively engage with
    HHS in its work to update its Strategic Plan and was an eager
    participant in the Reimagine HHS work which was focused on making HHS
    more effective at fulfilling its mission, more focused on serving the
    American people, and a better place to work. In concert with these
    activities, IHS is seeking to implement innovative approaches to
    delivering and improving healthcare, identifying areas where regulatory
    reform can facilitate IHS' processes, and strengthening our structure
    to carry out our mission more effectively and efficiently.
        Despite all of the challenges, I am firmly committed to improving
    quality, safety, and access to healthcare for American Indians and
    Alaska Natives, in collaboration with HHS, our partners across Indian
    Country, and Congress. I appreciate all your efforts in helping us
    provide the best possible healthcare services to the people we serve to
    ensure a healthier future for all American Indians and Alaska Natives.
        Thank you and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Rear Admiral.
        I know that your job is to defend this budget, but I just
    have to say wow. After listening to that, I would think that we
    do not have a problem within the IHS system. That we do not
    have a scenario as was described in these two recent articles
    from just last week with regards to the facilities,
    particularly in the Great Plains.
        You say that the goal here is to improve the patient
    experience. Well, the experience is people are dying in these
    facilities. So to suggest that all is good and that you can
    have a budget that is sufficient from a facilities' perspective
    or otherwise, if we take it back to the fiscal year 2016
    levels, I just find quite stunning.
        We need you to be the advocate for those within the IHS
    system. I know that everyone within the administration has to
    walk that fine line where you have a budget proposal that is
    presented to you.
        But I guess I would ask the question, have you read these
    two articles that I referenced from the ``Wall Street Journal''
    from last week?
        Admiral Weahkee. Yes, ma'am. I have.
        Senator Murkowski. Do you think that those reflect
    accurately some of what we have seen at these facilities in the
    Great Plains regions?
        Admiral Weahkee. Ma'am, I had the opportunity on my second
    day on the job at the request of Secretary Price, to travel to
    Pine Ridge, and do a firsthand assessment of the situation, and
    what the progress has been like.
        Senator Murkowski. And what did you see there at Pine
    Ridge?
        Admiral Weahkee. I definitely saw a committed, caring
    workforce who has been working hard to address the issues that
    have been identified by CMS. They are making significant
    improvements in their quality assurance and performance
    improvements, and their oversight of the emergency departments.
    They work with the area office to ensure governance is
    monitoring the right things.
        I took that trip also with some objective reviewers, the
    Acting Surgeon General, Rear Admiral Sylvia Trent-Adams, also
    accompanied me on that visit. And we provided a firsthand
    account of our findings back to the Secretary, who asked that I
    convey to the subcommittee his commitment to improving the
    Indian Health Service.
        Senator Murkowski. Do you think that you can keep that
    commitment and he can keep that commitment to improving the
    Indian Health Service with the funding levels that are proposed
    within this budget here?
        Admiral Weahkee. Well, ma'am, we see the budget as an
    initial proposal, but we are open to working with you and
    others to identify and help meet the needs of our American
    Indian and Alaska Native people.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I want to work with you. Know that
    that is sincere and I think that is so with every other Member
    of this subcommittee.
        But I guess I am a little bit--no, I am not a little bit--I
    am really concerned with the situation that has been clearly
    articulated in the fiscal year 2017 budget. We said, ``Look. We
    have issues in the Great Plains with Winnebago, with Pine
    Ridge, with Rosebud.'' There was specific funding that was
    directed for these accreditation emergencies.
        Again, it is my understanding that we still have not seen
    the recertification from CMS. The Winnebago, the Rosebud, and
    the Pine Ridge hospitals are still operating under this system
    improvement agreement. And so, I am wondering, has that $29
    million----
        You have indicated that you are seeing some progress there
    at Pine Ridge. But you have not come to us with a request for
    additional funding to address any of these discrepancies with
    fiscal year 2018.
        Do you think that you can address what you need to address,
    and again, given the reductions that we are seeing in this
    budget for these accounts?
        Admiral Weahkee. The IHS really appreciates the funding
    that was provided in the 2017 budget for accreditation
    emergencies. We are using those funds to support contracts,
    national contracts to address credentialing, national contracts
    for accreditation. We know that the challenges will persist.
        Senator Murkowski. Is the $29 million that you received
    last year sufficient to do what it is that we asked you to do
    within that Omnibus bill?
        Admiral Weahkee. IHS is committed to patient safety and the
    quality of healthcare.
        Senator Murkowski. Right. But is the $29 million sufficient
    for you to do the job that we need you to do, and that those
    who receive services there at these facilities expect and
    deserve?
        Admiral Weahkee. We are focusing a lot of efforts in the
    three locations that you have identified: Rapid City, or I am
    sorry, Pine Ridge, Rosebud, and Omaha Winnebago.
        A lot of the changes that we are making to the system
    overall are a result of what we have found in the improvement
    work that we have really focused in those areas.
        We have experts from the Oklahoma City area, from Phoenix,
    from the Portland area repositioned and really working directly
    with those programs to implement best practices. Not only from
    other parts of the IHS, but from our Tribal programs like the
    South Central Foundation, the Nuka Institute, implementing
    patient-centered medical homes and care teams.
        So we appreciate the resources that are dedicated to
    helping us address these issues.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, sir, you have not directly
    answered the question whether or not we have provided you with
    sufficient resources. That is what this subcommittee does as
    the appropriation subcommittee for the Interior for oversight
    of IHS.
        We want to help you. We want to know that you have the
    resources that you need because it is my assumption that the
    three that I am highlighting here--Rosebud, Pine Ridge, and
    Winnebago--are just the ones that make the ``Wall Street
    Journal''. That there are other facilities; I know that there
    are other facilities.
        In Alaska, we are a different model, a different system.
    And I think you know, certainly my colleagues here know that
    usually I am laser focused on the situation in Alaska. But I
    cannot stand down knowing that our system is failing so many of
    our Native people around the country.
        So we want to help you, but we need to know how we can best
    facilitate that. So this conversation will continue.
        I will turn to my colleague, Senator Udall.
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Admiral, I want to quickly raise a process concern. It is a
    longstanding practice for Members of this subcommittee of both
    parties to request information from your department.

                            PURCHASED REFERRED CARE

        Can you confirm that you will continue the longstanding
    practice of responding to all questions, including written
    correspondence, from both majority and minority Members of this
    subcommittee as quickly as possible?
        Admiral Weahkee. Yes, sir. Absolutely, we will work with
    you very closely in helping fulfill it.
        Senator Udall. Thank you very much.
        This budget reduces funding for purchased and referred care
    by over $14 million. I have heard from many Tribes, who are
    rightfully very concerned, about the ability of IHS to continue
    serving patients above Medical Priority Level One. They are
    concerned about returning to an era of IHS healthcare
    rationing.
        This question is for Ms. Fowler. Do you have an estimate of
    the total amount of reimbursement IHS facilities have received
    due to the Medicaid expansion?
        Ms. Fowler. Thank you for the question.
        I do not have the specific amount that is due specifically
    to Medicaid expansion, but we can provide some additional
    follow up for you on that.
        Senator Udall. Will you give me those numbers, please?
        Ms. Fowler. To the extent that we have it available.
        Senator Udall. Yes. Well, I know in previous testimony with
    Admiral Buchanan, the discussion was about a significant amount
    of resources coming in as a result of Medicaid expansion. And
    so, I really want to have those numbers.
        [The information follows:]
      total amount of reimbursements ihs facilities have received due to
                               medicaid expansion
        The Indian Health Service (IHS) reported a total of $807.6 million
    in Medicaid reimbursements during fiscal year 2016. The table provided
    below shows an upward trend in Medicaid collections from fiscal year
    2012 to fiscal year 2016.

        Note: Medicaid Collections in this chart include Tribal collection
    estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and
    Tribal collection estimates due to direct billing between fiscal year
    2002-fiscal year 2015.

        The IHS is unable to identify which patients became eligible as a
    result of Medicaid expansion on or after January 1, 2014. Therefore,
    the IHS cannot determine how much of the increase in Medicaid
    reimbursements is directly attributable to services provided to:
      --Patients in the new ``expansion'' categories;
      --Patients in ``restoration'' categories (in States where enrollment
            in certain eligibility categories was frozen prior to Medicaid
            expansion);
      --Patients who may have previously been eligible but not enrolled
            prior to January 1, 2014, and,
      --Previously enrolled patients.
        For additional details regarding Medicaid, expenditure reports from
    the CMS known as the ``CMS 64 Reports'' for fiscal year 2013-fiscal
    year 2016 are enclosed. The reports include Federal reimbursement to
    State Medicaid programs for services eligible for 100 percent Federal
    Medical Assistance Percentages which are provided by IHS and Tribal
    Health Programs operated under Public Law 93-638, the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act. States may request
    adjustments in expenditures up to 2 years after the respective quarter
    of expenditures. These reports were updated as of August 7, 2017.

        Senator Udall. Admiral Weahkee, do you have anything to add
    there in terms of specifically the amount of money because of
    the Medicaid expansion?
        Admiral Weahkee. Sir, not with specificity, but my job
    prior to coming into this role was as a CEO at the hospital
    level.
        I know that we rely very heavily on our third party
    collections not only Medicaid, but Medicare, private insurance,
    and V.A. reimbursements as well to help meet the needs of our
    patients.
        Senator Udall. Yes.
        Ms. Fowler, how many IHS service units used Medicaid
    expansion to provide services at Medical Priority Level 2 or
    higher in fiscal year 2016?
        Ms. Fowler. In 2016, 47 out of 67 Federal PRC programs were
    able to fund care at Priority 2 and lower.
        Senator Udall. Thank you.
        If Medicaid expansion funding were eliminated, how much
    additional purchased and referred care appropriations funding
    would IHS need to maintain care above Medical Priority Level 1?
        Ms. Fowler. That is a difficult question to answer. Again,
    attributing the amount to patients who were eligible for
    Medicaid as a result of Medicaid expansion is the key there.
    And I do not believe that we have information data that goes to
    that level of specificity, but we can certainly see what
    information we do have and provide that to you and follow up.
        Senator Udall. Thank you very much. Please do that for the
    record.
        [The information follows:]
    amount of additional purchased and referred care appropriations funding
      needed to maintain care above medical priority level i if medicaid
                       expansion funding were eliminated
        The Indian Health Service (IHS) cannot reasonably determine the
    additional amount of appropriated Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) funding
    that might be needed to maintain or provide healthcare services beyond
    Medical Priority Level I (life or limb threatening) if Medicaid
    expansion were eliminated. This is because American Indian and Alaska
    Native patients eligible for Medicaid do not need a PRC referral to
    access care. In the case of Medicaid eligible patients, Medicaid
    reimburses the private provider in full and there is no cost sharing
    for the beneficiary or the PRC program. Since a referral or request for
    service is not required and patients often go on their own to Medicaid
    providers, the IHS is unable to track these instances when Medicaid is
    the payer instead of the PRC program.

        Senator Udall. As all of you know, there used to be a
    saying in the Indian Health Service, ``Do not get sick after
    June,'' and that is because we ran out of money in this
    purchased and referred care item. And so my belief is that is
    no way to run a hospital and a healthcare system.
        So we need to make sure that we try to do the very best and
    I think that is the same theme that Senator Murkowski has
    pushed here today.
        Republican proposals to repeal Medicaid expansion, along
    with the ACA, would clearly have direct and dramatic impacts on
    the Indian Health Service.
        Admiral Weahkee, can you please answer me with a simple yes
    or no to the following question? Have you, or any of your
    staff, at IHS been contacted by House or Senate Republican
    Leadership or the White House, requesting consultation or
    technical assistance for various drafts of Trumpcare?
        Admiral Weahkee. Not to my knowledge, sir. Again, this is
    my third week on the job and I am not aware of any requests for
    information at this point.
        Senator Udall. Admiral Buchanan, would you answer that
    question?
        Admiral Buchanan. Not to my knowledge either.
        Senator Udall. Thank you.
        As mentioned in my opening, I am concerned this budget
    proposal would cut more than $12 million from these line items,
    that is, mental health and substance abuse. This steep cut to
    an already underfunded line item would be particularly
    devastating if combined with the repeal of Federal essential
    health benefit requirements, like the BCRA that requires
    Medicaid and insurance coverage of these critical services.
        Can you tell me what mental health and substance abuse
    services would be cut if this $12 million decrease were
    enacted?

                               BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

        Admiral Weahkee. I have information in terms of some of the
    work that we are doing in behavioral health. We are funding
    substance abuse and suicide prevention grants. We are funding
    domestic violence prevention programs.
        We are very close to announcing the next round of substance
    abuse grantees. I believe we have it in the range of 30 of
    them. Many of those successful grantees are from the State of
    Alaska. We will soon be putting another solicitation out for
    domestic violence. I think we have funding for an additional 20
    in terms of the specifics about impacts with the changes.
        I may have to defer here on this one to Ms. Fowler, if she
    has any thoughts on that.
        Ms. Fowler. I would just say that as Admiral Weahkee has
    already indicated that we view this budget as an initial
    proposal. So we would hope to work with you on adjusting the
    needs particularly for our behavioral health services.
        Senator Udall. Yes. Well, I do not have any doubt that if
    you are cutting $12 million out of mental health and substance
    abuse treatment that people are going to lose services, and we
    are going to be in a worse situation.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Murkowski. Senator Van Hollen.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you and the Ranking Member for your leadership on
    this issue as I welcome everybody.
        The Indian Health Service has major facilities in the State
    of Maryland, in Rockville, in the State of Maryland and I look
    forward to working with all of you going forward.
        I have to say I have been appalled in preparing for this
    hearing and reading the articles that Senator Murkowski
    referenced. What is even more appalling is that if you do a
    little work, you realize that this has been a chronic issue.
    Right? I mean, there have been hearings in the Congress dating
    back many, many years that focused a spotlight on this issue
    and yet, it does not seem to be getting any better.
        With all respect, Admiral, I understand you are recently
    appointed here in terms of your current capacity, but I think
    you were obviously given a particular budget.
        I think what this committee needs is information from all
    of you, facts, so we can evaluate the impact. And so, I would
    appreciate it if you would get us some information, first of
    all, regarding the impact of the proposed Medicaid cuts.
        As I looked at the sources of revenue for a lot of the
    healthcare services provided by the Indian Health Service, you
    have a number of third party payers. The largest, by far, is
    Medicaid. Over 60 percent, I believe, of the payments for
    services rendered.
        Is that correct?
        Admiral Weahkee. Yes, sir.
        Senator Van Hollen. All right. So if you could please give
    us an analysis of what the impact of the current proposal here
    in the Senate with respect to this so-called healthcare bill,
    which would cut over $770 billion from Medicaid would be, plus
    the $600 billion additional cut proposed in the budget that has
    been submitted by the Trump administration. That is $1.4
    trillion overall. And the Indian Health Service more than most
    other agencies is highly dependent on those Medicaid funds.
        So can you commit to providing us with an analysis of your
    assessment of what the impact of those cuts would be on your
    ability to provide healthcare both in the physical health area,
    but also importantly in the behavioral health area? Could you
    give us that information and that analysis?
        Admiral Weahkee. We will undertake that assessment and
    provide you with the information. Look forward to partnering
    with you.
        [The information follows:]
      analysis of what the impact of cuts to the budget would have on the
              physical health area and the behavioral health area
        The fiscal year 2018 President's budget reflects the
    administration's high priority commitment to Indian Country, protecting
    direct healthcare investments and reducing IHS's overall program level
    by only 0.9 percent when compared to the Annualized Continuing
    Resolution, in the context of an 18 percent reduction within the
    overall HHS discretionary budget. Therefore, difficult decisions at the
    Department and across the Federal Government were required to ensure
    fiscal responsibility and long-term sustainability. The IHS remains
    dedicated to the mission and will continue to prioritize funding for
    direct healthcare services.
        Please refer to the enclosed table that provides a comparison of
    the fiscal year 2017 enacted funding level and the proposed fiscal year
    2018 budget. Reductions to IHS funding levels may result in the
    reduction or elimination of programs.
        In addition, some aging healthcare equipment may need to be used
    well beyond recommended replacement cycles in order to prioritize
    funding for repair or replacement of only the most critical equipment
    necessary for safe patient care. Most IHS healthcare sites supplement
    their annual medical equipment funds with collections to replace
    medical equipment. IHS healthcare sites with more robust collections
    have the resources available to purchase medical equipment at a greater
    rate. Other sites may need to pool resources over a few years.

        Senator Van Hollen. I would appreciate that.
        I also think it is important that in addition to those
    cuts, we get an assessment, a factual assessment, of the impact
    of the proposed cuts to your specific budget, the $300 million
    cut. Because I know on a bipartisan basis, Members of the
    Senate and the House have worked to try to address some of
    those issues and provide additional resources to avoid the kind
    of problems that we are seeing.
        I agree with Senator Murkowski, I think the ``Wall Street
    Journal'' decided to look at three particular facilities, but
    my guess is if you are seeing such chronic problems at these
    three, if they were to do an investigation of some of the other
    sites, we would uncover some more issues.
        So I know you believe in your mission. I think our mission
    is to try to make sure we get the information necessary so we
    can make reasonable judgments about resources. And so your
    analysis, you have the information with respect to how much
    received from Medicaid, and so I would very much appreciate it
    if you could give us that analysis. Just the facts.
        Can you do that?
        Admiral Weahkee. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir.
        [The information follows:]

                           FACTUAL ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF CUTS TO THE SPECIFIC IHS BUDGET
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year
                                              Fiscal Year        2018          2017 +/-
                    Program                  2017 Enacted     President's     Fiscal Year             Notes
                                                                Budget           2018
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   SERVICES

    Hospitals & Health Clinics............      $1,935,178      $1,870,405       ($64,773)  Loss of $1 million
                                                                                             Prescription Drug
                                                                                             Monitoring, $4 million
                                                                                             Domestic Violence
                                                                                             Prevention Program, $27
                                                                                             million Accreditation
                                                                                             Emergency Fund, $9
                                                                                             million Tribal Clinic
                                                                                             Leases, $21 million
                                                                                             Current Services; and a
                                                                                             reduction of $1.6
                                                                                             million to offset the
                                                                                             funding request for
                                                                                             Staffing New Facilities
    Dental Services.......................        $182,597        $179,751        ($2,846)  Loss of Current Services
    Mental Health.........................         $94,080         $82,654       ($11,426)  Loss of $6.9 million
                                                                                             Behavioral Health
                                                                                             Integration, $3.6
                                                                                             million Zero Suicide,
                                                                                             and $942,000 Current
                                                                                             Services
    Alcohol & Substance Abuse.............        $218,353        $205,593       ($12,760)  Loss of $6.5 million
                                                                                             Generation Indigenous
                                                                                             (Substance Abuse and
                                                                                             Suicide Prevention
                                                                                             Program), $1.8 million
                                                                                             Youth Aftercare Pilots,
                                                                                             $2 million
                                                                                             Detoxification
                                                                                             Services, and $2.5
                                                                                             million Current
                                                                                             Services
    Purchased/Referred Care...............        $928,830        $914,139       ($14,691)  Loss of Current Services
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Clinical Services..........      $3,359,038      $3,252,542      ($106,496)

    Public Health Nursing.................         $78,701         $77,498        ($1,203)  Loss of Current Services
    Health Education......................         $18,663         $18,313          ($350)  Loss of Current Services
    Community Health Representatives......         $60,325         $58,906        ($1,419)  Loss of Current Services
    Immunization AK.......................          $2,041          $1,950           ($91)  Loss of Current Services
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Preventive Health..........        $159,730        $156,667        ($3,063)

    Urban Health..........................         $47,678         $44,741        ($2,937)  Loss of $1.1 million
                                                                                             Program Increase and
                                                                                             $1.8 million Current
                                                                                             Services
    Indian Health Professions.............         $49,345         $43,342        ($6,003)  Loss of $500,000 Program
                                                                                             Increase and $503,000
                                                                                             Current Services; and a
                                                                                             reduction of $5 million
                                                                                             to offset the funding
                                                                                             request for Staffing
                                                                                             New Facilities
    Tribal Management Grants..............          $2,465              $0        ($2,465)  Loss of $23,000 Current
                                                                                             Services and a
                                                                                             reduction of $2.4
                                                                                             million to offset the
                                                                                             funding request for
                                                                                             Staffing New Facilities
    Direct Operations.....................         $70,420         $72,338          $1,918
    Self-Governance.......................          $5,786          $4,735        ($1,051)  Loss of $51,000 Current
                                                                                             Services and a
                                                                                             reduction of $1 million
                                                                                             to offset the funding
                                                                                             request for Staffing
                                                                                             New Facilities
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Other Services.............        $175,694        $165,156       ($10,538)
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TOTAL, SERVICES.......................      $3,694,462      $3,574,365      ($120,097)
                                           =========================================================================

            CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

    TOTAL, CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS.........        $800,000        $717,970       ($82,030)  Reflects estimated CSC
                                                                                             need at the time the
                                                                                             President's budget was
                                                                                             submitted
                                           =========================================================================

                  FACILITIES

    Maintenance & Improvement.............         $75,745         $60,000       ($15,745)  Program reduction,
                                                                                             results in only 85
                                                                                             percent sustainment of
                                                                                             M&I needs
    Sanitation Facilities Construction....        $101,772         $75,423       ($26,349)  Program reduction,
                                                                                             decreases the number of
                                                                                             sanitation programs
                                                                                             that can be funded
    Health Care Facilities Construction...        $117,991        $100,000       ($17,991)  Program reduction.
                                                                                             Annual funding at this
                                                                                             level increases the
                                                                                             length of time needed
                                                                                             to complete the
                                                                                             ``grandfathered''
                                                                                             priority list of
                                                                                             facilities
    Facilities & Environmental Health             $226,950        $192,022       ($34,928)  Program reduction,
     Support.                                                                                results in the need to
                                                                                             redirect funding from
                                                                                             other sources (e.g.,
                                                                                             third party
                                                                                             collections) to fund
                                                                                             FTEs
    Equipment.............................         $22,966         $19,511        ($3,455)  Program reduction,
                                                                                             results in decreased
                                                                                             equipment distributions
                                                                                             and increased usage of
                                                                                             equipment beyond
                                                                                             recommended lifecycle
                                                                                             refresh periods
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        TOTAL, FACILITIES.................        $545,424        $446,956       ($98,468)
                                           =========================================================================
    TOTAL, BUDGET AUTHORITY...............      $5,039,886      $4,739,291      ($300,595)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Senator Van Hollen, thank you for
    raising that.
        Admiral, I would add to Senator Van Hollen's request that
    you provide us with this level of detail, but that you do it on
    a very expedited basis.
        As we all know, the current subject of discussion right
    now, we are going to have a new discussion draft that will be
    laid down supposedly on Thursday. I am not certain what it will
    entail, but I have been unable to get from Health and Social
    Services this break down as to how IHS is impacted by the
    various proposals to cut Medicaid. Medicaid expansion is one
    aspect of it.
        But I am told that they cannot separate out the numbers
    insofar as the various categories within Medicaid, whether it
    is children, those with disabilities, or seniors. I am asking,
    I think, a very fair and legitimate question.
        If you do not have the numbers and the data between IHS and
    Health and Social Services, how can I do a fair assessment as
    to the impact of these proposals on our Alaska Native people or
    our American Indians, our Native people in the country?
        So I have asked for these numbers from Health and Social
    Services. You now have a formal request from the subcommittee.
    But we would ask that you do it on a very expedited basis
    because it is imperative that we have this understanding.
        Senator Tester.
        Senator Tester. Thank you, Madam Chair. Could I get my time
    set back?
        Senator Murkowski. You have it.
        Senator Tester. I just want to make sure.
        Senator Murkowski. That is your introduction.
        Senator Tester. Thank you very much.
        Well, first of all, thank you for coming.
        Rear Admiral, when I was looking at your bio, you worked at
    IHS facility in Phoenix.
        Is that correct?
        Admiral Weahkee. Yes, sir.
        Senator Tester. And then you worked in the IHS, I assume,
    here in DC Clinical and Prevention Services, manager of Policy
    and Internal Control Staff.
        Is that correct? Anything else you would like to add to
    that resume that is particularly pertinent here?
        Admiral Weahkee. I think important to my upbringing, if you
    will, is 6 years spent with the California Tribes getting a
    perspective on the other side.
        Senator Tester. So I do not think any of the things that
    have been brought up here today by the Chairman, or Ranking
    Member, or Senator Van Hollen should be a surprise to you. You
    probably have lived it. We have not.
        And so when we talk about inadequate facilities, or not
    having enough staff, or dealing with behavioral health, this is
    not new to you. Right?
        Admiral Weahkee. Our agency has many challenges.
        Senator Tester. I am talking about you personally. It is
    not new to you.
        Admiral Weahkee. I have made a career serving my people.
    Yes, sir.
        Senator Tester. Were you told not to answer any questions
    here, by the way?
        Admiral Weahkee. No, no.
        Senator Tester. Okay. Because I think it is absolutely
    unbelievable that you cannot separate how much money that
    Medicaid has helped you with third party billing.
        I mean, to the point where I think we should almost demand
    an audit because that is not how things work and you should
    have those numbers at the tip of your tongue, to be honest with
    you. If we are going to make policy here, we have to figure out
    what the impacts of that policy are going to be. And, by the
    way, it is your agency that deals with Indian health, nothing
    else. And so, we have to have it.
        I do not mean to lecture to you, but have you had a chance
    to do an assessment on what the needs are during your 3 weeks
    at IHS?
        Admiral Weahkee. I have been able to leverage a lot of work
    that has been done prior.
        Senator Tester. What would you say is the number one need
    is in IHS right now?
        Admiral Weahkee. Absolutely, it is shoring up our
    longstanding vacancies in some key leadership positions.
        Senator Tester. So it is people.
        Admiral Weahkee. People. Yes, sir.
        Senator Tester. What does this budget do to your ability to
    hire staff?
        Admiral Weahkee. We have a lot of efforts underway.
        Senator Tester. Is there an increase in dollars for hiring
    staff or a decrease?
        Admiral Weahkee. We prioritized maintaining direct care
    services.
        Senator Tester. As far as total dollars go, is there an
    increase in dollars for hiring staff or a decrease?
        Admiral Weahkee. Our priority has been on ensuring that we
    can continue direct care services.
        Senator Tester. That is not my question. You said it is the
    number one issue facing. I agree with you, by the way.
        So does the budget, does it increase the number of dollars
    for hiring people or is it a decrease? I would assume you would
    know that.
        Admiral Weahkee. Well, sir, we had to make a lot of tough
    decisions.
        Senator Tester. Okay. So it is a decrease. Is that what you
    are saying?
        Admiral Weahkee. No, sir. I did not say that.
        Senator Tester. So is it? Come on, man. I mean, just answer
    the question. I will back you if the administration comes after
    you, but is it an increase or a decrease?
        Admiral Weahkee. We really prioritize----
        Senator Tester. No, no, no, no. Come on.
        Admiral Weahkee [continuing]. Our direct services.
        Senator Tester. Really? I mean, I am on your side. Okay? I
    am a former Chairman of Indian Affairs Committee, former
    Ranking Member. I have been on this subcommittee now for 8
    years. Just tell me if it is an increase or a decrease. It is
    that simple.
        Admiral Weahkee. Well, sir, looking at our line items, our
    priority has been to ensure that we can continue to provide
    direct healthcare services, and those funds had been
    prioritized and maintained at the levels that we can ensure
    that we do not have to decrease the level of service.
        Senator Tester. And that is your answer.
        Admiral Weahkee. That is my answer. Yes, sir.
        Senator Tester. Wow. I am not even going to go into
    facilities. I am not going to go into what is going on with
    mental health. I am not going to go into what is going on with
    the problem with drugs.
        I will tell you that with the previous IHS staff, I
    remember giving a speech similar to what the Chairman did, and
    that is if you guys do not advocate for a budget, how are we
    supposed to fix it?
        I have never had in 10 years on this subcommittee, I have
    never had somebody come up here and when I asked them a direct
    question, they do not answer it.
        I asked you a direct question on whether this budget was up
    or down, and you would not answer. You refused to answer it.
    That is totally unacceptable. I did not come in here with my
    hair on fire, but I am leaving here with it.
        I am going to tell you something. Indian Health Service is
    in a crisis and if you have served in Indian Health Service for
    10 years, and you have answered the questions in Indian Health
    Service like you have here today, it is no wonder that it is in
    crisis.
        I cannot believe what has transpired in this hearing today.
    All I want is some answers. That is it. And if we cannot get
    answers from Indian Health, where do we go to get those
    answers? I do not expect you to answer that either.
        This is an unbelievable hearing. I just have to tell you. I
    have not had one like this in my tenure in here. When I ask a
    question, I want an answer. It is unbelievable.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator. I think all of us
    share the frustration.
        Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Admiral, pronounce your last name for me, please.
        Admiral Weahkee. It is Weahkee.
        Senator Hoeven. Weahkee.

                                      GAO

        Earlier this year, the GAO released a report on Government
    agencies that were at high risk for financial waste, fraud, and
    abuse. IHS was listed as one of them. As part of the report,
    GAO made recommendations for IHS to address these shortcomings.
        On June 13, the Deputy Acting Director, Admiral Chris
    Buchanan, who is also here today, came before the Indian
    Affairs Committee and committed IHS to implementing the
    recommendations in a timely manner from that GAO report.
        Can you share with the subcommittee what recommendations
    from GAO have been implemented and do you have a timeline when
    outstanding recommendations will be put in place? And that is
    both for you and for Admiral Buchanan.
        Admiral Weahkee. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
        I will take the good news first, which is we are happy to
    identify that just last week, we have submitted recommendations
    to close four of those outstanding GAO reports.
        And I would like to ask Admiral Buchanan to talk a little
    bit more with some specificity about those GAO reports.
        Admiral Buchanan. Thank you and appreciate the opportunity
    to respond.
        As Admiral Weahkee had mentioned, four of the nine reports
    have been submitted for closure. Of those, there are about
    roughly 14 specific recommendations. Of those, seven we are
    recommending closure. Where we have implemented one, we did not
    agree with the recommendation and the other eight, I believe,
    are in the process of closure.
        So with the anticipated timeline, by the end of this year,
    I believe, there is opportunity to close out those other opened
    recommendations.
        Senator Hoeven. So one more time, take me through how many
    have been closed out and how many are still in process?
        Admiral Buchanan. Okay. Seven have been recommended for
    closure to GAO. One is not, we did not agree with GAO
    recommendations. And the other eight, I believe, are still in
    process.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay. And your timeline on those is by the
    end of this year?
        Admiral Buchanan. Anticipated by the end of this year.
    Right.
        Senator Hoeven. And as we discussed at our last Indian
    Affairs Committee hearing where you were present, I am going to
    ask you to appear for the committee again.
        We had looked at possibly doing it in July. Based on the
    schedule now, we may do it in early August or the first part of
    September. And then we are going to want a detailed report on
    the closed items and then also on the pending items.
        Admiral Buchanan. Definitely.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay. And we will ask you to appear.

                            IHS CREDENTIALING SYSTEM

        One of the challenges I have learned, regarding IHS
    personnel, is the credentialing system the agency employs.
    While it is necessary to ensure that IHS healthcare providers
    have the proper qualifications, the credentialing process has
    been reported as cumbersome and deters qualified healthcare
    professionals, who are in good standing with their States'
    medical boards, from offering their services in Indian country.
    We want to get more health services out in Indian country, so
    this is a problem.
        Has IHS taken actions to streamline the credentialing
    process? And if not, what are you doing and what can you do to
    get more healthcare providers, as well as volunteers, to come
    out in some of these underserved areas in Indian country?
        Again, Admiral Weahkee, I will start with you, and then ask
    for Admiral Buchanan to respond as well.
        Admiral Weahkee. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the question.
        The credentialing issue has been undertaken as part of our
    quality framework and we have launched a national system to
    credential healthcare providers across all of IHS,
    standardizing and increasing process efficiency to shorten the
    time that it takes to get providers in, and to help ensure that
    problem providers are not credentialed anywhere else in the
    IHS.
        We have recently contracted with a software company to
    purchase a system for the entire agency. We have taken a phased
    implementation. We have started with four pilot sites to work
    out the bugs, and we anticipate to have that new credentialing
    system completely implemented agency-wide by the end of the
    year.
        I will turn to Admiral Buchanan, if he has anything else to
    add.
        Admiral Buchanan. Yes, just the quality framework is at the
    forefront of everything that we have been doing related to
    organizational capacity, recruitment and retention activities.
        We have been actively involved in several of those,
    including global recruitment activities. We have some programs
    that we are working on. We are working with some postgraduate
    training activities to increase our access. We are showing, as
    I mentioned, the global recruitment, a lot of promise in being
    able to put out one announcement and have multiple applications
    from across the country.
        Another activity that we have been doing is with the
    Commissioned Corps related to what I have been calling, or what
    the agency has been calling, we have been talking about is
    first dibs. Meaning that people interested in applying to the
    Commissioned Corps are given priority to Great Plains,
    Billings, and Navajo.
        So those are just a couple of additional items that I would
    like to add.
        Senator Hoeven. Well, again, I want to emphasize the
    importance because of our need to get qualified healthcare
    professionals out in Indian country. As well as to take
    advantage of volunteers, for example, in dentistry and other
    areas; to get healthcare professionals out there doing
    healthcare on a voluntary basis as well. So this is very
    important and it needs to be completed so that we can get more
    people out providing those services.
        I have your commitment that you are going to make this an
    absolute priority?
        Admiral Weahkee. Yes, sir.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
        Just to continue on with the recruitment and retention
    issues. What is the current turnover rate with physicians
    within IHS right now?
        Admiral Weahkee. We are looking at between an 11 and 13
    percent turnover rate currently, agency wide.
        Senator Murkowski. Agency wide. And so, it was a difficult
    exchange with you and Senator Tester there in terms of the
    impact that this budget will have on your ability to recruit
    and retain.
        I think we all recognize that this has got to be a
    priority. You have just given Senator Hoeven a commitment that
    you will retain this as a priority.
        Do you have the flexibility within IHS to offer competitive
    salaries? Is that part of our issue?
        Admiral Weahkee. We have a lot of tools in our tool belt,
    our abilities to provide recruitment retention incentives. We
    use the Federal system.
        Senator Murkowski. Is salary a primary barrier?
        Admiral Weahkee. We have been able to attract some of the
    very best of the best. Some of my colleagues in the IHS are at
    the top of their profession, top of their game.
        I think it is not so much an inability to recruit the best
    of the best. It is recruiting enough of the best of the best.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, and it is also retention because
    when you have turn over like this, it is one thing to get folks
    out there. It is another thing to keep them.
        I know in Alaska, housing is a big consideration. You go
    out to many of our areas and there is no housing available. You
    have your physicians that are effectively living in the
    hospitals, living in the clinics.
        How big of an issue is housing, for instance, in the Great
    Plains areas that I was speaking about earlier in an effort to
    recruit and retain your professionals?

                                    HOUSING

        Admiral Weahkee. Yes, ma'am.
        I had the opportunity last year to live in Rosebud myself
    for 5 months and to really assess the situation. Housing is
    definitely a concern in Rosebud, Pine Ridge, and other rural,
    remote locations.
        Senator Murkowski. What are you doing to address that?
        Admiral Weahkee. I know that we have been able to, with
    resources provided, start to look at some innovative designs
    and building some hotel-type facilities. Specifically, in Pine
    Ridge and Rosebud, we have some 19-unit construction projects
    that are underway.
        I would like to ask if Mr. Hartz, who is our facility
    construction expert, can weigh in more.
        Senator Murkowski. Please.
        Mr. Hartz. Thank you, Admiral Weahkee and thank you,
    Senator Murkowski. Good to see you again.
        What you have identified is definitely a need across all of
    Indian country. In this past year, we have provided resources
    to construct the apartment type complexes for permanent single
    family, two bedroom units, as well as for itinerant people
    coming into Pine Ridge, Rosebud, Chinle, and Crown Point on the
    Navajo Reservation, also addressing some issues in the Hopi
    Reservation.
        With the resources that you folks provided to us in fiscal
    year 2017, we are going to distribute money--I was going to say
    we might have already even distributed it but--money will be
    distributed to the three primary areas that have the greatest
    need for housing and that is Alaska, Great Plains, and Navajo.
    So we will be providing those resources from 2017 for that
    purpose.
        It relates back to ``build it and they will come,'' whether
    it is in healthcare facility construction, whether it is having
    the ability to house people in quarters that are not 60 years
    old. It makes a difference.
        Even the Senator who has left may acknowledge, but the best
    program in the country is at the University of North Dakota
    that has the INMED program. That school has graduated more
    physicians, Indian physicians, than any other institution in
    this country. And we have many, many of them across the
    infrastructure of Indian healthcare delivery, Tribal and
    Federal.
        Housing need is something that we are addressing. We thank
    you for the partnership of assisting us in getting those
    quarters out there, and we will continue to do that in any way
    we can.
        We are even looking at the HUD program under Section 184
    and whether there are ways we can develop private, Tribal, and
    Federal partnerships to come up with a way to further
    supplement this need that exists across Indian country.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, and I think that is an important
    part of what we need to look to when we try to understand what
    is going on with recruitment and retention.
        If you are out in the area where there is no housing or
    where the housing is so substandard, there is a lot of
    competition for doctors all over the country.
        Mr. Hartz. Right.
        Senator Murkowski. And it is not just within IHS. We are
    still trying to get doctors within the V.A. system. We are
    trying to get doctors throughout and so things like housing are
    important.
        But it takes me back to the budget that we are looking at.
    This budget request proposes an 18 percent cut to the
    facilities program. So whether we are talking about housing
    initiatives, or recognizing that the facilities that are aiming
    to meet the needs of our Native peoples are roughly four times
    the age of their private sector counterparts, you have a
    maintenance backlog that is also over half a billion dollars.
        So I understand. I am on the appropriations committee. I
    understand that we have an administration that is trying to
    rein in our spending. We need to do that. We need to be
    responsible to it, but we also have a trust responsibility to
    our Native people. In order to meet that, we need to make
    appropriate investments and those appropriate investments are
    being overlooked, I think, in this budget.
        I do not see that with this large backlog of construction
    and maintenance projects we have that we can continue to do the
    good work that I think you have outlined, Mr. Hartz. We are
    making some progress.
        How do we continue that progress when you have an 18
    percent cut in your facilities budget here? Does anybody have
    an answer? Mr. Hartz.
        Mr. Hartz. Some people may say I have been around too long,
    but I have seen a lot. As the budgets have gone up and the
    budgets have gone down, we have had to come up with ways to
    manage that within the confines of the resources we are
    provided, ever mindful of the priority to serve the American
    Indian and Alaska Native to the highest level that we can.
        Regarding the M&I account, you mentioned that. The need is
    in excess of half a billion dollars. No question about it. We
    have taken the appropriations that we have received and coupled
    that with Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance
    collections.
        We have examples of areas taking 75 percent of project
    funds going into some M&I work in the Portland area where
    resources came from other than the M&I appropriation.
        So we continue to work to see how we can best partner with
    others, whether it is in sanitation facilities. We have done
    the same thing in delivering sanitation facilities.
        On the healthcare arena, it is pretty clear that
    construction is tied to appropriations. Unless, of course, we
    can get involved in the joint venture program, the small
    ambulatory program that you helped us out with, again, this
    past year. We appreciate that coming from the subcommittee.
        Approximately a year ago, we submitted the second
    facilities assessment report to the Congress and that report
    indicates the needs that were determined; not only existing
    authorities, but the new authorities that came with the
    reauthorized Indian Healthcare law were incorporated in.
        It already has been stated, I think, here at the hearing
    that that existing authorities was over $10 billion of a need
    for healthcare facilities. The new piece, new authorities is
    another $4 billion plus.
        So yes, we have these needs. We have managed exceedingly
    well. We do not come back to the Congress for money for any of
    our projects. We take a look at cost, scope, and schedule. We
    work within that to make sure we deliver quality healthcare.
        I can go to places in New Mexico. I can go to places in
    Alaska where you and I have been for dedications. I can go to
    Arizona. I can go to the places that we have tried to keep up
    with the resources to deliver healthcare.
        We have done a fantastic job and it helps recruitment. It
    provides staffing at an 85 percent level and the balance is
    covered by third party collections.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, and Mr. Hartz, I am going to
    interrupt because my time has expired. But your comment just
    there, that it has been helped by the third party payers is
    exactly why we need to get this information from you about the
    impact, the benefit then that accrues to IHS through Medicaid
    and Medicaid expansion.
        If decisions are going to be made to make reductions in
    this particular program, again, we need to understand what that
    is going to be doing to the delivery of the services that are
    expected.
        Let me turn to Senator Udall.
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I was pleased this subcommittee was able to secure
    additional funding for alcohol and substance abuse programs in
    the Omnibus, Miss Fowler. And I know that this funding is
    critical to patch gaps in service like those we see in the
    community of Gallup, New Mexico.
        Miss Fowler, can you tell me how soon you expect an
    announcement to be made about this funding?
        Ms. Fowler. Yes, sir. We are working on a cooperative
    agreement and we expect that to be awarded by the end of this
    fiscal year.
        Senator Udall. And how long after the announcement is made
    will it take to get this funding on the ground to these areas
    of greatest need?
        Ms. Fowler. It would be immediately.
        Senator Udall. Okay. Thank you.
        Now, back to this issue of the CMS funds and the
    information on Medicaid, as I understand, CMS keeps records of
    what it pays for every Medicaid service in the country. I
    believe it is called the CMS-64 and it has an entire column of
    payments for IHS services.
        Why does no one at the HHS, CMS, or IHS have that data file
    to share with the subcommittee? And will you get that data file
    and share it with the subcommittee?
        Admiral Weahkee. Sir, we are happy to partner with CMS, and
    assess what data they have available, and bring that back to
    you.
        Senator Udall. Am I correct about the CMS-64, that that
    exists?
        Admiral Weahkee. It is a little bit outside of my area of
    expertise.
        Senator Udall. Admiral Buchanan.
        Admiral Buchanan. It is also out of my area of expertise.
        Senator Udall. Okay. Well, find it and get it for us. Thank
    you.
        [The information follows:]

                                                                   IHS BY CATEGORY OF SERVICE
                                                                           YEAR: 2016
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Inpatient Hospital--                      Inpatient Hospital-- Inpatient Hospital--    Mental Health
                                                         Reg. Payments    Inpatient Hospital--     Sup. Payments     GME Payments Total  Facility Services--
                         State                         Total Computable         DSH Total        Total Computable        Computable      Reg. Payments Total
                                                                               Computable                                                     Computable
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama........................................           $1,784,832                   $0                   $0                   $0             $340,412
    Alaska.........................................          $70,886,116                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Amer. Samoa....................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Arizona........................................          $62,350,100                   $0                   $0                   $0           $2,895,520
    Arkansas.......................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    California.....................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Colorado.......................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Connecticut....................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Delaware.......................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    District of Columbia...........................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Florida........................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Georgia........................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Guam...........................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Hawaii.........................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Idaho..........................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Illinois.......................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Indiana........................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Iowa...........................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Kansas.........................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Kentucky.......................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Louisiana......................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Maine..........................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Maryland.......................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Massachusetts..................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Michigan.......................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Minnesota......................................             $573,906                   $0                   $0                   $0          $15,446,913
    Mississippi....................................             $256,848                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Missouri.......................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Montana........................................           $1,662,959                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    N. Mariana Islands.............................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Nebraska.......................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Nevada.........................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    New Hampshire..................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    New Jersey.....................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    New Mexico.....................................          $19,188,586                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    New York.......................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    North Carolina.................................             $332,541                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    North Dakota...................................           $1,080,340                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Ohio...........................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Oklahoma.......................................          $20,732,444                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Oregon.........................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Pennsylvania...................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Puerto Rico....................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Rhode Island...................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    South Carolina.................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    South Dakota...................................           $6,378,343                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Tennessee......................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Texas..........................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Utah...........................................             $124,881                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Vermont........................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Virgin Islands.................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Virginia.......................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Washington.....................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    West Virginia..................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Wisconsin......................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0
    Wyoming........................................                   $0                   $0                   $0                   $0                 $736
                                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals:....................................         $185,351,896                   $0                   $0                   $0          $18,683,581
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                   IHS BY CATEGORY OF SERVICE
                                                                           YEAR: 2016
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                            Intermediate      Intermediate
                                                                                                          Intermediate      Care Facility     Care Facility
                                                                                                          Care Facility    Services--Ind.    Services--Ind.
                                                    Mental Health   Nursing Facility  Nursing Facility   Services--Ind.         with              with
                        State                       Facility--DSH    Services--Reg.    Services--Sup.         with          Intellectual      Intellectual
                                                  Total Computable   Payments Total    Payments Total     Intellectual      Disabilities:     Disabilities:
                                                                       Computable        Computable       Disabilities:        Private        Supplemental
                                                                                                        Public Providers   Providers Total   Payments Total
                                                                                                        Total Computable     Computable        Computable
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama.....................................                $0         $732,408                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Alaska......................................                $0      $15,191,302                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Amer. Samoa.................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Arizona.....................................                $0          $13,734                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Arkansas....................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    California..................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Colorado....................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Connecticut.................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Delaware....................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    District of Columbia........................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Florida.....................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Georgia.....................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Guam........................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Hawaii......................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Idaho.......................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Illinois....................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Indiana.....................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Iowa........................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Kansas......................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Kentucky....................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Louisiana...................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Maine.......................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Maryland....................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Massachusetts...............................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Michigan....................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Minnesota...................................                $0       $3,394,289                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Mississippi.................................                $0       $4,934,508                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Missouri....................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Montana.....................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    N. Mariana Islands..........................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Nebraska....................................                $0       $4,680,194                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Nevada......................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    New Hampshire...............................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    New Jersey..................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    New Mexico..................................                $0               $0                 $0           $89,419           $76,935                $0
    New York....................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    North Carolina..............................                $0       $3,009,471                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    North Dakota................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Ohio........................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Oklahoma....................................                $0             $423                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Oregon......................................                $0            ($158)                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Pennsylvania................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Puerto Rico.................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Rhode Island................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    South Carolina..............................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    South Dakota................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Tennessee...................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Texas.......................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Utah........................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Vermont.....................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Virgin Islands..............................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Virginia....................................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Washington..................................                $0         $639,665                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    West Virginia...............................                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Wisconsin...................................                $0       $1,915,211                 $0                $0                $0                $0
    Wyoming.....................................                $0       $1,507,584                 $0                $0                $0                $0
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals:.................................                $0      $36,018,631                 $0           $89,419           $76,935                $0
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                   IHS BY CATEGORY OF SERVICE
                                                                           YEAR: 2016
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Physician &       Physician &                             Physician &        Outpatient        Outpatient
                                                 Surgical          Surgical      Physician & Surgical       Surgical          Hospital          Hospital
                     State                    Services--Reg.    Services--Sup.   Services--Evaluation  Services--Vaccine   Services--Reg.    Services--Sup.
                                              Payments Total    Payments Total   and Management Total     Codes Total      Payments  Total   Payments Total
                                                Computable        Computable          Computable           Computable        Computable        Computable
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama................................        $1,103,338                $0                  $0                   $0          $354,884                $0
    Alaska.................................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0       $86,616,510                $0
    Amer. Samoa............................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Arizona................................        $4,951,687                $0                  $0                   $0      $472,683,520        $7,711,397
    Arkansas...............................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0          $321,152                $0
    California.............................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Colorado...............................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Connecticut............................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Delaware...............................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    District of Columbia...................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Florida................................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Georgia................................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Guam...................................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Hawaii.................................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Idaho..................................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Illinois...............................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Indiana................................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Iowa...................................          $720,763                $0             $18,010                 $656            $3,126                $0
    Kansas.................................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Kentucky...............................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Louisiana..............................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Maine..................................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Maryland...............................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Massachusetts..........................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Michigan...............................                $0                $0            $866,104                 $488                $0                $0
    Minnesota..............................       $10,068,170                $0                  $0                   $0            $3,856                $0
    Mississippi............................          $194,473                $0                  $0                   $0        $5,963,910                $0
    Missouri...............................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Montana................................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0       $61,946,583                $0
    N. Mariana Islands.....................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Nebraska...............................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0            $3,850                $0
    Nevada.................................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    New Hampshire..........................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    New Jersey.............................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    New Mexico.............................        $1,543,257           $56,011                $399                   $0       $94,589,729                $0
    New York...............................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    North Carolina.........................        $1,034,202                $0                  $0                   $0        $8,388,862                $0
    North Dakota...........................           $16,046                $0                  $0                   $0        $5,527,363                $0
    Ohio...................................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Oklahoma...............................        $2,877,356                $0                  $0                   $0       $41,906,818                $0
    Oregon.................................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Pennsylvania...........................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Puerto Rico............................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Rhode Island...........................            $9,306                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    South Carolina.........................           $10,142                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    South Dakota...........................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0        $1,116,994                $0
    Tennessee..............................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Texas..................................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0           $55,036                $0
    Utah...................................        $3,115,412                $0                  $0                   $0           $87,084                $0
    Vermont................................               $27                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Virgin Islands.........................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Virginia...............................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Washington.............................        $5,709,652                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    West Virginia..........................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Wisconsin..............................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0                $0                $0
    Wyoming................................                $0                $0                  $0                   $0           $31,459                $0
                                            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals:............................       $31,353,831           $56,011            $884,513               $1,144      $779,600,736        $7,711,397
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                   IHS BY CATEGORY OF SERVICE
                                                                           YEAR: 2016
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Drug Rebate
                                                                       Drug Rebate      Offset--State     MCO--National      MCO--State       Increased ACA
                        State                     Prescribed Drugs  Offset--National       Sidebar       Agreement Total       Sidebar       OFFSET--Fee for
                                                  Total Computable  Total Computable   Agreement Total     Computable      Agreement Total    Service--100%
                                                                                         Computable                          Computable     Total Computable
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama.....................................        $1,856,101        ($398,330)         ($20,776)               $0                 $0                $0
    Alaska......................................       $19,149,671      ($9,938,455)               $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Amer. Samoa.................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Arizona.....................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Arkansas....................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    California..................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Colorado....................................        $1,221,828               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Connecticut.................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Delaware....................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    District of Columbia........................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Florida.....................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Georgia.....................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Guam........................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Hawaii......................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Idaho.......................................          $166,011               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Illinois....................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Indiana.....................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Iowa........................................          $410,211        ($134,987)          ($7,456)             ($18)                $0                $0
    Kansas......................................            $1,575               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Kentucky....................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Louisiana...................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Maine.......................................          $182,802        ($115,629)          ($6,233)               $0                 $0                $0
    Maryland....................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Massachusetts...............................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Michigan....................................                $4               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Minnesota...................................       $27,218,864        ($798,557)         ($52,694)               $0                 $0                $0
    Mississippi.................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Missouri....................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Montana.....................................        $3,916,880      ($3,799,067)               $0                $0                 $0                $0
    N. Mariana Islands..........................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Nebraska....................................          $337,192               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Nevada......................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    New Hampshire...............................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    New Jersey..................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    New Mexico..................................        $1,210,450        ($145,991)               $0        $2,179,492                 $0                $0
    New York....................................           $28,896               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    North Carolina..............................           $20,989        ($452,459)               $0                $0                 $0                $0
    North Dakota................................        $4,975,951               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Ohio........................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Oklahoma....................................       $17,784,129               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Oregon......................................        $1,063,358         $174,970          ($42,490)               $0                 $0                $0
    Pennsylvania................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Puerto Rico.................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Rhode Island................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    South Carolina..............................           $19,287               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    South Dakota................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Tennessee...................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Texas.......................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Utah........................................        $4,877,447      ($3,328,605)         ($38,718)      ($2,730,460)                $0                $0
    Vermont.....................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Virgin Islands..............................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Virginia....................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Washington..................................          $139,773         ($30,828)               $0                $0                 $0                $0
    West Virginia...............................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
    Wisconsin...................................        $1,217,888      ($1,895,482)         ($77,906)               $0                 $0                $0
    Wyoming.....................................                $0               $0                $0                $0                 $0                $0
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals:.................................       $85,799,307     ($20,863,420)        ($246,273)        ($550,986)                $0                $0
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                   IHS BY CATEGORY OF SERVICE
                                                                           YEAR: 2016
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Other             Other
                                                   Increased ACA                        Practitioners     Practitioners                        Laboratory/
                       State                     OFFSET--MCO--100%   Dental Services   Services--Reg.    Services--Sup.    Clinic Services    Radiological
                                                  Total Computable  Total Computable   Payments Total    Payments Total   Total Computable  Total Computable
                                                                                         Computable        Computable
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama....................................                 $0          $305,949           $69,467                $0           $49,371         $297,671
    Alaska.....................................                 $0       $28,923,459                $0                $0      $143,206,019               $0
    Amer. Samoa................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Arizona....................................                 $0          $217,723        $1,049,342                $0        $5,612,860         $635,587
    Arkansas...................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    California.................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0       $13,522,319               $0
    Colorado...................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Connecticut................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Delaware...................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    District of Columbia.......................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Florida....................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Georgia....................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Guam.......................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Hawaii.....................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Idaho......................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Illinois...................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Indiana....................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Iowa.......................................                 $0           $82,936           $25,778                $0                $0               $0
    Kansas.....................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0           $32,982               $0
    Kentucky...................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Louisiana..................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Maine......................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0        $2,060,924               $0
    Maryland...................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Massachusetts..............................                 $0                $0                $0                $0          $223,289               $0
    Michigan...................................                 $0           $80,926                $0                $0        $2,687,664               $0
    Minnesota..................................                 $0        $4,196,203        $8,897,185                $0        $5,161,349             $349
    Mississippi................................                 $0            $3,896                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Missouri...................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Montana....................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    N. Mariana Islands.........................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Nebraska...................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Nevada.....................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0       $19,990,921               $0
    New Hampshire..............................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    New Jersey.................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    New Mexico.................................                 $0            $1,205          $118,756                $0                $0           $4,766
    New York...................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0          $511,231               $0
    North Carolina.............................                 $0           $56,972                $0                $0                $0               $0
    North Dakota...............................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Ohio.......................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Oklahoma...................................                 $0                $0           $13,592                $0       $40,338,468          $28,947
    Oregon.....................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0       $15,999,334               $0
    Pennsylvania...............................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Puerto Rico................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Rhode Island...............................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    South Carolina.............................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    South Dakota...............................                 $0                $0                $0                $0       $61,138,157               $0
    Tennessee..................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Texas......................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Utah.......................................                 $0          $628,237                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Vermont....................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Virgin Islands.............................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Virginia...................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Washington.................................                 $0        $1,501,336           $37,682                $0       $43,609,620               $0
    West Virginia..............................                 $0                $0                $0                $0                $0               $0
    Wisconsin..................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0            $2,300             ($17)
    Wyoming....................................                 $0                $0                $0                $0        $9,103,050              $56
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals:................................                 $0       $35,998,842       $10,211,802                $0      $363,249,858         $967,359
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                   IHS BY CATEGORY OF SERVICE
                                                                           YEAR: 2016
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Home Health
                        State                      Services Total    Sterilizations    Abortions Total   EPSDT Screening    Rural Health    Medicare--Part A
                                                     Computable     Total Computable     Computable     Total Computable  Total Computable  Total Computable
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama.....................................          $209,282           $21,200                $0          $166,164           $96,404                $0
    Alaska......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Amer. Samoa.................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Arizona.....................................            $4,668           $42,768                $0           $19,818                $0                $0
    Arkansas....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    California..................................                $0                $0                $0                $0       $34,988,770                $0
    Colorado....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0        $3,425,564                $0
    Connecticut.................................                $0                $0                $0            $2,796                $0                $0
    Delaware....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    District of Columbia........................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Florida.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Georgia.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Guam........................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Hawaii......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Idaho.......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Illinois....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Indiana.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Iowa........................................              $186                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Kansas......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Kentucky....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Louisiana...................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Maine.......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Maryland....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Massachusetts...............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Michigan....................................                $0                $0                $0           $54,897                $0                $0
    Minnesota...................................        $1,599,133               $67                $0           $84,512               $82                $0
    Mississippi.................................                $0                $0                $0          $532,843                $0                $0
    Missouri....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Montana.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    N. Mariana Islands..........................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Nebraska....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Nevada......................................                $0                $0                $0              $350                $0                $0
    New Hampshire...............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    New Jersey..................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    New Mexico..................................       $17,410,900                $0                $0              $100                $0                $0
    New York....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    North Carolina..............................           $56,364                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    North Dakota................................          $468,338                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Ohio........................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Oklahoma....................................          $399,021          $240,752                $0          $250,930                $0                $0
    Oregon......................................                $0                $0                $0          $202,084                $0              $452
    Pennsylvania................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Puerto Rico.................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Rhode Island................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    South Carolina..............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    South Dakota................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Tennessee...................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Texas.......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Utah........................................                $0                $0                $0          $136,965                $0                $0
    Vermont.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Virgin Islands..............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Virginia....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Washington..................................                $0                $0                $0        $1,241,825                $0                $0
    West Virginia...............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Wisconsin...................................           $38,516                $0                $0           $76,777                $0                $0
    Wyoming.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals:.................................       $20,186,408          $304,787                $0        $2,770,061       $38,510,820              $452
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                   IHS BY CATEGORY OF SERVICE
                                                                           YEAR: 2016
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           Medicaid MCO--    Medicaid MCO--
                                                   Medicare-- Part    120%-134% of       Coinsurance      Medicaid--MCO    Evaluation and     Vaccine Codes
                        State                          B Total        Poverty Total   Total Computable  Total Computable  Management Total  Total Computable
                                                     Computable        Computable                                            Computable
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama.....................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Alaska......................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Amer. Samoa.................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Arizona.....................................                $0                $0                $0        ($295,139)                $0                $0
    Arkansas....................................                $0                $0            $2,621               $0                 $0                $0
    California..................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Colorado....................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Connecticut.................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Delaware....................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    District of Columbia........................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Florida.....................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Georgia.....................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Guam........................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Hawaii......................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Idaho.......................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Illinois....................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Indiana.....................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Iowa........................................                $0                $0               $43               $0                 $0                $0
    Kansas......................................                $0                $0                $0       $2,050,641                 $0                $0
    Kentucky....................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Louisiana...................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Maine.......................................                $0                $0          $208,767               $0                 $0                $0
    Maryland....................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Massachusetts...............................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Michigan....................................                $0                $0              $312               $0                 $0                $0
    Minnesota...................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Mississippi.................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Missouri....................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Montana.....................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    N. Mariana Islands..........................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Nebraska....................................                $0                $0            $3,985       $8,670,518                 $0                $0
    Nevada......................................                $0                $0                $0       $1,965,059                 $0                $0
    New Hampshire...............................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    New Jersey..................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    New Mexico..................................                $0                $0        $3,195,638      $44,000,544                 $0                $0
    New York....................................                $0                $0                $0               $0        $55,519,995                $0
    North Carolina..............................                $0                $0            $5,268               $0                 $0                $0
    North Dakota................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Ohio........................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Oklahoma....................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Oregon......................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Pennsylvania................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Puerto Rico.................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Rhode Island................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    South Carolina..............................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    South Dakota................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Tennessee...................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Texas.......................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Utah........................................                $0                $0            $1,390               $0                 $0                $0
    Vermont.....................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Virgin Islands..............................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Virginia....................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Washington..................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    West Virginia...............................                $0                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Wisconsin...................................                $0                $0           $14,398               $0                 $0                $0
    Wyoming.....................................                $0                $0           $14,871               $0                 $0                $0
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals:.................................                $0                $0        $3,447,293      $56,391,623        $55,519,995                $0
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                   IHS BY CATEGORY OF SERVICE
                                                                           YEAR: 2016
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Medicaid MCO--
                                                                       Preventive
                                                   Medicaid MCO--   Services Grade A       Prepaid         MCO PAHP--        MCO PAHP--        MCO PAHP--
                        State                      Community First     OR B, ACIP        Ambulatory      Evaluation and     Vaccine Codes    Community First
                                                    Choice Total      Vaccines and       Health Plan    Management Total  Total Computable    Choice Total
                                                     Computable        their Admin    Total Computable     Computable                          Computable
                                                                    Total Computable
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama.....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Alaska......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Amer. Samoa.................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Arizona.....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Arkansas....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    California..................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Colorado....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Connecticut.................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Delaware....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    District of Columbia........................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Florida.....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Georgia.....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Guam........................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Hawaii......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Idaho.......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Illinois....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Indiana.....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Iowa........................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Kansas......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Kentucky....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Louisiana...................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Maine.......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Maryland....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Massachusetts...............................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Michigan....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Minnesota...................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Mississippi.................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Missouri....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Montana.....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    N. Mariana Islands..........................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Nebraska....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Nevada......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    New Hampshire...............................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    New Jersey..................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    New Mexico..................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    New York....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    North Carolina..............................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    North Dakota................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Ohio........................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Oklahoma....................................                $0                $0         ($78,373)                $0                $0                $0
    Oregon......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Pennsylvania................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Puerto Rico.................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Rhode Island................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    South Carolina..............................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    South Dakota................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Tennessee...................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Texas.......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Utah........................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Vermont.....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Virgin Islands..............................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Virginia....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Washington..................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    West Virginia...............................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Wisconsin...................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Wyoming.....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals:.................................                $0                $0         ($78,373)                $0                $0                $0
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                   IHS BY CATEGORY OF SERVICE
                                                                           YEAR: 2016
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     MCO PAHP--                                                                                MCO PIHP--
                                                     Preventive                                                                                Preventive
                                                  Services Grade A       Prepaid         MCO PIHP--        MCO PIHP--        MCO PIHP--     Services Grade A
                        State                        OR B, ACIP     Inpatient Health   Evaluation and     Vaccine Codes    Community First     OR B, ACIP
                                                    Vaccines and       Plan Total     Management Total  Total Computable    Choice Total      Vaccines and
                                                     their Admin       Computable        Computable                          Computable        their Admin
                                                  Total Computable                                                                          Total Computable
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Alaska......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Amer. Samoa.................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Arizona.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Arkansas....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    California..................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Colorado....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Connecticut.................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Delaware....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    District of Columbia........................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Florida.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Georgia.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Guam........................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Hawaii......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Idaho.......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Illinois....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Indiana.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Iowa........................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Kansas......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Kentucky....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Louisiana...................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Maine.......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Maryland....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Massachusetts...............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Michigan....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Minnesota...................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Mississippi.................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Missouri....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Montana.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    N. Mariana Islands..........................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Nebraska....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Nevada......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    New Hampshire...............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    New Jersey..................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    New Mexico..................................                $0          $727,632                $0                $0                $0                $0
    New York....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    North Carolina..............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    North Dakota................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Ohio........................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Oklahoma....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Oregon......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Pennsylvania................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Puerto Rico.................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Rhode Island................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    South Carolina..............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    South Dakota................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Tennessee...................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Texas.......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Utah........................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Vermont.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Virgin Islands..............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Virginia....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Washington..................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    West Virginia...............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Wisconsin...................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Wyoming.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals:.................................                $0          $727,632                $0                $0                $0                $0
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                   IHS BY CATEGORY OF SERVICE
                                                                           YEAR: 2016
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                          Home & Community- Home & Community-
                                                                                                        Home & Community- Based Services--  Based Services--
                                                   Medicaid--Group     Medicaid--      Medicaid--Other  Based Services--  St. Plan 1915(i)  St. Plan 1915(j)
                        State                       Health Total       Coinsurance    Total Computable  Reg. Pay. (Waiv)   Only Pay. Total   Only Pay. Total
                                                     Computable     Total Computable                    Total Computable     Computable        Computable

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama.....................................                $0                $0                $0          $288,087                $0                $0
    Alaska......................................                $0                $0                $0        $6,236,876                $0                $0
    Amer. Samoa.................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Arizona.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Arkansas....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    California..................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Colorado....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Connecticut.................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Delaware....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    District of Columbia........................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Florida.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Georgia.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Guam........................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Hawaii......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Idaho.......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Illinois....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Indiana.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Iowa........................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Kansas......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Kentucky....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Louisiana...................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Maine.......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Maryland....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Massachusetts...............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Michigan....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Minnesota...................................                $0                $0           $23,210          $147,880                $0                $0
    Mississippi.................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Missouri....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Montana.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    N. Mariana Islands..........................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Nebraska....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Nevada......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    New Hampshire...............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    New Jersey..................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    New Mexico..................................                $0                $0              $660                $0                $0                $0
    New York....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    North Carolina..............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    North Dakota................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Ohio........................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Oklahoma....................................                $0                $0                $0          $295,016                $0                $0
    Oregon......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Pennsylvania................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Puerto Rico.................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Rhode Island................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    South Carolina..............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    South Dakota................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Tennessee...................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Texas.......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Utah........................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Vermont.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Virgin Islands..............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Virginia....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Washington..................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    West Virginia...............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Wisconsin...................................                $0                $0                $0        $1,969,178                $0                $0
    Wyoming.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals:.................................                $0                $0           $23,870        $8,937,037                $0                $0
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                   IHS BY CATEGORY OF SERVICE
                                                                           YEAR: 2016
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Home & Community
                                                  Based Services                                                           Targeted Case
                                                    State Plan       All-Inclusive     Personal Care     Personal Care      Management     Case Management--
                       State                          1915(k)        Care Elderly     Services--Reg.     Services--SDS    Services--Com.    State Wide Total
                                                  Community First  Total Computable   Payments Total     1915(j) Total    Case-Man. Total      Computable
                                                   Choice Total                         Computable        Computable        Computable
                                                    Computable
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0          $113,862                 $0
    Alaska.....................................                $0                $0           $99,373                $0                $0                 $0
    Amer. Samoa................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Arizona....................................                $0                $0           $79,435                $0                $0                 $0
    Arkansas...................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    California.................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Colorado...................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Connecticut................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Delaware...................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    District of Columbia.......................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Florida....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Georgia....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Guam.......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Hawaii.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Idaho......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Illinois...................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Indiana....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Iowa.......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $48
    Kansas.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Kentucky...................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Louisiana..................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Maine......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Maryland...................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Massachusetts..............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Michigan...................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Minnesota..................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0         $6,156,206
    Mississippi................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Missouri...................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Montana....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    N. Mariana Islands.........................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Nebraska...................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Nevada.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    New Hampshire..............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    New Jersey.................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    New Mexico.................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    New York...................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    North Carolina.............................                $0                $0           $46,398                $0           $15,807                 $0
    North Dakota...............................                $0                $0                $0                $0           $18,392                 $0
    Ohio.......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Oklahoma...................................                $0        $3,240,698                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Oregon.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Pennsylvania...............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Puerto Rico................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Rhode Island...............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    South Carolina.............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    South Dakota...............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Tennessee..................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Texas......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Utah.......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Vermont....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Virgin Islands.............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Virginia...................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Washington.................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    West Virginia..............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
    Wisconsin..................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $70
    Wyoming....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                 $0
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals:................................                $0        $3,240,698          $225,206                $0          $148,061         $6,156,324
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                   IHS BY CATEGORY OF SERVICE
                                                                           YEAR: 2016
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Emergency
                                                    Primary Care                        Services for       Federally-       Non-Emergency
                        State                      Case Management  Hospice Benefits    Undocumented    Qualified Health       Medical      Physical Therapy
                                                  Total Computable  Total Computable    Aliens Total      Center Total     Transportation   Total Computable
                                                                                         Computable        Computable     Total Computable
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama.....................................          $189,217           $57,343                $0          $283,952                $0           $23,115
    Alaska......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0          $375,018                $0
    Amer. Samoa.................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Arizona.....................................                $0                $0                $0           $36,884        $7,499,635            $1,317
    Arkansas....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    California..................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Colorado....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Connecticut.................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Delaware....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    District of Columbia........................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Florida.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Georgia.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Guam........................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Hawaii......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Idaho.......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Illinois....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Indiana.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Iowa........................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Kansas......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Kentucky....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Louisiana...................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Maine.......................................           $29,608                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Maryland....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Massachusetts...............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Michigan....................................                $0                $0                $0               $56                $0                $0
    Minnesota...................................                $0                $0                $0            $5,447                $0          $441,435
    Mississippi.................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Missouri....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Montana.....................................          $225,607                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    N. Mariana Islands..........................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Nebraska....................................                $0                $0                $0          $693,031                $0                $0
    Nevada......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    New Hampshire...............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    New Jersey..................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    New Mexico..................................                $0                $0                $0          $508,747           $39,314                $0
    New York....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    North Carolina..............................                $0                $0                $0                $0           $40,984                $0
    North Dakota................................           $34,560                $0                $0                $0            $3,942                $0
    Ohio........................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Oklahoma....................................          $459,243                $0           $11,709                $0          $797,370                $0
    Oregon......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Pennsylvania................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Puerto Rico.................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Rhode Island................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    South Carolina..............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    South Dakota................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Tennessee...................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Texas.......................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Utah........................................                $0                $0                $0                $0          $918,544              $334
    Vermont.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Virgin Islands..............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Virginia....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Washington..................................                $0                $0                $0       $40,155,116                $0                $0
    West Virginia...............................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
    Wisconsin...................................                $0                $0                $0       $17,115,834                $0                $0
    Wyoming.....................................                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0                $0
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals:.................................          $938,235           $57,343           $11,709       $58,799,067        $9,674,807          $466,201
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                   IHS BY CATEGORY OF SERVICE
                                                                           YEAR: 2016
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Preventive
                                                                      Services for       Prosthetic        Diagnostic     Services Grade A
                                                    Occupational     Speech, Hearing      Devices,         Screening &       OR B, ACIP      Nurse Mid-Wife
                        State                       Therapy Total   & Language Total      Dentures,        Preventive       Vaccines and    Total Computable
                                                     Computable        Computable     Eyeglasses Total   Services Total      their Admin
                                                                                         Computable        Computable     Total Computable
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama.....................................                $0            $1,701          $17,446                 $0                $0              $170
    Alaska......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Amer. Samoa.................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Arizona.....................................                $0            $1,532               $0             $6,069                $0        $1,361,216
    Arkansas....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    California..................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Colorado....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Connecticut.................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Delaware....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    District of Columbia........................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Florida.....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Georgia.....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Guam........................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Hawaii......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Idaho.......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Illinois....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Indiana.....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Iowa........................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Kansas......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Kentucky....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Louisiana...................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Maine.......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Maryland....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Massachusetts...............................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Michigan....................................                $0                $0          $10,432                 $0                $0                $0
    Minnesota...................................          $243,612               $11          $24,268                 $0                $0          $297,118
    Mississippi.................................                $0                $0          $15,888                 $0                $0                $0
    Missouri....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Montana.....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    N. Mariana Islands..........................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Nebraska....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Nevada......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    New Hampshire...............................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    New Jersey..................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    New Mexico..................................                $0              $655             $143             $4,929                $0                $0
    New York....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    North Carolina..............................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    North Dakota................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Ohio........................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Oklahoma....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Oregon......................................                $0                $0             ($23)                $0                $0                $0
    Pennsylvania................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Puerto Rico.................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Rhode Island................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    South Carolina..............................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    South Dakota................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Tennessee...................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Texas.......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Utah........................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Vermont.....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Virgin Islands0.............................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0
    Virginia....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Washington..................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    West Virginia...............................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Wisconsin...................................                $0                $0             $933                 $0                $0                $0
    Wyoming.....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals:.................................          $243,612            $3,899          $69,087            $10,998                $0        $1,658,504
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                   IHS BY CATEGORY OF SERVICE
                                                                           YEAR: 2016
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Emergency                             Nurse                          Rehabilitative
                                                      Hospital       Critical Access    Practitioner      School Based     Services (non-     Private Duty
                        State                      Services Total    Hospitals Total   Services Total    Services Total     school-based)     Nursing Total
                                                     Computable        Computable        Computable        Computable     Total Computable     Computable
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama.....................................                $0                $0          $82,198                 $0          $397,456                $0
    Alaska......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Amer. Samoa.................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Arizona.....................................                $0                $0         $176,757                 $0       $13,167,925                $0
    Arkansas....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    California..................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Colorado....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Connecticut.................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Delaware....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    District of Columbia........................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Florida.....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Georgia.....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Guam........................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Hawaii......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Idaho.......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Illinois....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Indiana.....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Iowa........................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Kansas......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Kentucky....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Louisiana...................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Maine.......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Maryland....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Massachusetts...............................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Michigan....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Minnesota...................................                $0                $0       $4,747,498                 $0                $0                $0
    Mississippi.................................                $0                $0           $7,670                 $0                $0                $0
    Missouri....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Montana.....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    N. Mariana Islands..........................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Nebraska....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Nevada......................................                $0                $0          ($1,655)                $0                $0                $0
    New Hampshire...............................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    New Jersey..................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    New Mexico..................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    New York....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    North Carolina..............................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    North Dakota................................           $24,098                $0             $177                 $0                $0                $0
    Ohio........................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Oklahoma....................................                $0                $0             $302                 $0                $0                $0
    Oregon......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Pennsylvania................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Puerto Rico.................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Rhode Island................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    South Carolina..............................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    South Dakota................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Tennessee...................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Texas.......................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Utah........................................           $10,535                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Vermont.....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Virgin Islands..............................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Virginia....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Washington..................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    West Virginia...............................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Wisconsin...................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
    Wyoming.....................................                $0                $0               $0                 $0                $0                $0
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals:.................................           $34,633                $0       $5,012,947                 $0       $13,565,381                $0
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                   IHS BY CATEGORY OF SERVICE
                                                                           YEAR: 2016
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Health Home for
                                                                      Freestanding     Enrollees With        Tobacco         Other Care
                                 State                                Birth Center         Chronic        Cessation for    Services Total      Total Total
                                                                    Total Computable  Conditions Total     Preg. Women       Computable        Computable
                                                                                         Computable     Total Computable
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama.......................................................                $0                $0                $0          $47,078        $8,470,002
    Alaska........................................................                $0                $0                $0      $16,366,151      $377,112,040
    Amer. Samoa...................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    Arizona.......................................................                $0                $0                $0      $10,046,143      $590,270,498
    Arkansas......................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0          $323,773
    California....................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0       $48,511,089
    Colorado......................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0        $4,647,392
    Connecticut...................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0            $2,796
    Delaware......................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    District of Columbia..........................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    Florida.......................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    Georgia.......................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    Guam..........................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    Hawaii........................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    Idaho.........................................................                $0                $0                $0       $2,268,159        $2,434,170
    Illinois......................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    Indiana.......................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    Iowa..........................................................                $0                $0                $0              ($5)       $1,119,291
    Kansas........................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0        $2,085,198
    Kentucky......................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    Louisiana.....................................................                $0                $0                $0          $24,027           $24,027
    Maine.........................................................                $0                $0                $0           $1,685        $2,361,924
    Maryland......................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    Massachusetts.................................................                $0                $0                $0           $5,540          $228,829
    Michigan......................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0        $3,700,883
    Minnesota.....................................................                $0                $0            $2,486       $1,459,050       $89,341,848
    Mississippi...................................................                $0                $0                $0         $130,583       $12,040,619
    Missouri......................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    Montana.......................................................                $0                $0                $0         $624,010       $64,576,972
    N. Mariana Islands............................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    Nebraska......................................................                $0                $0                $0              $64       $14,388,834
    Nevada........................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0       $21,954,675
    New Hampshire.................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    New Jersey....................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    New Mexico....................................................                $0                $0                $0         $443,424      $185,245,700
    New York......................................................                $0                $0                $0           $3,700       $56,063,822
    North Carolina................................................                $0                $0                $0          $67,360       $12,622,759
    North Dakota..................................................                $0                $0                $0           $1,170       $12,150,377
    Ohio..........................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    Oklahoma......................................................                $0                $0                $0         $178,268      $129,477,113
    Oregon........................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0       $17,397,527
    Pennsylvania..................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    Puerto Rico...................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    Rhode Island..................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0            $9,306
    South Carolina................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0           $29,429
    South Dakota..................................................                $0        $1,128,124                $0               $0       $69,761,618
    Tennessee.....................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    Texas.........................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0           $55,036
    Utah..........................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0        $3,803,046
    Vermont.......................................................                $0                $0                $0            ($623)            ($596)
    Virgin Islands................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    Virginia......................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    Washington....................................................                $0                $0                $0          $15,608       $93,019,449
    West Virginia.................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0                $0
    Wisconsin.....................................................                $0                $0                $0           $6,167       $20,383,867
    Wyoming.......................................................                $0                $0                $0               $0       $10,657,756
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals:...................................................                $0        $1,128,124            $2,486      $31,687,559    $1,854,271,069
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Admiral Weahkee, you mentioned visiting Pine Ridge on your
    second day on the job. Did that visit include a meeting with
    the Tribal council?
        Admiral Weahkee. Yes, sir. It did. In fact, we spent
    probably two and a half hours or more sitting down with
    President Weston from the Oglala Sioux Nation and four of his
    council members.
        Part of the Secretary's request was that we hear from them
    firsthand what they have been experiencing with the care
    provided at Pine Ridge and they definitely did not hold back.
        Senator Udall. Yes, and they let you know how they felt
    about it.
        Admiral Weahkee. Yes, sir.
        Senator Udall. Yes. Thank you.
        Since you did not directly answer Senator Murkowski's
    question about funding needed for the Great Plains, I am left
    wondering would IHS have to pull resources from other service
    areas to resolve this crisis?
        Admiral Weahkee. Well, sir, we have had resources from
    other locations such as staff members from Phoenix, subject
    matter experts, if you will, providing their expertise to the
    Great Plains area. We have had quality managers from the
    Oklahoma City area.
        So we are not moving money around, but we are definitely
    sharing the expertise from throughout the rest of the agency
    with the Great Plains, spreading those best practices and those
    subject matter experts.
        Senator Udall. Now at the Senate Indian Affairs hearing,
    Admiral Buchanan, you told me that the leadership vacancies
    were one of the main barriers to seeking CMS recertification at
    the hospital.
        Does Omaha Winnebago have a full leadership team in place?
        Admiral Buchanan. They currently have a mixture of acting
    and permanent in place currently.
        Senator Udall. So they do have a full leadership team?
        Admiral Buchanan. That is correct.
        Senator Udall. Admiral Weahkee, can you assure this
    subcommittee that IHS will seek CMS recertification of the
    Omaha Winnebago Hospital before the end of the summer?
        Admiral Weahkee. Just as quickly as we can, sir. I think
    stable leadership is key. We are in a good place in Omaha
    Winnebago in terms of conditions of participation. We are
    close. End of summer we will be close.
        Senator Udall. Yes, but you have it on an aggressive
    timeline?
        Admiral Weahkee. Yes, sir.
        Senator Udall. Yes.
        Admiral Weahkee. Absolutely.

                              CONSTRUCTION BACKLOG

        Senator Udall. Mr. Hartz, I want to ask you a little bit
    about the construction backlog.
        I was pleased that this request includes $5 million to
    support the design for a new facility in Alamo, New Mexico.
    However, this budget cuts $99 million from facility's line
    items when the IHS has an estimated backlog of $10 billion.
        Some of the facilities on the bottom of the priority list,
    including several in New Mexico, have been waiting for decades.
    Others, like those in the Great Plains service area, have lost
    accreditation because of the facility infrastructure issues.
        Mr. Hartz, have you taken account of how far this cut sets
    IHS back on getting through the priority list?
        Mr. Hartz. Yes. Yes, I have.
        You will note that in 2017, we got $117 million to address
    projects and although funding the projects typically are being
    phased, we were able to still stay on track with the projects
    that we had identified to be moving along. That being the Rapid
    City project, with a portion of the $100 million requested in
    fiscal year 2018, will complete the funding needed for that
    Rapid City facility. It will continue the funding for the
    Dilkon Alternative Care facility.
        As you have highlighted, Senator, we will have additional
    resources going into Alamo that will allow us to wrap up the
    design and take a look at any foundations work.
        Because of the way Congress has provided us funding on many
    of these projects on the phased approached, we look at how we
    can move them along as that phased funding comes in. Because
    with the priorities on healthcare delivery, it is really
    difficult to fund $50 million, $150 million, a $200 million
    facility project at one time.
        So we have been able to manage this. It is a slow process
    working down this list, but we really, really are making
    inroads. We would be happy to share with you and the
    subcommittee, how well we have progressed with the dollars we
    have received over the years.
        Senator Udall. Yes, and I am sure that if the $99 million
    in cuts were restored to you, you could make progress on
    additional items also.

                             VILLAGE BUILT CLINICS

        Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall.
        Let me ask about some of the Alaska-specific initiatives.
    As you know, and I have discussed with many of your
    predecessors here, Village Built Clinics have had an important
    role in Alaska. We have about 150 in Alaska with most of these
    being the only local option for healthcare. Most of them have
    some pretty significant maintenance needs.
        In the past, the agency took the view that the Tribes were
    responsible for paying for these costs out of other funds that
    they get from the Service.
        In 2016, we included $2 million to help address this issue.
    Last year, the administration put $11 million in its request
    for these clinics, which this subcommittee fully funded. Then
    this year's request takes us back to the 2016 amount of $2
    million.
        So a couple of questions here regarding VBC's is how the
    agency plans to allocate the $11 million for fiscal year 2017?
    When will these funds be distributed, and then just the
    rationale for cutting back to the $2 million from the $11
    million that had been requested?
        What I am trying to figure out here is just what is a
    sustainable level for us on an annual basis to fix the
    maintenance issues that we have with these clinics? We felt
    like we got our foot in the door back in 2016, but you cannot
    do much with $2 million when you have a level of need as we
    have within the State.
        So if somebody can speak to the issue of where we are with
    Village Built Clinics in this State?
        Admiral Weahkee. Yes, ma'am. And definitely the VBC's or
    the Village Built Clinics are an integral part of our Indian
    Healthcare System.
        I would like to ask Ms. Fowler to provide.
        Senator Murkowski. Sure.
        Ms. Fowler. So the $11 million, we do appreciate that those
    funds were included in our fiscal year 2017 appropriation.
        We have currently allocated $6 million to the Alaska area.
    Two million dollars represents what was funded last year. And
    so those are being allocated to the same clinics on a recurring
    basis as last year.
        The additional $4 million has been allocated to date. It is
    undergoing Tribal consultation. There is about $6 million
    specific to the Village Built Clinics.
        There are additional Tribal clinic leases similar to the
    Village Built Clinics that also require funding, and so that
    meets the criteria for the funding.
        The other $5 million in the meantime has been set aside to
    determine, as we evaluate the need to fund those clinics, the
    majority of which are in Alaska at this time. All of them are
    in Alaska at this time.
        And so, by the end of this fiscal year, we will be able to
    give you a complete accounting of how those funds were
    allocated.
        Senator Murkowski. So do you think that by the end of the
    fiscal year, you will have provided the schedule for the
    remaining balance of the $5 million?
        Ms. Fowler. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. And then to the question of what
    do you believe could be a sustainable number on an annual basis
    for meeting the maintenance needs for these Village Built
    Clinics?
        Ms. Fowler. So as I indicated, we have another group of
    Tribal clinic leases that have emerged as funding need and we
    are in the process of determining this, as some of the Village
    Built Clinics actually cross over and are part of this other
    group as well. And we are currently evaluating how much is
    needed to fully fund those leases.
        I believe that the last estimate for the Village Built
    Clinics specifically was in the range of $16 million, if I am
    not mistaken.
        Senator Murkowski. So it would be helpful for me if we can
    have that kind of an analysis in terms of what we have out
    there, what the need is, and building a schedule if we can, so
    that we can understand how we can best address this and mass
    something going forward. I think that that would be helpful. So
    if you would be willing to work with us on that.

                            AMBULATORY CARE PROGRAM

        Ms. Fowler. We are willing to work with you on that.
        Senator Murkowski. And then on our small ambulatory clinic
    program, again, in fiscal year 2017 we had $5 million for the
    small ambulatory clinic. This was the first time that we had
    been successful in including money in the program since 2008.
    It has been very helpful and successful as we have used funds
    to construct facilities. We have them out in Chenega, Kay, and
    Hooper Bay. We have also had many groups that are interested in
    submitting proposals for the funds that are provided in fiscal
    year 2017.
        Can you tell me how many proposals you have received for
    the funding and if any decisions on funding allocations have
    been made yet?
        Admiral Weahkee. Ma'am, we would like to ask Gary Hartz to
    weigh in on this one
        Senator Murkowski. Okay.
        Mr. Hartz. Thank you, Senator.
        As you indicated, the small ambulatory program is extremely
    popular. And in fact in 2008, was when we did that last
    solicitation, it is the competitive program as well. When we
    did that solicitation, we got 67 applicants in varying levels
    of need to complete their plans for small facilities.
        Our dollars, which were appropriated to IHS for this
    purpose, are often used to leverage other resources. And I can
    come up with examples of leveraging that went up to six times
    where $2 million was put in, which is the cap that we would
    provide under this program, being part of a total funding
    package that would run $10 to $12 million.
        Where are we at on the solicitation for this year? I will
    conservatively tell you that it will be on the street before
    the end of the fiscal year. It will be done before that, but I
    will tell you that based on the appropriations that passed and
    the fact that it included money for small ambulatory, we are in
    the final stages of review of the package to get it out on the
    street for solicitations.
        Senator Murkowski. Mr. Hartz, you have recognized that it
    is popular, that there is a need. Unfortunately, the budget
    proposal does not include funds in fiscal year 2018.
        So again, this is an area where we think we have found a
    way to help address some of the needs that we have,
    particularly in our very remote and small areas. So I would
    like to think that we would be able to continue a level of
    support for our small ambulatory clinic program.
        Mr. Hartz. All of the authorities provided are helpful in
    addressing the needs across Indian country.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
        Mr. Hartz. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Senator Udall.
        Senator Udall. Admiral, I continue to have concern about
    the Service's ability to effectively recruit and retain
    qualified staff. I know that some of these facilities are
    especially hard to recruit for since they are in extremely
    remote areas.
        I am disappointed that this budget does not invest more in
    loan repayment and scholarship programs. I understand that
    about one-third of qualified loan repayment candidates and 81
    percent of scholarship applicants went unfunded in fiscal year
    2015.
        How many qualified applicants to the IHS loan repayment and
    scholarship program were turned down because of lack of funding
    in fiscal year 2016?
        Admiral Weahkee. Sir, I do not have those numbers off the
    top of my head. I can say that moving forward that we are
    prioritizing the funding of both loans and scholarship awards
    to individuals who are already in the pipeline, continuing
    students.
        I will ask Admiral Buchanan if he has any numbers off the
    top of his head.
        Admiral Buchanan. I am sorry. I do not have those numbers
    off the top of my head, but we can definitely provide that
    response for the record.
        Senator Udall. Yes. Could you give us that for the record
    and then also your best estimate on how many people on both
    scholarship and the loan repayment program are not able to get
    into that program?
        [The information follows:]
    how many people on both scholarship and loan repayment program are not
            able to get into the program (under the budget proposal)
        The fiscal year 2018 proposed budget includes a $5 million
    reduction to the scholarship and loan repayment programs. In order to
    prioritize direct healthcare services, these programs will scale back
    on new awards and primarily focus on continuation of existing award
    commitments. For example about 50 fewer scholarships would be awarded
    to new awardees and about 100 fewer loan repayment contracts would be
    executed.

        Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you. I know that Senator Daines
    has a time crunch, so we are going to let him in here.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member
    Udall. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thanks for yielding too.
        I share my colleague from Montana's outrage over the state
    of affairs at IHS. Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall,
    I am not sure I have met a Member yet who is satisfied
    virtually in any way with IHS. And maybe we as leaders should
    rename the agency Indian Health Suffering until they start
    serving the people of Indian country again.
        It is outrageous. It is heartbreaking. It is infuriating.
    These are real families, single moms, single dads, aunts and
    uncles, elderly Tribal leaders that are suffering greatly. It
    is a tragedy.
        As we look at Montana Tribes, these serious, sometimes dire
    healthcare needs, they need adequate medical facilities. After
    all, you cannot provide healthcare if you do not have
    sufficient space to do it, as Chairman Murkowski and Ranking
    Member Udall have just highlighted.
        The Fort Belknap Indian Community, for example, needs
    funding to expand their IHS clinic, which was constructed in
    1998. It does not provide sufficient services according to an
    IHS environmental health and engineering department evaluation
    conducted just this May.
        The Chippewa Cree Tribe, meanwhile, still needs millions to
    rebuild much of their clinic, which was destroyed by a flood 7
    years ago in 2010.
        As you note in your budget justification, and I quote,
    ``The construction and modernization of IHS infrastructure
    through healthcare facilities construction is essential to
    improve healthcare, quality, safety, cost, and value.''
        Admiral Weahkee, I know this has already been part of
    today's discussion, but I would also like to ask, how do you
    expect these needs to be met while proposing to cut funding to
    the construction account? And what would you say to those
    Tribes within enduring healthcare facilities construction
    needs?
        Admiral Weahkee. Thank you, Senator Daines.
        I would like to first address what you started with, which
    is the level of commitment within our agency. More than 70
    percent of our staff of 15,400 employees are American Indians
    and Alaska Natives themselves, so myself included.
        The care that we are providing is very personal. It is our
    families. It is our moms. It is our aunts. It is our daughters.
    It is our wives. So we have one of the most committed
    workforces that you can ever imagine.
        Senator Daines. But let me just say, I do not dispute the
    commitment. But having spent 28 years in business where I was
    accountable for results, you can have the most committed team
    in the world, and that is a good start. But what really matters
    is outcomes and results, with all due respect.
        Admiral Weahkee. Thank you, sir.
        In terms of facility construction and maintenance costs, we
    have our expert here who I will definitely turn to.
        Again, drawing on my experience as a Chief Executive
    Officer both in Phoenix and for a period at Rosebud, if you do
    not have the funds available through your appropriated
    accounts, you definitely rely on those third party resources to
    take care of life safety, environment of care concerns.
        I will ask Mr. Hartz if he has anything else to add in
    terms of funding streams.
        Mr. Hartz. Thank you, sir. Senator Daines, good to see you
    again.
        Senator Daines. Likewise.
        Mr. Hartz. You and I probably think a whole lot alike as
    engineers.
        Senator Daines. We can form the geek caucus here, if you
    would like.

                                   FACILITIES

        Mr. Hartz. We do provide products for the Indian Health
    Service. The products that I provide are part of accessing
    quality healthcare and that is the facilities that we build.
        As you know, and all of you in the room probably know, 5-
    plus years ago, the American Society of Civil Engineers put out
    the report on the crumbling infrastructure across this country.
    That covered roads. That covered wastewater treatment plants,
    water plants. It covered everything related to infrastructure.
        IHS has an infrastructure, as was pointed out earlier, in
    the report to Congress that we provided in 2011 and that 5
    years later we reported to Congress per the law and the
    mandated report, we indicated what that need was for
    facilities. It is $10.5 billion for existing plant for
    replacement and expansion. And then the new authorities are
    another $4-plus billion. So in that report a year ago, it
    showed the need. There is no question about it.
        When we come to presenting a budget, our priority is to
    provide the highest level we can for healthcare to the American
    Indian and Alaska Native with the resources available. You are
    right. We had to look at where could we address.
        Senator Daines. Yes, we are running out of time and thank
    you for the civil engineering perspective here. I will be
    working with the subcommittee----
        Mr. Hartz. Okay.
        Senator Daines [continuing]. For funding increases, so that
    we can get the Chippewa Cree, the Fort Belknap, and the other
    Montana Tribes' needs addressed.

                     INDIAN HEALTH BOARD--BILLINGS CONTRACT

        As I am running out of time, I have one last question and
    that is the Indian Health Board in Billings, Montana. On May 2,
    the Indian Health Board of Billings closed until further notice
    because the contract with IHS expired.
        This program delivered ambulatory care, substance abuse
    services, health education, and mental health and social
    services to about 860 Tribal members living in the area.
        When we can expect that to reopen?
        Admiral Weahkee. Thank you, sir. I have become aware in the
    first couple of weeks of this closure.
        Admiral Buchanan is much closer to the specifics of the
    Billings Urban Indian program and I would like to ask him to
    respond.
        Admiral Buchanan. Thank you, sir.
        Of course, as you mentioned, the facility closed in April.
    We have been working closely with those 846 patients that you
    have identified. We have provided community and town hall
    meetings to address some of their concerns. We provided
    information and coordinated some of their care when the
    facility closed. They are currently receiving care through
    transporting them to the Crow service unit to provide that
    care.
        To specifically answer your question related to when will
    that open. We are currently submitting a request for proposals
    to reopen a similar type facility.
        Senator Daines. When do we expect that to open, then?
        Admiral Buchanan. It is currently going through the
    contracting process.
        Senator Daines. What is your best estimate?
        Admiral Buchanan. It would just be a guess, so I would hate
    to guess for you right now.
        Senator Daines. A couple of months, a couple of years, a
    couple hundred years?
        Admiral Buchanan. Less than 2 months.
        Senator Daines. Thank you. That brackets it. I appreciate
    that.
        Well, I urge you to get that back up and running as soon as
    possible. Work with these affected Tribal members to ensure
    they are receiving the care they need in the interim.
        Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Daines.
        I just have a couple of more quick things and then we will
    be able to wrap here.

                              MANILAAQ VS. BURWELL

        There was a recent case involving a Tribal clinic in
    Alaska. This is ``Manilaaq vs. Burwell,'' and it established
    that Section 105(L) of the Indian Self-Determination Act
    mandates payment of leasing costs when Tribal facilities are
    used to operate IHS programs. But the budget proposal would
    override this Section with the notwithstanding clause that
    would make such lease payments entirely discretionary within
    the agency.
        Given that this language would affect one of the most
    important statutes governing Indian country, the question to
    you this morning is whether or not this proposal has been
    shared with the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Senate
    Indian Affairs Committee, both of whom are on this
    subcommittee. Of course, Senator Udall is the Vice Chair and
    Senator Hoeven is the Chair.
        So has this been shared with the authorizing committee and
    what is their view on this issue?
        Admiral Weahkee. I am not quite up on the specifics of this
    particular case. I will ask Miss Fowler to respond in our
    behalf.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay.
        Ms. Fowler. Thank you for the question.
        This is the group of leases that I mentioned in my response
    about the Village Built Clinics. This has been emerging, it is
    an emerging issue. It has not been shared with the authorizers
    yet as we are still evaluating the impact and the full scope of
    funding needs that would be associated.
        Senator Murkowski. Let us separate it from the funding
    needs. But do you think that it is reasonable that Indian
    Tribes and Tribal organizations should essentially be required
    to donate the use of their space to operate healthcare programs
    that are a Federal responsibility according to this Federal
    court decision?
        Ms. Fowler. We do support the Indian Self-Determination and
    Education Assistance Act fully. But the issue at this point is
    the funding that is needed to implement it.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, yes. Let us go back a little bit,
    because we spent years arguing over Contract Support Costs.
    What would happen is Contract Support Costs would be short-
    changed, short-funded, and years of litigation, lots of money
    spent on good lawyers to argue that case.
        The Supreme Court comes back and says, ``Yes, in fact, you
    do have to pay full funding for contract support costs.'' And
    even with that directive, the budgets would come back at less
    than full funding.
        So we are finally, I think, beyond that where we have had
    several years now of full funding. Again, I mention that we
    have the language out there that says you cannot rob Peter to
    pay Paul in the various accounts. So we have made headway
    there.
        I would like to think that we are not going to be going
    down another path with the same situation where we acknowledge
    that there is a Federal responsibility. There is a Federal
    court decision that says, ``You need to do this.'' And we say,
    ``Well, we cannot do it because we are moving dollars in other
    areas.''
        So my hope is that we are not going to continue to spend a
    lot of money with lawyers and courts, but that we will
    recognize that there is a responsibility here on the Federal
    side.
        I am looking through the rest of my questions here and,
    again, I come back to the concerns that so many of us have
    raised on the panel here this morning. That with this budget,
    whether it is the facilities and maintenance backlog that we
    are dealing with and the real pressing need.
        Whether it is the opioid crisis that is hitting our Native
    people at astonishing rates; we see it all over the country. We
    are looking at a 6 percent cut, almost $13 million, in the
    budget for alcohol and substance abuse programs, within the
    domestic violence initiatives.
        Again, I think about the headway that we have been making,
    that we must continue to make, and I find difficulty with this
    budget in terms of how we can advance that.
        So know that you have a lot of passion, a lot of energy, a
    lot of purpose with this subcommittee to help you with delivery
    of the services and the support for our Native people.
        I look with great pride at what Alaska has done. You
    mentioned the Nuka model. I think it is innovative and
    pioneering in a way that the rest of the country should look.
    If we want to reform our healthcare delivery, reduce costs,
    increase satisfaction amongst patients and providers, look no
    further than the Nuka model.
        Unfortunately, we are not looking to the Nuka model. Other
    nations are looking at it. But within our own IHS system, we
    have allowed for that flexibility to do some astonishing and
    great things.
        With the joint venture program, we have some facilities
    that are the model and the envy of providers and folks around
    the country. You go to Nome. You go to Bethel. We have an
    opportunity coming on in Bethel, but in other areas we have
    seen some great things.
        But I feel like within IHS, there are two worlds going on
    here. Well, I have not had an opportunity to go out to Rosebud
    or to Pine Ridge. It breaks my heart to think that we have such
    disparities with how we are providing for healthcare for our
    Native peoples. And so if it is greater flexibility that we
    need, if we need to completely restructure the system.
        I was speaking with my Ranking Member here. We have been on
    the subcommittee here for a while. We both have been on Indian
    Affairs, I think, since both of us came to the Senate. Year,
    after year, after year, it is the same, sad story and the
    frustration that Senator Tester has clearly portrayed here
    today followed up by Senator Daines. We are not getting mad at
    you as an individual.
        There is anger. There is frustration, and rightly so,
    because as a government, as an agency, we are failing these
    people. And there is a lot of focus right now on healthcare
    around the country and what we do to make it right. But in the
    meantime, you have an injustice going on that is tucked away.
        Look at how many people are in this hearing room. Ten. Who
    is paying attention to the failures? Not enough and apparently,
    that is why it is allowed to continue. But we cannot and we
    will not. We have got to get the attention of some folks within
    the administration. Maybe we need to get the President out to
    Rosebud or Pine Ridge. Maybe that will make a difference.
        But we cannot allow this to continue and there is a lot of
    good will. I want to make sure that the people who have that
    good will are reinforced, are given the support that they need,
    and the belief in knowing that every day they are trying to do
    the right thing.
        So work with us on this. We have a lot to do.
        Senator Udall, any follow up there?
        Senator Udall. I think I am okay. Thank you very much.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. Thank you.
        The hearing record will remain open for 10 days. Senators
    may submit additional information or questions for the record
    within that time if they would like. The subcommittee requests
    all responses to questions for the record be provided in an
    expedited manner.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you for being here and the
    subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., Wednesday, July 12, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

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

                                  ----------

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

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

        [Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
    hearings on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements and
    letters of those submitting written testimony are as follows:]
                Prepared Statement of the 1854 Treaty Authority
        The 1854 Treaty Authority (Authority) is a Tribal organization
    funded by a Public Law 93-638 contract with the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA) under its Trust-Natural Resources Management-Rights
    Protection Implementation (RPI) budget.
      --The Authority supports funding of the BIA Rights Protection
            Implementation Program at the approved fiscal year 2017 level
            and a proportionate share for the Authority. We believe that
            the funding (as well as any increase in funding) should be
            allocated in the same proportions as it has historically been
            distributed.
      --The Authority supports the full finding of contract support for its
            Public Law 93-638, Self-Determination contract.
      --The Authority supports maintaining funding for the EPA Great Lakes
            Restoration budget at least at its current level.
        The Authority is a Tribal organization responsible for protecting,
    preserving, and regulating the Treaty-reserved hunting, fishing and
    gathering rights in the territory ceded to the United States by the
    Chippewa in the Treaty of September 30, 1854, 10 Stat. 1109. The Bois
    Forte Band and the Grand Portage Band created the authority following
    Federal court affirmation of the rights in 1988. As part of a court-
    approved agreement with the State of Minnesota, the Bands have
    obligations to preserve the natural resources in the 5 million acre
    ceded territory and to regulate the activities of Band members through
    a conservation code, enforcement officers, and a court. The Authority
    has been involved with a variety of inter-agency efforts to study the
    effect of invasive species, climate change, and other activities that
    impact treaty resources.
        Although it has significant responsibilities in a geographic area
    the size of Massachusetts, the Authority has only 17 full-time
    employees. With those limited resources, the Authority has been able to
    collaborate with State, Tribal and Federal agencies to become a
    prominent presence in the conservation of resources critical to the
    subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering activities of the Chippewa.
    The challenges facing all natural resource management agencies mean
    that we need to continue cooperative research and restoration at the
    present level or risk setbacks that have a negative impact on future
    generations.
        The successes of the Authority are overshadowed by the challenges
    facing the trust resources that are at the heart of the Treaty rights.
    For reasons unknown, the Minnesota moose population has declined
    significantly in just a few years and both terrestrial and aquatic
    invasive species and climate change threaten the Treaty fishing and
    wild rice production areas across the ceded territory. In addition,
    human activities continue to deplete or displace wildlife populations.
        The Authority urges the subcommittee and the Congress to
    acknowledge that the resources we seek to protect are trust resources,
    reserved in treaties that the United States has a legal obligation to
    protect and preserve.

        [This statement was submitted by Millard J. Myers, Executive
    Director.]
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Academy of American Poets
        The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for
    the Humanities have, over the past fifty years, fostered an educated,
    broadly informed, and creative America at every level, from sponsoring
    national awards to seeding grants that support local programs in
    schools, communities, military bases, hospitals, museums, and beyond,
    throughout the country. Federal funding for the arts and humanities
    underwrites scores of other nonprofit poetry organizations and
    publishers, arts education programs, libraries, archives, as well as
    the work of individual poets. Without this Federal funding, many of our
    wide-reaching and impactful efforts will likely be jeopardized.
        Poetry matters. The arts and humanities encourage reflection,
    empathy, and imagination--all qualities necessary to our individual and
    collective success. American poetry and literature do more than
    preserve the unique stories of our citizens; they shape our civic
    identity.
        Poets have few opportunities for support. NEA fellowships are
    critical to sustaining the art form. We invite you to hear from two
    recipients of NEA fellowships in poetry:
    Nickole Brown, NEA Fellowship in Poetry, 2009, North Carolina Resident:
        I was raised on the literary equivalent of grease and plastic--of
    cheap grocery-store novels and tabloid magazines, of overcrowded and
    sometimes violent public schools, of a working-class Kentucky that had
    a lot more faith in the ability of a hammer to earn a living than a
    pen. With the exception of the family King James, we didn't even keep
    books in the house, and I was the first in my family to get through
    high school, much less go on to pursue graduate studies in something as
    unheard of as creative writing. Matter of fact, my grandmother--who had
    more than her hand in raising me--never learned to read and write, and
    it was her story that I set out to get on the page when I applied for
    an NEA Literature Fellowship back in 2008. That book, a biography in
    poems called Fanny Says, was completed because of that grant and was
    later published by BOA Editions in 2015.
        But it wasn't merely my second book that came out of that gift, no.
    What resulted was the life I have now, and have no doubt--I would never
    be where I am without that chance given to me during a time in which I
    needed it most.
        You see, at first, I can't imagine my request was much different
    than anyone else's--I needed time to write, desperately needed time to
    write, just a little time, pure and simple. This was true, but what I
    received--freedom, validation, recognition, confidence--amounted to
    much more than a mere sabbatical. What resulted was nothing short of a
    complete life change: in addition to having a spell to work on my
    poems, I also gained enough courage to move away from 10 years in a
    highly rewarding but demanding job in independent publishing. This was
    a terrifying and bittersweet change, but I realized that it was time
    for me to grow, and more importantly, to take myself absolutely serious
    as a writer.
        Although the amount granted to me at the time might not seem like a
    lot of money to some, I was able to sustain myself on it for 3 years,
    and unexpectedly, the boost had a cumulative effect, bringing more
    teaching and reading engagements than I could have ever have acquired
    on my own. Since then, I've managed to find a way to sustain myself,
    working mostly full-time as a writer, and there's absolutely no way I
    would have been able to do that if not for the generosity shared with
    me all those years ago.
        When I first was granted that fellowship, I received a lot of notes
    from friends and family, but the one I truly remember came from the
    fiction writer Mary Ann Taylor-Hall. Like the rest, she wrote to
    congratulate me, but specifically, she said my life had finally `busted
    out of the dark.' I don't think I could have possibly understood what
    she meant at the time, but looking back, I get it--the NEA forced me
    out into the light, to a place where I had to see myself as legitimate,
    a voice lifting up among the chorus of so many voices who had received
    the NEA's assistance before me. That honor meant the world to me, and
    my world was changed.
    Maggie Smith, NEA Fellowship, 2011, Ohio Resident
        I received a fellowship in poetry from the National Endowment for
    the Arts in 2011. I am not being hyperbolic when I say it changed my
    life. At the time I was working fulltime as an editor, squeezing all of
    my parenting and writing time in at night. My daughter was only 2 years
    old at the time and had been in fulltime daycare since she was twelve
    weeks old, when my (largely unpaid) maternity leave ended. Let's be
    clear: $25,000 is not a lot of money to the Federal government. But
    it's a great deal of money to a poet and young mother with student loan
    debt and sizeable family health expenses. That NEA fellowship gave me
    the financial cushion and the courage to leave my day job and to start
    my own freelance business. The flexibility of freelance work meant that
    I could devote more time to poetry. I went on my first writing
    residency at ?the Virginia Center for the Creative Arts?, which would
    have been impossible given my limited vacation time at work, and thanks
    to that uninterrupted time, finally finished my second book, The Well
    Speaks of Its Own Poison. Working from home also allowed me to reduce
    my daughter's daycare to part-time hours so that we could be together
    more. Funding from the NEA was a godsend, both professionally and
    personally. Perhaps most importantly, the grant reminded me--when I was
    splitting my time between parenting and working in a cubicle--that I
    was a poet. I haven't forgotten that since. I thank the NEA for that.?
        The Academy of American Poets is the Nation's largest membership-
    based nonprofit organization fostering an appreciation for contemporary
    poetry and supporting American poets. The organization reaches more
    than 20 million Americans in all 50 States with its free programs:
    Poets.org, National Poetry Month, the popular Poem-a-Day series, and
    resources for K-12 educators.
        Thank you for your time.

        [This statement was submitted by Jennifer Benka, Executive
    Director.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the All Pueblo Council of Governors, New Mexico
    Requests:
        1.  Continued support and funding for the Land-into-Trust Program
    at Interior.
        2.  Sustainable funding for the National Forest Service and
    Interior forestry programs.
        3.  Maintain the $1 million set-aside for NAGPRA-related law
    enforcement going forward.
        4.  Provide dedicated funding for Bears Ears National Monument.
        5.  Increase funding for broadband development to bridge the
    digital divide in Indian Country.
        6.  Increase funding to address negative health outcomes associated
    with inadequate housing.
        7.  Support vocational and S.T.E.M. programs in Tribal schools for
    increased student success.

        Introduction. Thank you Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall,
    and Members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on the
    critically important topic of Federal funding for American Indian and
    Alaska Native programs in the Department of the Interior. The All
    Pueblo Council of Governors thanks you for your dedicated efforts to
    advance Indian Country priorities in the United States Senate.
        My name is Paul Torres and I am the Chairman of the All Pueblo
    Council of Governors (APCG), which is comprised of the Tribal leaders
    (Governors) of all 19 of the New Mexico Pueblos as well as the Pueblo
    of Ysleta del Sur in El Paso, Texas. Formed in 1598, the APCG is the
    oldest consortium of Tribal leaders in the United States. Collectively,
    the leadership of the APCG is respectful of the historic relationship
    between the Pueblos and the Federal Government. This relationship is
    political in nature, reflecting the government-to-government
    relationship between and among our governments. The Federal budget for
    Indian programs is an important aspect of that relationship and is
    reflective of the Federal Government's trust responsibility to Indian
    nations and Indian peoples. As such, Federal Indian laws and associated
    budgets are deeply rooted in the Constitution and represent an enduring
    promise of friendship and support to the First Americans.\1\ In the
    spirit of cooperation, based on respect and full consideration of the
    sovereign status of Tribes, we offer the following budget
    recommendations for fiscal year 2018.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Suggestions that these laws are somehow not constitutional are
    made without a deep understanding of this area of law. It has been long
    settled that Federal Indian laws are constitutional; to our knowledge
    no Federal Indian law has ever been struck down as unconstitutional.
    See Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 555 (1974) (upholding an
    employment preference for Indians in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
    in the face of an equal protection challenge, on the basis that the
    preference was political in nature and could be ``tied rationally to
    the fulfillment of Congress' unique obligation toward the Indians'').
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       i. land base and natural resources
        The sandstone mesas, verdant hills, brush covered flatlands, and
    steep mountains of the southwestern United States form the landscape in
    which we exercise our Tribal sovereignty and cultural identities as
    Pueblo People. We are not just people residing on this beautiful land;
    we are a People of this land. We carry it in the very essence of our
    being. Our connection is etched deep into our collective history and
    memories. Wise stewardship of land, minerals, water, and other
    resources is, therefore, key to our cultural survival and socioeconomic
    well-being as sovereign Tribal nations.
        Continuation of the Land-into-Trust Program. As sovereign Tribal
    governments, the exercise of our self-determination is strengthened by
    the ability of the Federal Government to take land into trust on behalf
    of Tribes. Trust lands enable us to provide a homeland for our people
    as well as a base from which to offer essential governmental services,
    such as housing, education, healthcare, and economic development
    opportunities. Trust lands also facilitate the expression of our
    identity as Pueblo people by protecting the natural and cultural
    resources that form the bedrock of our traditional practices and
    ceremonies. We urge Congress to provide continued support and funding
    for the land-into-trust program at the Department of the Interior.
        Funding for the National Forest Service and Interior Forestry
    Programs. The APCG also encourages support for policy and legislation
    that provide funding for effective and sustainable natural resource
    management practices, particularly in regards to the Interior's
    forestry programs. The trees and shrubs of our southwestern national
    forests play critical roles in regional economic development, disaster
    mitigation efforts, recreation, and ecological habitats for many local
    wildlife and plant species. Cuts in Federal funding for forestry
    management threaten the delivery of services in each of these areas.
    Our historic attachment to the southwest landscape and geography
    including the national forests forms the core of our traditional belief
    systems and cultural worldview. We respectfully request National Forest
    Service funding at least at the fiscal year 2016 enacted level to
    maintain the effective management of our national forests and their
    diverse resources.
                  ii. protection for tribal cultural patrimony
        Dedicated NAGPRA Enforcement Funds--Thank you for this Committee's
    Support! The APCG would like to take this opportunity to thank the
    subcommittee and all of Congress for including a one million dollar
    appropriation in the 2017 Omnibus to strengthen the implementation of
    the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).
    Dedicated funding for expanded Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement
    activities related to NAGPRA advances stronger Federal protections for
    cultural patrimony put in place under the PROTECT Patrimony Resolution,
    adopted by both the House and Senate in the last Congress (H. Con. Res.
    122 Dec. 2016). We thank you for your support and encourage continued
    funding in this important area going forward.
        Bears Ears National Monument. Our cultural heritage resides not
    only in the tangible objects protected by NAGPRA and the PROTECT
    Patrimony Resolution, but also in the living landscapes from which our
    people emerged, long before the arrival of the first Europeans to this
    continent. Our ancestral ties to the Bears Ears National Monument in
    Utah can be traced through the ancient roads, dwellings, petroglyphs,
    and ceremonial features that continue to enrich the region today.
    However, these sites are under constant threat by erosion, vandalism,
    looting, and indiscriminate damage through off-road vehicle use, as
    well as the general degradation of wildlife and plan habitats that are
    significant to our traditional practices. We urge Congress to preserve
    the designation of Bears Ears as a National Monument to support the
    permanent, long-term protection of the land and its irreplaceable
    resources and to provide appropriate funding for its preservation.
               iii. infrastructure development in indian country
        Many Pueblos are economically distressed rural communities.
    Infrastructure development is essential to diversifying and sustaining
    rural economies. However, most Tribal lands are subject to conditions
    that require intense overhauling--roads are often unimproved, utilities
    are insufficient, and reliable broadband connections barely exist. In
    addition, other types of infrastructure critical to creating vibrant
    Tribal communities such as new housing construction are deficient, with
    severe housing shortages occurring on Tribal lands.
        Increased Access to Capital for Economic Development. Pueblo
    governments and Pueblo-owned businesses are collectively among the
    largest employers in New Mexico, providing thousands of jobs in many
    rural areas of the State. Most recent statewide figures put the number
    of jobs provided by Tribal employers at nearly 18,000 in various
    industries. Non-Indians hold nearly 75 percent of these jobs. Despite
    such positive contributions, limited access to capital and financing
    remains one of the most significant barriers to Pueblo economic
    development. Tribes across the country struggle with uniquely
    burdensome Federal restrictions and regulations, poor infrastructure,
    and other challenges that limit their economies from flourishing. It is
    important to create avenues for investment funds, financial resources,
    and business models that are mutually advantageous to Tribes and
    potential partners for economic advancement, stability, and
    diversification. The opportunity to provide for a family through a
    desirable job with a decent income is a shared desire of all Americans.
        Broadband Infrastructure for Expanded Community Services. We are
    living in the digital age. The Internet has the potential to link an
    individual to the world at the click of a button, yet many Pueblo
    communities do not have access to the basic technology or reliable
    broadband systems that make even an initial connection possible. Our
    Tribal members are unable to take advantage of the myriad of benefits
    that the Internet has to offer, which range from access to online GED
    and higher education degrees, to telehealth medical services, to
    expanded economic opportunities for business investment, among many
    others. For communities that successfully connect to the broadband
    network, the experience is transformative. We urge Congress to bridge
    the digital divide and provide increased funding for broadband
    development in Indian Country.
        Health Begins at Home--Investing in Housing Development. Access to
    affordable, safe housing is the foundation for strong families,
    communities, and economies. Just as the deserts, mountains, and mesas
    provide a spiritual and cultural home for our Pueblo communities,
    Tribal governments have the responsibility of providing housing for our
    Tribal members. However, we depend on Federal appropriations under the
    Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) to meet
    many of our housing-related needs. A 2014 study conducted by the U.S.
    Department of Housing and Urban Development reported unacceptable
    living conditions for American Indians in New Mexico and Arizona
    counties with high rates of overcrowding and incomplete utility systems
    for kitchens and bathrooms. We urge Congress to provide increased
    funding to the Indian Health Service (IHS) address negative health
    outcomes associated with critical housing shortages that imperil our
    Tribal communities.
             iv. educational opportunities in our home communities
        Pueblo leaders wish to create a highly skilled, well-educated,
    workforce within their respective Tribal communities. With a pool of
    qualified workers, the Pueblos believe they will be able to attract
    business and economic development possibilities, create well-paying job
    opportunities, and assure that Tribal members enjoy a prosperous future
    that comes with being well educated.
        High Quality Tribal Education Systems. The Pueblos that constitute
    the APCG have always supported sound educational programs that comply
    with State and Federal accountability standards. We emphasize the
    importance of high quality instruction, effective professional teacher
    development and the development of appropriate, culturally sensitive
    curriculum, including Native language retention and instruction. A
    number of Pueblos are in the process of or have already assumed the
    responsibility for operating Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools
    located on their respective Tribal lands. Operating and maintaining
    schools requires considerable resources. We request adequate funding to
    develop and maintain high quality Tribal education systems that prepare
    the next generation of Native students for a lifetime meaningful
    opportunities.
        Vocational Training Programs. The APCG supports comprehensive
    oversight of the flow of funds and the implementation of policies that
    effectuate meaningful educational change. It is important to foster the
    advancement of higher education, but also to consider re-introducing
    vocational education, which in many school districts has been
    eliminated or severely limited. Vocational education can provide skills
    that contribute to employment opportunities and sustainable incomes. In
    addition, Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (S.T.E.M.)
    curricula must be incorporated into Tribal school systems to enable our
    students to develop and compete in these pivotal industries. We request
    increased funding for the re-introduction and integration of vocational
    and S.T.E.M. curricula to diversify Tribal school systems and lay the
    foundation for student success.
        Protecting and Preserving Native Languages. The Pueblo worldview is
    contained in their languages. In addition to maintaining Tribal life
    ways, the Pueblos have established various programs and methods in
    order to retain and preserve what are considered some of the most
    ancient and distinct languages in America. Some Pueblo languages are so
    unique they are not spoken anywhere else in the world. Students in
    language immersion programs demonstrate substantial improvement in
    their academic performance and testing. They have also shown greater
    achievement in S.T.E.M. related subjects that increasingly form the
    bedrock of our domestic and international economies. We urge Congress
    to support programs that promote the value of Native languages and
    prevent the further loss of our languages and traditions.
        Thank you for the opportunity to offer outside witness testimony.
    The All Pueblo Council of Governors looks forward to working with
    Congress on advancing meaningful Tribal development under the fiscal
    year 2018 budget.

                                     ______

                               Allen Esther deg.
                   Prepared Statement of Esther Allen, Ph.D.

       Associate Professor, Programs in French and in Hispanic and Luso-
    Brazilian Literatures and Languages, City University of New York (CUNY)
     Graduate Center, and Department of Modern Languages, Baruch College,
                                      CUNY

        Over the course of its half century of existence, the National
    Endowment for the Arts has consistently and substantially enhanced the
    daily lives of Americans everywhere. In all 50 States, the NEA has
    supported museums, opera houses, orchestras, theatres and countless
    other forms of artistic expression that enrich the cultural and
    spiritual life of communities and make them attractive places for
    businesses and individuals to remain or relocate and for tourists to
    visit. A 2010 study on the arts and economic prosperity determined that
    the more than 100,000 organizations in the U.S. nonprofit arts and
    culture sector which the NEA serves generated $61.1 billion in direct
    economic activity, and an additional $74.1 billion in event-related
    expenditures. Those figures speak for themselves, and have only
    increased since the report was published.
        My appeal for continued funding for the NEA, however, is based on
    my own experience of a little-known NEA program that has had a wildly
    outsized impact on the literary culture of the United States and on our
    Nation's cultural relations with the rest of the world: the NEA
    Translation Fellowships. Since this program was inaugurated in 1981,
    the NEA has been the Nation's most significant investor in support for
    literary translators and organizations that publish literary
    translation, as NEA Chairman Jane Chu notes in her introduction to
    ``The Art of Empathy'', a 2014 NEA publication on the often overlooked
    significance of literary translation.
        In 1989-1990, I lived in Mexico with support from a Fulbright
    fellowship. While there, I travelled in the southern state of Chiapas,
    and read a 1962 novel by the Mexican author Rosario Castellanos titled
    ``Oficio de tinieblas'', a long-acknowledged classic of Mexican
    literature, set among the indigenous Maya. On returning to the U.S. in
    1990, I was startled to learn that a literary work of such importance
    to a close ally of the United States--an ally with whom we share a
    lengthy border and great deal of geographic and cultural history--had
    never appeared in English. Meanwhile, the novel had been published in
    many other languages, including Hebrew; Castellanos was Mexico's
    ambassador to Israel, and her work is highly esteemed there.
        For several years, I tried to interest U.S. publishing houses in a
    translation, to no avail. Then, in 1995, I was granted a National
    Endowment for the Arts Translation Fellowship in support of the
    project. Doors began to open. ``The Book of Lamentations'', my
    translation of Castellanos' novel, was published in 1997 and remains in
    print today as a Penguin Modern Classic. Since its publication in
    English, the novel's fictionalized history of a Mayan uprising has
    helped many journalists and diplomats understand and contextualize the
    Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas. Its tragic story of oppression has
    moved countless students of Latin American literature and history and
    general readers--many of them, no doubt, U.S. citizens of Mayan
    descent. None of that would have happened were it not for the support
    of the National Endowment for the Arts.
        Multiply that by more than four hundred, and you have a sense of
    the impact of this one small, inexpensive NEA program. Translation
    Fellowships have brought literature from more than 84 countries,
    originally written in more than 66 languages, to American readers.
    Among those languages is Slovenian. If the First Lady of the United
    States would like to share the literature of her native country with
    family and friends who do not speak Slovenian, the NEA has helped make
    that possible.
        The U.S. is generally an exporter of its own culture to the world,
    and that makes the impact of the Translation Fellowship program all the
    more beneficial to U.S. diplomatic relations. Writers whose voices are
    influential in their own countries are likely to see our country
    differently when their work has been translated, published and reviewed
    here, when they know they have communities of readers here. The
    Translation Fellowship program says to the whole world that the United
    States Government supports empathy and wants to help make voices from
    across the globe heard in English. The international goodwill this
    gesture creates is inestimable.
        I ask the members of the Senate Subcommittee on the Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies to join me in supporting the National
    Endowment for the Arts, and urgently request them to ensure that this
    formidable Federal agency will be fully funded in the fiscal year 2018
    budget and able to continue its crucial work.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Alternate ROOTS
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, we
    thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of
    Alternate ROOTS. We urge the Committee to appropriate $155 million to
    the National Endowment for the Arts for fiscal year 2018. Alternate
    ROOTS has 245 number of individual and organization members. Some
    members are highlighted below include:

    Doris Davenport, Tuscaloosa, Alabama
    Datule Collective, Little Rock, Arkansas
    Art2Action, Tampa, Florida
    Angela Davis Johnson, Atlanta, Georgia
    Clear Creek Festival, Big Hill, Kentucky
    Mondo Bizarro, New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ashley Minner, Baltimore, Maryland
    Daniel Johnson, Jackson, Mississippi
    Azule, Hot Springs, North Carolina
    Kimi Maeda, Columbia, South Carolina
    Carpetbag Theatre, Knoxville, Tennessee
    Clyde Valentine, Dallas, Texas
    Performing Statistics, Richmond, Virginia
    Anu Yadav, Washington, D.C.

        Alternate ROOTS is a 41 year old organization based in the Southern
    USA* whose mission is to support the creation and presentation of
    original art, in all its forms, which is rooted in a particular
    community of place, tradition, or spirit. As a coalition of cultural
    workers we strive to be allies in the elimination of all forms of
    oppression. ROOTS is committed to social and economic justice and the
    protection of the natural world and addresses these concerns through
    its programs and services.
        The ROOTS Region covers the Southern area of the United States:
    Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
    Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
    Virginia, West Virginia, and Washington, D.C.
        For 50 years, the National Endowment for the Arts has held a
    significant Federal leadership role for the arts and culture in
    America. Its grants reach every congressional district and support arts
    organizations serving their communities in a variety of ways. Through
    the support of direct NEA grants and NEA partnerships with State arts
    agencies, arts organizations are helping people experience high-quality
    artistic presentations, access arts education and opportunities for
    artistic development, find their voices and share their stories, and
    have critical dialogue about important social issues.
        The following examples of recent projects that Alternate ROOTS has
    supported through the funds we have received from the NEA are a sample
    of the significant ways artists and cultural workers are able to serve
    their communities with the support of the NEA.
        PATOIS (New Orleans, Louisiana) creates accessible spaces at the
    intersection of art and social justice where communities can unite in
    the struggle for human rights in New Orleans and around the globe.
    Throughout the PIA partnership period, PATOIS will curate and produce a
    series of art and film events aimed at raising awareness on the impact
    of gentrification in New Orleans and supporting housing rights
    struggles through collaboration and creative actions. PATOIS will
    engage a range of community groups, activists, artists, organizing
    projects, and cultural workers to address the housing crisis facing the
    city, with their primary partner being Jane Place Neighborhood
    Sustainability Initiative (JPNSI), an organization that has been at the
    forefront of organizing around the housing crisis.
        The Graduates (Louisiana statewide) is an ensemble of formerly
    incarcerated women from the Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women
    (LCIW), co-founded and co-directed by Kathy Randels and Ausettua
    AmorAmenkum. ``Won't Bow Down!'' (WBD) is a project centered on The
    Graduates' personal criminal justice system experiences with a vision
    of life in Louisiana after prison reform and a goal to create awareness
    of and encourage community organizing to abolish mass incarceration of
    black people and achieve racial equity in the United States. WBD will
    tour to living rooms, churches, community centers, and stages in 12
    Louisiana communities. The autobiographical performances will shine a
    light on The Graduates' unique stories: the most radical and direct
    communication we can share with people about the experience of
    incarceration.
        SpiritHouse Inc. (Durham, North Carolina), in partnership with All
    of Us or None (AOUON-NC) and The Center for Participatory Change (CPC),
    will remount their interactive theatrical performance, ``Collective Sun
    Reshape the Mo[u]rning'' in Durham and Asheville, NC. First mounted in
    2012 under the direction of Ebony Noelle Golden, ``Collective Sun'' is
    a series of vignettes drawn from more than 8 years of research,
    organizing, and programmatic work that has been the emphasis of
    campaigns to challenge systemic racism and end criminalization and
    incarceration in this country. Part performance, part audio
    installation, and part collective action, ``Collective Sun,'' creates a
    platform where communities impacted by systemic racism and
    criminalization use their experiences and voices to become more
    civically engaged. The performances of ``Collective Sun'' will be used
    to strengthen SpiritHouse's Harm Free Zone work.
        Queer Histories/Queer Futures (New Orleans, Louisiana) is a triadic
    program of monthly events including workshops, salons, and creative
    intensives administered by Last Call in partnership with the New
    Orleans LGBT Community Center. QHQF kicks off with a series of oral
    history and audio production workshops for queer young adults and
    allies in which workshop participants will conduct and transcribe
    interviews with elders in the queer community and remix those
    interviews into new Last Call podcast episodes. QHQF will then host
    creative intensives to interpret these stories through small-scale
    performances that connect the histories of queer elders with the
    realities of queer youth in order to collectively envision a vibrant
    and robust queer future that includes all of us. Finally, QHQF will
    host a series of artist salons at which audiences will hear the
    finished podcast and interface with the new mini-performances. These
    salons create queer-centric gathering space, initiate and build
    relationships, and allow the stories we collect to have a wider
    audience beyond the queer community.
        Working Narratives (Wilmington, North Carolina) seeks support to
    produce Free Movement (FM), a public performance and community-
    organizing project that seeks to link Southern culture, communities,
    and identities underserved by arts, justice, and health movements in
    their home base of Wilmington, NC. Utilizing a tested community
    cultural organizing practice that includes artists residencies,
    cultural asset mapping, and a collaborative design and production of a
    large scale public art gathering, FM will work with grassroots partners
    and members to occupy public space and build grassroots power for
    positive social change. Free Movement will premiere in March 2018, and
    deliver a whole ``package'' of story gathering and community dialogues,
    along with intensive artist residencies and workshops, and a main
    performance. Free Movement is a performance that equals a form of
    street theater and incorporates storytelling throughout its process.
        Community LIFT (Memphis, Tennessee) is working with the Soulsville
    Neighborhood Association (SNA) to create an outdoor lounge to help
    generate business, tackle blight, empower residents, attract artists,
    and create art by the Soulsville community. Created to reverse the
    Memphis' inequitable course of economic development, Community LIFT
    serves as a funder, connector, and capacity builder of redevelopment in
    three disenfranchised neighborhoods. Soulsville is a legendary
    neighborhood in South Memphis and home to world-famous Stax Records. In
    the first phase of this project, the partners rehabilitated renowned
    bluesman Memphis Slim's home into Slim House, a community music studio
    professionalizing Memphis musicians. With the support of Alternate
    ROOTS Community LIFT will reimagine the space with SNA members, and the
    partners will construct the space with local artists and neighborhood
    residents who have carpentry and woodworking skills. In the first six
    weeks of opening, Stax Music Academy youth and Slim House musicians
    will produce community storytelling performances, in partnership with
    citywide institutions, to activate the lounge. Beyond this, the lounge
    will provide a platform for Slim House members, who are emerging
    professional musicians, to showcase their talent.
        Girls Rock Charleston (Charleston, South Carolina), an arts-based
    social justice organization operating in Charleston, SC since 2011, is
    hosting a year-long after school program for at-risk girls and trans*
    youth ages 12-17. GRC works in partnership with organizations and local
    leaders to engage youth with a dynamic combination of music education,
    DIY media making, popular, and political education sessions, as well as
    academic and life skills support. Local artists, activists, musicians,
    and youth organizers serve as mentors, band coaches, and workshop
    leaders throughout the program to support the Rockers in using audio
    and visual artistic craft to explore their burgeoning identities as
    girls, women, and/or queer youth, and to address the impact of police
    violence and the prison system in their communities. Participants will
    work together to explore issues of sexism, racism, poverty,
    gentrification, segregation, and State violence through writing
    original music and creating visual art, while engaging in workshops
    emphasizing the resilience, resistance stories, and cultural traditions
    (such as storytelling and community organizing) of their own
    communities. Together, the Rockers will produce a multimedia body of
    work that will both document and impact the social issues they address.
    A public performance will be held at the end of each semester in which
    community members will be engaged around these issues through the work
    performed/exhibited. The program will not only support the Rockers in
    improving their grades and staying out of the juvenile justice system,
    but will provide space for them to build trust with each other and
    define their own visions for liberation in their communities. It will
    prioritize developing youth as whole people.
        Seeds of Fire, Highlander Research and Education Center (New
    Market, Tennessee) completed a week-long Living Legacy Tour of the
    South to connect the fights, struggles, and victories of folks fighting
    all forms of oppression. Highlander Research and Education Center is a
    leading institutional resource that connects people across generation,
    race, language, culture, and sector to build a unified movement for a
    just and equitable society. For the past 16 years, Highlander's Seeds
    of Fire (SOF) program has impacted thousands of young people, bringing
    together emerging and experienced grassroots organizers and community
    leaders to build collective power and influence critical policy
    decisions and practice shifts. The Seeds of Fire Living Legacy Tour
    brings together youth and young adult organizers and allies from
    communities of color and low-income communities to travel through key
    movement places in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. With a focus on
    addressing State sanctioned violence, tour participants will learn with
    artists and organizers, share cultural organizing skills with the local
    communities, and engage with movement elders, connecting historical
    struggles to those that young people are fighting against in the South,
    today. The Living Legacy tour allows participants to strategize and use
    cultural organizing methods to develop a collective analysis of
    systemic injustices. Its goal is to create learning exchanges and
    opportunities for growth and understanding while focusing on cultural
    organizing, intergenerational relationships, and organizational
    partnerships across the South.
        Performing Statistics (Richmond, Virginia) is a cultural organizing
    project that brings incarcerated youth and community experts together
    to collaboratively produce media campaigns, public installations, and
    performances supporting juvenile justice reform. The project supports
    Legal Aid Justice Center's (LAJC) advocacy with, and on behalf of
    juvenile justice system-involved youth and their families. The project
    utilizes collaborative and public art to connect diverse community
    experts, including currently incarcerated adults and youth, around
    community-based alternatives to incarceration. We believe that the
    youth and adults most affected by the system should have a leading
    voice in any movement.
        The artistic programming of Southern artists and organizations,
    supported by the NEA, gives vitality to their communities in numerous
    ways beyond the examples provided here. For many individual artists and
    small organizations in the South, these funds can sometimes be the only
    dollars supporting the work.
        The Federal investment in the NEA places value on the role of arts
    and culture in our society, and it realizes significant returns that
    are both measurable and intangible.
        We celebrate the NEA's fiscal year 2017 budget increase--the first
    since fiscal year 2011--and urge you to please support no less than
    $155 million to the National Endowment for the Arts in fiscal year
    2018. Thank you for considering our request.

        [This statement was submitted by Carlton Turner, Executive
    Director, and Ashley Walden Davis, Managing Director.]
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the American Alliance of Museums
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to submit this testimony. My
    name is Laura Lott and I serve as President and CEO of the American
    Alliance of Museums (AAM). We urge your support for at least $155
    million each in fiscal year 2018 (fiscal year 2018) for the National
    Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the
    Humanities (NEH), as well as sufficient funding for the Smithsonian
    Institution. We also request your support for the Historic Preservation
    Fund (HPF), including at least $55 million for State Historic
    Preservation Offices (SHPOs), $15 million for Tribal Historic
    Preservation Offices (THPOs) and $28 million to preserve the sites and
    stories of the Civil Rights Movement. We request restored funding of
    $30 million and $4.6 million respectively for the Save America's
    Treasures (SAT) and Preserve America programs.
        Before detailing these funding priorities for the museum field, I
    want to express my deepest appreciation for the increases enacted by
    the subcommittee in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Public
    Law 115-31. The additional funds for the NEH, NEA, Smithsonian
    Institution and historic preservation activities will enhance museums'
    work to enrich their communities and preserve our many heritages. The
    subcommittee's choice to make these investments in fiscal year 2017
    despite a very limited 302(b) allocation speaks volumes about its
    commitment to our Nation's cultural institutions. The American Alliance
    of Museums is deeply troubled by proposals from the Trump
    Administration to slash many of these priorities, and we look forward
    to working with you--our bipartisan allies--to reject them. While the
    subcommittee will once again have to make very difficult decisions this
    year, I contend that each of the priorities outlined below will both
    protect our Nation's cultural treasures and provide a tremendous
    economic benefit.
        AAM is proud to represent the full range of our Nation's museums--
    including aquariums, art museums, botanic gardens, children's museums,
    culturally specific museums, historic sites, history museums, maritime
    museums, military museums, natural history museums, planetariums,
    presidential libraries, science and technology centers, and zoos, among
    others--along with the professional staff and volunteers who work for
    and with museums. We are honored to work on behalf of the Nation's more
    than 33,000 museums, which employ 400,000 people, invest more than $2
    billion annually in educational programs, receive more than 55 million
    visits each year from primary and secondary school students, and
    directly contribute $21 billion to their local economies.
        Museums are essential in their communities for many reasons:
      --Museums are key education providers. Museums already offer
            educational programs in math, science, art, literacy, language
            arts, history, civics and government, economics and financial
            literacy, geography, and social studies, in coordination with
            State and local curriculum standards. Museums also provide
            experiential learning opportunities, STEM education, youth
            training, job preparedness, and a range of programs geared
            toward homeschooling families. They reach beyond the scope of
            instructional programming for schoolchildren by also providing
            critical teacher training. There is a growing consensus that
            whatever the new educational era looks like, it will focus on
            the development of a core set of skills: critical thinking, the
            ability to synthesize information, creativity, and
            collaboration. We believe museums are uniquely situated to help
            learners develop these core skills, and this is borne out by
            evidence. According to a recent University of Arkansas study,
            students who attended just a half-day field trip to an art
            museum experienced an increase in critical thinking skills,
            historical empathy and tolerance. For students from rural or
            high-poverty regions, the increase was even more significant.
      --Museums create jobs and support local economies. Museums serve as
            economic engines, bolster local infrastructure, and spur
            tourism. Both the US Conference of Mayors and the National
            Governors Association agree that cultural assets like museums
            are essential to attracting businesses, a skilled workforce,
            and local and international tourism. Travelers who participate
            in cultural or heritage activities spend 60 percent more than
            other tourists.
      --Museums address community challenges. Many museums offer programs
            tailored to seniors, veterans, children with special needs,
            persons with disabilities, and more, greatly expanding their
            reach and impact. For example, some have programs designed
            specifically for children on the autism spectrum while others
            are addressing veterans' post-war trauma or providing youth job
            training opportunities.
      --Digitization and traveling exhibitions bring museum collections to
            underserved populations. Teachers, students, and researchers
            benefit when cultural institutions are able to increase access
            to trustworthy information through online collections and
            traveling exhibits. Most museums, however, need more resources
            to digitize collections.
        The National Endowment for the Humanities is an independent Federal
    agency created by Congress in 1965. Grants are awarded to nonprofit
    educational institutions--including museums, colleges, universities,
    archives, and libraries--for educational programming and the care of
    collections. NEH supports museums as institutions of learning and
    exploration, and as keepers of our cultural, historical, and scientific
    heritages.
        In 2016, through Preservation & Access, one of NEH's national
    program divisions, 43 peer-reviewed, competitive grants totaling over
    $2.5 million dollars were awarded to museums, historical societies and
    historic sites for a variety of projects to preserve and provide access
    to our Nation's rich cultural heritage. Across all NEH divisions
    (including Preservation and Access, Research, Education, Public
    Programs, Challenge Grants and Digital Humanities), these institutions
    received 150 awards totaling over $21.3 million. Demand for humanities
    project support, as demonstrated by NEH grant application rates, far
    exceeds available funding. In fiscal year 2016, NEH received 5,304
    competitive grant applications representing $518.2 million in requested
    funds, but was only able to fund 16 percent of these peer-reviewed
    proposals.
        NEH also provides approximately forty percent of its funding
    directly to States through grants to humanities councils located in
    every State and US territory. In 2016, 55 State councils supported
    2,419 exhibitions, 280 preservation projects, and 1,612 local history
    programs, attracting a total audience of 5.5 million people.
        This year alone, NEH funding has supported museums' work in your
    communities, including:
      --The Mississippi Department of Archives and History received a
            $100,000 grant for a multimedia learning initiative to extend
            the resources of the forthcoming Museum of Mississippi History
            and the Mississippi Civil Rights Museum directly into
            classrooms across the State. Funds will also support technical
            and curricular training for schools and teachers based on their
            needs.
      --The Fleming Museum of Art at the University of Vermont received a
            $5,742 grant to support new cabinets and environmental monitors
            for its collection of works on paper. This will provide better
            care for the works as well improved access for students and
            faculty.
        The National Endowment for the Arts makes art accessible to all and
    provides leadership in arts education. Established in 1965, NEA
    supports great art in every congressional district. Its grants to
    museums help them exhibit, preserve, and interpret visual material
    through exhibitions, residencies, publications, commissions, public art
    works, conservation, documentation, services to the field, and public
    programs.
        In 2016, more than 2,000 museums participated as Blue Star
    Museums--a partnership between NEA, Blue Star Families, and the
    Department of Defense--to offer free admission to all active duty and
    reserve personnel and their families from Memorial Day through Labor
    Day. This particular effort served more than 923,000 people, while many
    other museums offer military discounts or free admission throughout the
    year.
        In 2016, NEA made more than 180 direct awards to museums, totaling
    over $5.4 million. Forty percent of NEA's grant funds are distributed
    to State arts agencies for re-granting, and many museums benefit from
    these funds as well. Receiving a grant from the NEA confers prestige on
    supported projects, strengthening museums' ability to attract matching
    funds from other public and private funders. On average, each dollar
    awarded by the NEA leverages more than nine dollars from other sources.
        This year alone, NEA funding has supported museums' work in your
    communities, including:
      --The Anchorage Museum received a $60,000 Creativity Connects grant
            to support a series of programs exploring the ecology of the
            Artic, in partnership with the University of Alaska Anchorage.
            The organizations will work with artists and scientists on
            exhibitions, events, and online presentations to engage the
            public, conveying the complexity of the northern landscape
            through curated experiences.
      --The International Folk Art Foundation in Santa Fe, New Mexico
            received a $60,000 Art Works grant this year to support an
            exhibit featuring folk art from the United States and
            international artists. The artists' work may reflect responses
            to societal crises, such as war, political instability,
            dislocation, and ecological challenges. The exhibit will be
            accompanied by artist residencies, lecture, and demonstrations.
        In addition to these direct grants, NEA's Arts and Artifacts
    Indemnity program also allows museums to apply for Federal indemnity on
    major exhibitions, saving them roughly $30 million in insurance costs
    every year and making many more exhibitions available to the public--
    all at virtually no cost to the American taxpayer.
        The Smithsonian Institution comprises some of the most visited
    museums in the world, including the National Museum of American
    History, the National Air and Space Museum, and the National Museum of
    Natural History. The Smithsonian reaches visitors and learners of all
    ages, in the Nation's capital and across the country, with innovative
    exhibits and programs. Every year, its 20 museums--including the
    National Zoo--attract over 28 million in-person annual visitors. Its
    websites reach more than 100 million unique visitors, while its content
    and curriculums are used by teachers all over the country. The recently
    opened National Museum of African American History and Culture has
    captivated audiences from around the world, underscoring the power of
    our national museums to educate and inspire. We support funding that
    would allow these world-class museums to undertake critical collections
    care, make needed technology upgrades, conduct cutting edge research of
    every type, and increase access for all.
        The Historic Preservation Fund is the funding source of
    preservation awards to States, Tribes, local governments, and
    nonprofits. State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices carry out
    the historic preservation work of the Federal Government on State and
    Tribal lands. These duties include making nominations to the National
    Register of Historic Places, reviewing impacts of Federal projects,
    providing assistance to developers seeking a rehabilitation tax credit,
    working with local preservation commissions, and conducting
    preservation education and planning. This Federal-State-local
    foundation of America's historic preservation program was established
    by the National Historic Preservation Act. Historic preservation
    programs are not only essential to protecting our many heritages; they
    also serve as economic development engines and job creators. We urge
    you to provide $55 million for SHPOs and $15 million for THPOs through
    the Historic Preservation Fund.
        We enthusiastically applaud the subcommittee's fiscal year 2017
    restoration of funding for the Save America's Treasures program, and
    urge you to fully restore it to $30 million in fiscal year 2018. From
    1999 to 2010, Federal funding of $315 million for 1,287 Save America's
    Treasures projects leveraged an additional $400 million in non-Federal
    funds, and created more than 16,000 jobs nationwide. These projects
    protected some of America's most iconic and endangered artifacts,
    including Ansel Adams' prints and negatives, Frank Lloyd Wright
    structures including Fallingwater, and the American flag that inspired
    the Star Spangled Banner. We request $4.6 million for the Preserve
    America program, which has not been funded in recent years.
        We also applaud the subcommittee's fiscal year 2017 investment in
    competitive grants to preserve the sites and stories of the Civil
    Rights Movement. The initial round of grants for this initiative is
    currently helping museums and historic sites around the country
    conserve endangered structures, document stories, and share resources
    with the public. We support fiscal year 2018 funding of $28 million for
    these Civil Rights Movement grants.
        I want to once more acknowledge the difficult choices that the
    subcommittee faces. I hope that my testimony has made it clear why
    these priorities are of critical importance to the Nation and will
    provide a worthwhile return on investment to the American taxpayer.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this testimony.

        [This statement was submitted by Laura L. Lott, President and CEO.]
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the American Forest Foundation
        The 22 million family woodland owners in America and the lands they
    own, are an essential piece of the fabric of rural communities. These
    lands support hundreds of thousands of jobs, supply more than half of
    the wood for our forest products, and sustain our environment.
    America's family-owned woodlands, over one-third of the Nation's
    forested landscape, are critical to meeting the Nation's clean air and
    water, wildlife habitat, and wood supply needs today and in the future.
        The American Forest Foundation, a non-profit conservation
    organization, helps these family woodland owners manage their land to
    provide these benefits in rural communities across America. AFF also
    houses the American Tree Farm System, a national network of over
    70,000 landowners who manage their land to internationally-recognized
    standards of sustainability.
        Because America's forests are both public and privately owned in a
    patchwork across the rural landscape, strategies to grow jobs,
    strengthen rural economies, and protect forests from threats like
    wildfire must take a ``shared stewardship'' approach where both public
    and private landowners are working to manage forest resources.
        Because threats like wildfire do not exist solely on Federal land,
    in fact in the West, 30 percent of the high fire risk lands are
    private, family owned lands, tackling that problem, protecting lives,
    communities, and water supplies, requires active management of both
    public and private land. The same can be said for supplying wood. In
    any one given ``wood basket'' the mix of public and private ownership
    is different but sound management, including replanting after harvest,
    on both types of land is essential to keeping mills in operation and
    supplied with timber. Any number of other examples, like invasive
    forest pest outbreaks, source water protection or managing for at-risk
    wildlife, all require work on both public and private land as these
    issues do not heed property boundaries.
        All of these challenges--that require a shared stewardship
    approach--if not tackled, will have long-term consequences on rural
    economies and the Federal deficit. With 22 million people across
    America owning over one-third of America's forests in small, individual
    forest holdings, we cannot ignore these landowners if we're going to
    successfully tackle these challenges.
        While it's not the Federal government's role to manage private
    land, targeted assistance through programs like the Forest Stewardship
    Program, where a landowner is given information on how to manage their
    land, can have significant impact on the land and the public benefits
    produced. In fact, the National Association of State Foresters found
    that landowners with a forest stewardship plan are almost three times
    more likely to harvest timber. So by providing this small amount of
    advice landowners can be empowered to do better management that
    contributes to healthy forests and stronger rural economies that
    benefit public and private forest resources. Family woodland owners are
    not looking for a handout, they are just looking for this helping hand.
        AFF believes Congress can improve upon the President's fiscal year
    2018 Budget proposal by supporting this shared stewardship and ensuring
    sufficient resources for high priority public and private land
    strategies. AFF strongly believes that given the compelling Federal
    interest in forests and their sustainable management, Federal resources
    should be spent on the highest priority needs. We fully understand the
    tough budget climate. However, the almost sole focus on Federal land
    management in the proposed US Forest Service budget, paired with
    drastic cuts in funding for State and Private Forestry Programs in the
    US Forest Service that are essential to shared stewardship and tackling
    growing USFS problems like wildfire, will adversely impact the public
    benefits derived from all forests given the cross-boundary nature of
    the challenges and threats.
        The State and Private Forestry Programs offer a great return on
    investment. For every dollar invested in the State and Private Forestry
    Programs, particularly those that focus on rural lands, the states and
    private landowners invest states and private landowners put at least
    another dollar. In some programs, like the Landscape Scale Restoration
    Program, even more than match is leveraged. For very little tax payer
    money, every American is getting the benefit of the clean air and
    water, wildlife habitat, for forest products and the resulting jobs
    these lands produce. Investments through these programs are also
    leveraged by NRCS' roughly $80 million spent in forestry practices, the
    resulting synergy producing even larger impacts on rural economies and
    environments.
        We do believe a hard look at State and Private Forestry Programs,
    clearly identifying desired outcomes from these programs and targeting
    resources on outcomes will yield significant results. For example, AFF
    has identified, based on extensive assessments of private lands issues
    in the U.S., a need to focus on three key priorities: mitigating
    wildfire and protecting critical watersheds in the west, managing at-
    risk species populations in the South and East, and increasing
    sustainable wood supplies for growing market demand in the south.
    Programs like the Landscape Scale Restoration Program can support this
    approach, providing competitive funding to address high priority issues
    and fostering innovation that leads to improved outcomes and better
    support for landowners.
        There is an opportunity to increase efficiencies, streamline
    administration, and deliver better service in State and Private
    Forestry Programs, just like in many other areas across the Federal
    government. We stand ready to work with the Trump Administration and
    Congress to pursue these opportunities.
        With these views in mind, AFF recommends the following for 2018
    funding and program direction for the U.S. Forest Service to support
    shared stewardship of America's rural forests and the families,
    communities, and economies that rely on these forests:
      --Continue support for Hazardous Fuels at least at 2017 funding
            levels with direction to continue cross-boundary wildfire
            mitigation work, including allowing at least $15 million on
            non-Federal lands to maximize the benefits this program
            delivers.
      --Direct the USFS to work with states and other partners to better
            align State and Private Forestry Programs to deliver impact on
            key priorities and improve program efficiency while reducing
            administrative costs. To do this:
        --Forest Stewardship Program funding should at least be maintained
                at 2017 funding levels, and focused to deliver on key
                outcomes and national priorities.
        --Landscape Scale Restoration Program, established through the Farm
                Bill in 2008, should be continued and strengthened through
                mechanisms such as provided in the Klobuchar-Daines
                Empowering State Forestry legislation, (S. 962) to better
                deliver impact on key priorities.
      --Forest Health funding, which helps tackle insect and disease
            infestations on both public and private lands should at least
            be maintained. This funding helps address issues across the
            country from mountain pine beetle ravaging the West to the
            emerald ash borer consuming eastern ash trees.
      --We support $87 million for State Fire Assistance and $15 million
            for Volunteer Fire Assistance, to maintain the initial attack
            capabilities in states and local governments, helping on both
            public and private lands, and providing invaluable assistance
            to the Federal government in suppressing wildfires on Federal
            land.
      --Forest Inventory and Analysis Program should be funded at $83
            million, because both public and private land managers need the
            best information about our forests to manage them well.
      --Lastly, when it comes to leveraging public and private funding to
            grow rural forest economies, one of the best investments
            Congress can make is in the USFS Forest Products Laboratory.
            This Lab should be funded at $27 million, to leverage funds
            from private industry for research and development into new and
            improved uses of wood that supports local economies.
        We, at AFF, thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to provide
    some insight on these programs. If you have any questions, please
    contact Rita Hite at rhite@forestfoundation.org

        [This statement was submitted by Tom Martin, President & CEO.]
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of American Forests
        Dear Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Honorable
    Committee Members:

        American Forests appreciates the opportunity to submit public
    testimony regarding our fiscal year 2018 appropriation recommendations.
    We understand the continuing economic realities facing the Nation, and
    we thank this subcommittee for its support of key Federal conservation
    programs in Consolidated Appropriations Act of fiscal year 2017. Our
    Nation's forests yield a significant return on investment, whether
    those forests are public or private, in urban areas or in wildlands.
    The economic, social, and environmental benefits healthy forests
    provide are clear incentives for continued Federal investment. American
    Forests' funding recommendations are modestly above the fiscal year
    2017 enacted levels.
        Founded in 1875, American Forests is the oldest national nonprofit
    conservation organization in the United States. Its mission is to
    inspire and advance the conservation of forests. We do this by
    protecting and restoring threatened forest ecosystems, promoting and
    expanding urban forests, and increased the understanding of the
    importance of forests. American Forests has planted more than 50
    million trees in 1,000 forest restoration projects and works in cities
    across the country helping to increase urban forest canopy,
    demonstrating innovative greenspace creation.
        Respectfully, we ask you to reject the drastic cuts proposed in the
    President's fiscal year 2018 budget. We are deeply concerned by the
    zeroing out of important and effective programs like Urban and
    Community Forestry, Landscape Scale Restoration, Community Forests and
    Open Space Conservation, and Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration. Defunding or severely cutting these programs will have
    profound and lasting repercussions on people and communities across the
    country--particularly those in rural areas where these funds are
    essential.
                           usda forest service (usfs)
    State and Private Forestry
        Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF): U&CF plays an integral part in
    promoting sound stewardship of our Nation's urban and community forests
    and trees. By providing important technical and financial support, U&CF
    helps cities and towns across the Nation enhance tree and forest cover,
    prepare for storms and other disturbance events, contain threats from
    native and invasive pests, and maximize the economic, social, and
    ecological benefits of their tree resources. U&CF is a smart investment
    as Federal support is often leveraged 2:1 (or in many cases
    significantly more) by States and partner organizations. As a model
    Federal program, U&CF consistently increases communities served, brings
    together diverse partners and resources, and shows that Federal
    investment can have lasting impacts on communities of all sizes.
    American Forests recommends U&CF be funded at $31.3 million.
        Forest Stewardship Program (FSP): Administered in cooperation with
    State forestry agencies, this program plays a fundamental role in
    keeping forests as forests. A forest landowner with a forest
    stewardship plan is almost three times more likely to actively manage
    his or her land than one without a plan, leading to jobs and rural
    economic stimulus. American Forests is concerned by the $3 million cut
    to FSP in the fiscal year 17 Consolidated Appropriations Act. Often
    States are able to leverage multiple programs under Cooperative
    Forestry to enact landscape-scale forest management plans and
    restoration efforts. American Forests recommends funding for Forest
    Stewardship at $29 million.
        Landscape-Scale Restoration: The Landscape Scale Restoration
    program strategically prioritizes resources by competitively allocating
    the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act funds. It focuses on targeting
    Federal investments, leveraged by State funding resources, to areas of
    greatest need, highest value, or strongest innovation potential as
    stipulated in each State Forest Action Plan. American Forests
    recommends funding the Landscape Scale Restoration program at $23
    million.
        Community Forests and Open Space Conservation Program (CFP): CFP
    has made substantial progress in preserving forests by increasing
    opportunities for Americans to connect with forests in their own
    communities and fostering new public-private partnerships. In the
    latest round of CFP grants, project partners leveraged $10.6 million in
    Federal funds to secure $34.5 million in non-Federal funding, resulting
    in more than 15,000 acres of community forests. American Forests
    recommends an increase in funds to $5 million in fiscal year 2018.
        Forest Health Management: The Forest Health Management programs
    provide essential expertise and assistance to State and municipal
    agencies and private landowners in countering non-native pests.
    Municipal governments across the country are spending more than $3
    billion each year to remove trees on city property killed by these non-
    native pests. Homeowners are spending an additional $1 billion to
    remove and replace trees on their properties and are absorbing an
    additional $1.5 billion in reduced property values. American Forests
    asks that the Subcommittee appropriate $59 million for Federal lands
    and $48 million for cooperative lands.
        Forest Legacy Program: Since authorization in 1990, the Forest
    Legacy Program has protected 2.61 million acres of private forests
    through voluntary conservation easements. It is imperative to continue
    protecting our Nation's forests for future generations. Although still
    in private ownership, these lands provide a myriad of ecosystem
    services to Americans today. American Forests supports $62.35 million
    allocated through the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
    National Forest System
        Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP): CFLRP
    was created to promote job stability, a reliable wood supply, and
    forest health while reducing emergency wildfire costs and risks. This
    program is developing a successful track record and operating at a
    scale that demonstrates landscape impact. American Forests recommends
    the fiscal year 2017 enacted level of $40 million.
    Forest and Rangeland Research
        The USFS's Forest and Rangeland Research program is essential in
    providing support for urban and wildland forestry research activities.
    These focus on understanding conditions and trends in our Nation's
    urban and community forests and in providing tools and best management
    practices. Agency researchers help policymakers and practitioners to
    understand the environmental, economic, and social services that trees
    and forests provide. We urge the Subcommittee to continue including
    language in Interior Appropriations reports encouraging the Forest
    Service to maintain a strong and vibrant urban forest research program.
    American Forests requests Congress to provide funding for the Forest
    and Rangeland Research line item at $303 million with $83 million
    allocated to the Forest Inventory Analysis.
                        bureau of land management (blm)
        Public Domain Forest Management: The BLM is entrusted with the
    management of 58 million acres of forests and woodlands across 12
    western States, including Alaska. 14 million acres--or 24 percent--of
    BLM forests are overstocked, increasing insect and disease attacks and
    catastrophic wildfire. Increased funding to address these serious risks
    is necessary across all land management agencies. American Forests
    supports $10.08 million.
                        fish and wildlife service (fws)
        Ecological Services: Ecological Services achieves conservation of
    FWS trust resources, focusing on imperiled species, and works closely
    with external partners and agencies for the conservation of natural
    resources across the landscape. The Ecological Services Program
    facilitates implementation of the Endangered Species Act. American
    Forests supports $252.29 million for Ecological Services.
        National Wildlife Refuge System: The National Wildlife Refuge
    System, with 563 refuges covering more than 150 million acres across
    the country, is vital to protecting America's wildlife and ensuring
    that their habitats are a priority. Refuges are visited by 48.5 million
    people each year, contribute $4.5 billion to the economy, and support
    35,000 jobs. Investment in the Refuge system is an investment in our
    communities. With 101 refuges within 25 miles of major population
    centers, the Refuge System is a vital component of our urban forests,
    as well. American Forests supports $508.20 million with fiscal year
    2017 enacted level requested for urban wildlife refuges.
        State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program (STWG): Created in 2000,
    the STWGP provides grant funds to States and Tribes to develop and
    implement programs for the benefit of fish and wildlife and their
    habitats. The program is a proactive solution and important complement
    to the Endangered Species Act by supporting the creation and
    implementation of comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies or
    more commonly, State Wildlife Action Plans, to conserve declining
    wildlife and avoid the need for Federal listing. Actions must link to
    the plans which have helped conserve 1.9 million acres of habitat for
    species of greatest conservation need including 131,000 acres of
    habitat protected through land acquisition or conservation easements.
    American Forests supports $66.98 million for State and Tribal Wildlife
    Grants.
                             national park service
        Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program (ORLPP): The State
    and Local Assistance Program provides matching grants to States and
    localities for protection and development of parks and recreation
    resources and is the primary Federal investment tool to ensure that
    families have easy access to urban forests in parks and open space, and
    neighborhood recreation resources. This nationally competitive program
    complements the existing State and local assistance program by creating
    opportunities for outdoor play as well as developing or enhancing
    outdoor recreation partnerships in cities. American Forests supports
    the President's fiscal year 2017 request of $110 million for the State
    and local assistance program, which includes $12 million for ORLPP.
                     environmental protection agency (epa)
        Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF): Green infrastructure is a
    cost-effective and resilient approach to stormwater infrastructure
    needs that also provide many other community benefits. American Forests
    supports EPA's goal of strengthening green infrastructure activities to
    further its sustainability goals. American Forests request that not
    less than 20 percent the CWSRF funding be made available for green
    infrastructure or environmentally innovative projects that promote
    watershed protection, restoration and build community resilience.
                         legislative language requests
    Wildfire Suppression Funding
        America's forests and forest-dependent communities are at risk from
    outbreaks of pests and pathogens, persistent drought, and the buildup
    of hazardous fuels. Urbanization and development patterns are placing
    more homes and communities near fire-prone landscapes, leading to more
    destructive and costly wildfires. Unfortunately, the ten-year average
    has not been enough to meet the USFS suppression needs, forcing the
    agency to transfer millions of dollars from non-suppression accounts to
    make up for the shortfall. The current wildfire suppression funding
    model and cycle of transfers and repayments has negatively impacted the
    ability to implement forest management, among many other activities.
    Additionally, the increasing ten-year average has not met annual
    suppression needs since before fiscal year 2002, which is why we are
    thankful to the Committee for the full transfer repayment and increased
    suppression funding in fiscal year 2016. However, DOI and USFS need a
    long-term fire funding solution that would result in stable and
    predictable budgets each year.
        We appreciate the Committee's support of the bipartisan Wildfire
    Disaster Funding Act, which addresses Federal fire funding challenges
    as well as other bipartisan Congressional efforts in this regard. We
    respectfully request a bipartisan fire funding solution that would (1)
    access disaster funding, (2) minimize transfers, and (3) address the
    continued erosion of agency budgets over time, with the goal of
    reinvesting in key programs that proactively restore forests to
    healthier conditions.
    Land and Water Conservation Fund
        American Forests supports the permanent authorization of full and
    dedicated funding, without further appropriation or fiscal year
    limitation, for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). LWCF
    programs protect natural resource lands, outdoor recreation
    opportunities, and working forests at the local, State and Federal
    levels. This program ensures that these important lands are protected
    for current and future generations. American Forests supports permanent
    authorization of $900 million in mandatory funding for LWCF programs in
    the Departments of Interior and Agriculture.

        [This statement was submitted by Rebecca Turner, Senior Director of
    Programs and Policy.]
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the American Geophysical Union
        The American Geophysical Union (AGU), a non-profit, non-partisan
    scientific society, appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony
    regarding the fiscal year 2018 budget request for the United States
    Geological Survey (USGS). The AGU, on behalf of its 60,000 Earth and
    space scientist members, respectfully requests Congress to appropriate
    $1.2 billion for the USGS in fiscal year 2018. Restoring strong funding
    to USGS will allow the agency to sustain current programs and invest in
    geologic, environmental, and ecological data needed by decision makers
    across the country.
        The USGS is uniquely positioned to provide informed responses to
    many of the Nation's greatest challenges and has a mission that
    positively impacts the lives of all Americans. The Survey plays a
    crucial role in assessing water quality and quantity; reducing risks
    from natural hazards; providing emergency responders with live-saving
    data; assessing mineral and energy resources; and managing our Nation's
    ecosystems. Through its offices across the country, the USGS provides
    high-quality research and data to policymakers, emergency responders,
    natural resource managers, civil and environmental engineers,
    educators, and the public. A few examples of the USGS' valuable work
    are provided below.
                    monitoring and evaluating water quality
        The USGS collects information on water availability and quality to
    inform the public and decision makers about the status and history of
    freshwater resources. According to the American Society for
    Microbiology, up to 900,000 people fall ill and up to 900 die annually
    from waterborne infectious diseases in the U.S. alone. The data
    collected by USGS helps officials understand how to avoid, prepare for
    and mitigate water quality problems that affect communities around the
    country. During the past 130 years, the USGS has collected streamflow
    data at over 21,000 sites, water-level data at over 1,000,000 wells,
    and chemical data at over 338,000 surface-water and groundwater sites.
    This information is needed to effectively manage freshwaters--both
    above and below the land surface--for public health, agricultural,
    commercial, recreational, and ecological purposes.
                    predicting and observing natural hazards
        The USGS works to reduce risks from floods, wildfires, earthquakes,
    tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and other natural hazards
    that jeopardize human lives and cost billions of dollars in damages
    every year. Seismic networks and hazard analyses are used to formulate
    earthquake probabilities and to establish building codes. USGS monitors
    volcanoes and provides warnings about impending eruptions that are used
    by aviation officials to prevent planes from flying into volcanic ash
    clouds. Data from the USGS network of stream gauges enable the National
    Weather Service to issue flood and drought warnings. The USGS and its
    Federal partners monitor seasonal wildfires and provide maps of current
    fire locations and the potential spread of fires. In domestic and
    global events, emergency managers and public officials rely on USGS to
    inform them of risks and hazards posed to human and natural systems,
    saving millions of dollars and safeguarding American lives and
    property.
               mapping and assessing mineral and energy resources
        USGS assessments of mineral and energy resources--including rare
    earth elements, coal, oil, unconventional natural gas, and geothermal
    sources--are essential for making decisions about the Nation's energy
    future. The USGS identifies the location and quantity of domestic
    mineral and energy resources and assesses the economic and
    environmental effects of resource extraction and use. USGS also maps
    domestic supplies of rare earth elements to be used in new energy
    technologies, which can reduce dependence on foreign oil. The USGS is
    the sole Federal source of information on mineral potential,
    production, and consumption that are essential to support America's
    energy landscape now and in the future.
                     collecting and assessing land use data
        Research and data collected by the USGS are vital to predicting the
    impacts of land use and climate change on water resources, wildfires,
    and ecosystems. For 44 straight years, Landsat satellites have
    collected the largest archive of remotely sensed land data in the
    world, allowing for access to current and historical images that
    provide insights relevant for global agricultural production and for
    understanding the impact of natural disasters on communities and the
    environment. A 2013 National Research Council study found that the
    economic benefit of Landsat data was estimated to be $2 billion for
    2011 alone. The consistency of data sets like those provided by Landsat
    is vital for advances in science, more efficient natural resource
    management, and profitable applications of data in commerce and
    industry.
                developing and providing mapping for the nation
        The USGS utilizes unique technologies that enable the collection of
    accurate nationwide terrain information. This information improves our
    knowledge of water supply and quality issues; better prepares emergency
    responders for natural disasters; and provides businesses with more
    accurate data. Modernized, high-resolution topographic maps are
    provided by the USGS through their 3D Elevation Program (3DEP). 3DEP
    leverages funds from the private sector and other Federal agencies,
    providing open-access elevation data for a wide variety of users. From
    better flood-inundation maps, to cost-effective precision farming, to
    the development of renewable energy projects, 3DEP data supports
    cutting edge resource management and energy projects.
                    maintaining and evaluating public health
        The USGS helps to maintain public health at the local, State, and
    national level. By monitoring changes in ecosystem and environmental
    health, the Survey can evaluate human susceptibility to contaminants,
    pathogens, and environmental disease. This unique perspective into the
    intersection between the physical environment, living environment, and
    humans allows the USGS to provide valuable insights regarding public
    health concerns. For example, the agency assesses negative health
    effects caused by the dispersion of contaminants after natural and man-
    made disasters, such as hurricanes and oil spills. In one such
    instance, after Hurricane Sandy, the USGS provided soil, water, and
    sediment information to public health agencies to help them protect
    citizens from toxic contaminants.
                   engaging the next generation of scientists
        The USGS meets monthly with other Department of Interior (DOI)
    bureaus to collaborate on projects that will engage the next generation
    of scientists. Collectively, the DOI is actively working to provide at
    least 10 million students with educational, work, and training
    opportunities. In 2015, the USGS offered learning opportunities to over
    100,000 students and teachers in activities such as science fairs,
    mentoring opportunities, camps, and hands-on learning experiences.
    Programs such as the USGS's Cooperative Research Units (CRU) provide
    under-represented undergraduate students with mentoring and hands-on
    experiences designed as a pathway to DOI recruitment.
                                   conclusion
        AGU was pleased to see that the USGS received a 2 percent funding
    increase in the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus Appropriations Bill.
    Nevertheless, the agency has been historically strained by a large
    workload and too few resources. As the Nation faces unprecedented
    challenges, such as demand for limited energy, vulnerability to natural
    hazards, and the need for clean water, a substantial funding increase
    for USGS will allow the agency to maximize support for the Nation's
    environmental, economic, and national security.
        AGU respectfully requests that Congress appropriate $1.2 billion
    for USGS in fiscal year 2018. We appreciate the opportunity to submit
    this testimony to the subcommittee and thank you for your thoughtful
    consideration of our request.

        [This statement was submitted by Carissa Bunge, Public Affairs
    Specialist.]
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the American Geosciences Institute
        Thank you for this opportunity to provide the American Geosciences
    Institute's perspective on fiscal year 2018 appropriations for
    geoscience programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. We ask the
    subcommittee to support and sustain critical geoscience functions at
    the United States Geological Survey (USGS), and related work at other
    agencies and bureaus.
        Specifically, we ask that you support funding of $1.2 billion for
    USGS. AGI also suggests $175 million for Energy and Minerals Management
    at the Bureau of Land Management; $75 million for the Bureau of Ocean
    Energy Management; $83 million for the Bureau of Safety and
    Environmental Enforcement; $8.1 billion for the Environmental
    Protection Agency; $863 million for the Smithsonian Institution; and
    $2.95 billion for the National Park Service.
        The Earth provides the energy, mineral, water, and soil resources
    that are essential for a thriving, innovative economy, national
    security, and a healthy population and environment. We must understand
    the Earth system, and particularly the geological characteristics of
    Earth's surface and subsurface, in order to sustain human health and
    safety, maintain energy and water supplies, and improve the quality of
    the environment while reducing risks from natural hazards.
        AGI is a nonprofit federation of 51 geoscientific and professional
    associations that represent approximately 250,000 geologists,
    geophysicists, and other Earth scientists who work in industry,
    academia, and government. Founded in 1948, AGI provides information
    services to geoscientists, serves as a voice of shared interests in our
    profession, plays a major role in strengthening geoscience education,
    and strives to increase public awareness of the vital role the
    geosciences play in society's use of resources, resilience to natural
    hazards, and the health of the environment.
                 importance of understanding earth's subsurface
        The next great frontier lies under our feet. We know relatively
    little about the 2 miles of the Earth's crust immediately below the
    surface even though we rely on it for many of our energy, mineral, and
    water supplies; we use it as a disposal site for a variety of waste
    products; and it is the source of damaging earthquake and volcanic
    hazards. Scientific and technological innovations now equip us to
    identify the wealth that may lie in the shallow subsurface and to avoid
    destabilizing or contaminating the Earth's crust. By collaborating
    together, Federal agencies with expertise in the subsurface can help
    usher in a new era of understanding and wise development of the Earth
    and its resources.
        The U.S. Geological Survey has primary responsibility for examining
    the geological structure of the national domain. The Geoscience
    Directorate at the National Science Foundation funds basic geoscience
    research. State geological surveys play a vital role in geological
    mapping. NASA and NOAA provide important remote sensing and Earth
    monitoring data. The Department of Energy is already coordinating its
    own subsurface activities through the SubTER cross-cut.
        We respectfully suggest that the time has come for a coordinated
    national effort to examine and characterize the shallow subsurface of
    the country. Federal agencies should work together to combine
    fundamental science with advanced technologies to create a publicly
    available, national-scale, characterization of the shallow subsurface
    that would be the basis for private-sector investment and informed
    decisionmaking in both the private and public sectors. This budget can
    lay the scientific, technological, and administrative foundations to
    explore the next frontier.
                             u.s. geological survey
        AGI supports $1.2 billion for USGS to support the agency's
    scientific mission. We recommend a balanced portfolio of research,
    monitoring, and assessment, including geologic mapping and geophysical
    surveys, that supports smart use of the Nation's energy, mineral,
    water, and land resources.
        Importance of Geoscience Functions at USGS: The need for geological
    information has not diminished since USGS was established in 1879. On
    the contrary, as we place increasing demands on Earth's system, many
    critical decisions rely upon geoscience information. The USGS has a
    wide-ranging mission to provide objective maps, data, observations,
    analyses, assessments, and scientific solutions to support
    decisionmaking. While there is merit to USGS's broad remit, its unique
    geological mission should be paramount.
        Optimizing USGS facilities: Some USGS facilities are in extremely
    bad condition, others do not meet current requirements. AGI supports
    additional fiscal year 2018 funding for USGS Facilities to maintain
    essential monitoring, observation, and analytical instrumentation, and
    to consolidate facilities to best serve the agency's mission. Investing
    in USGS infrastructure now will increase efficiency and yield
    considerable savings in the coming years.
                              core science systems
      --National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP): This
            important, decades-long partnership between the USGS, State
            geological surveys, and universities has a proven track record
            of delivering cost-effective geological maps. AGI asks that
            Congress increase funding for the National Cooperative Geologic
            Mapping Program to $30 million in fiscal year 2018 to meet
            growing demand from many sectors for geologic maps.
      --National Geospatial Program: Topographic mapping has been a core
            activity at USGS since its inception. AGI strongly supports the
            3D Nation interagency partnership to build a modern elevation
            map of the Nation's territories and urges Congress to support
            USGS's contribution, the 3DEP (3D Elevation) program. AGI
            strongly supports investment in lidar and ifsar mapping, and
            requests $69 million for the National Geospatial Program.
      --Data Preservation: The National Geological and Geophysical Data
            Preservation Program (NGGDPP) produces more value in terms of
            economic, environmental, hazard mitigation, and regulatory
            efficiency than it costs to run. AGI urges Congress to
            reauthorize NGGDPP and to fund it at the previously authorized
            level of $3 million.
                          energy and mineral resources
      --Mineral Resources Program: We are concerned at the dearth of
            investment in identifying and characterizing domestic mineral
            resources, which can play a vital role in the security of our
            national supply chains. USGS minerals and mapping programs
            provide the baseline geologic information needed to stimulate
            and target renewed interest in domestic mineral resources.
            Funding these programs will support national defense and
            economic priorities.
              The National Minerals Information Center (NMIC) continues to
            provide financially and strategically vital information on the
            global supply of, demand for, and flow of minerals and mineral
            materials. We are impressed by the increase in timely analyses,
            in addition to the regular collection and dissemination of
            accurate data, generated by NMIC. AGI supports increased
            funding of $60 million for the Mineral Resources Program.
      --Energy Resources Program: AGI supports increased funding for the
            Energy Resources Program. We note the importance of research on
            gas hydrates, which may play a significant role in future
            energy and climate scenarios. AGI supports funding of $25
            million for the Energy Resources Program.
                                land use change
      --Land Remote Sensing Program: One of the most fundamental concepts
            in the geosciences is that the Earth changes through time. It
            is impossible to overstate the importance of long-term,
            consistent monitoring of the Earth to provide a sound basis for
            decisionmaking. AGI supports $97 million for Land Use Change,
            which includes Landsat and other Earth observing systems.
                                water resources
      --Drought and challenges in water supplies and water quality
            highlight the importance of understanding the quality,
            quantity, and distribution of our groundwater and surface water
            resources. AGI urges Congress to ensure the continuity and
            expansion of nationwide, long-term data collection and research
            programs that support water planning and decisionmaking across
            all States, and to fund Water Resources at $215 million for
            fiscal year 2018.
                                natural hazards
      --Natural hazards can cause substantial damage throughout the Nation
            but, with the right information, communities can take action to
            avoid and mitigate potential harm. USGS landslide, earthquake,
            volcano programs, plus the agency's work on geomagnetism and
            coastal and marine geology, strengthen our national resilience
            and save our communities and citizens from harm. AGI supports
            robust funding of the Natural Hazards Program and urges
            Congress to appropriate $145 million to this Mission Area.
                           bureau of land management
        AGI supports efforts by the Energy and Minerals Management program
    to modernize its data systems and administrative processes. BLM needs
    staff with appropriate skills to carry out energy and minerals
    inspections, data collection and analysis, and administration. AGI
    supports funding BLM's Energy and Minerals activities at $175 million
    and we urge investment in BLM's workforce to ensure efficient technical
    and administrative service.
          bureau of ocean energy management and bureau of safety and
                           environmental enforcement
        In order to administer and oversee offshore energy development
    effectively and efficiently, BOEM and BSEE need sufficient, skilled
    staff. AGI recommends continued investment in workforce development to
    avoid delays in the functions of both bureaus. AGI supports $75 million
    in Federal funds for BOEM, and $83 million for BSEE.
                        environmental protection agency
        We respectfully request Congress to consider the value of many EPA
    science programs, especially their value to States, Tribes, extramural
    partners, and grant recipients, when making budget decisions. EPA
    provides many benefits to the Nation, we request funding of $8.1
    billion for the agency.
                            smithsonian institution
        The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) plays a
    dual role in communicating the excitement of the geosciences to the
    public and enhancing knowledge through research and the preservation
    and sharing of geoscience collections. AGI supports funding of $863
    million for the Smithsonian Institution, with $49.2 million for the
    NMNH.
                             national park service
        National parks are unique national treasures that showcase the
    geologic splendor of our country and offer unparalleled opportunities
    for research, education, and outdoor activities. AGI supports $2.95
    billion for the National Park Service and we note its important role in
    educating students and the public about all aspects of Earth and human
    history.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to the
    Subcommittee. If you would like additional information for the record,
    please contact Maeve Boland at mboland@agiweb.org, or 4220 King Street,
    Alexandria VA 22302-1502.

        [This statement was submitted by Allyson K. Anderson Book,
    Executive Director.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
                               i. request summary
        On behalf of the Nation's Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs),
    which collectively are the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
    (AIHEC), thank you for this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2018
    (fiscal year 2018) appropriations recommendations for the 29 colleges
    funded under Titles I and II of the Tribally Controlled Colleges and
    Universities Assistance Act (Tribal College Act); the two tribally
    chartered career and technical postsecondary institutions (Title V/
    Tribal College Act); the two Bureau of Indian Education postsecondary
    institutions; and the Institute of American Indian Arts (IAIA). The
    Bureau of Indian Education administers each of these programs, with the
    exception of IAIA, which is congressionally chartered and funded in its
    own account.
        In fiscal year 2018, TCUs request:
      --$80,220,000 to fund institutional operations under Titles I and II,
            and technical assistance authorized in the Tribally Controlled
            Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of 1978, or Tribal
            College Act, which would fund 27 TCUs at the authorized level
            for the first time in 37 years and provide an additional
            $100,000, for a total of $701,000 for increasingly needed
            technical assistance. It is worth noting that the technical
            assistance program has been level funded for 12 years;
      --Without the budget tables, which are not available at this writing,
            we cannot confirm a potential cut to Title V of the Tribally
            Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act that
            provides partial institutional operations funding for Navajo
            Technical University (NTU) and United Tribes Technical College
            (UTTC). The career and technical programs offered by these
            colleges afford students a solid chance at not just a job, but
            a career. Cuts to their basic operating budgets will likely
            cause them to significantly scale back programs that cost the
            most to offer--such as engineering, information technology,
            digital manufacturing, and veterinary technology--but that
            provide the highest career potential and benefits. We request
            that any proposed cut to this grant program be rejected and
            that the Nation's two tribally chartered postsecondary career
            and technical institutions be appropriated $10,000,000;
      --$9,948,000 for the Institute of American Indian Arts;
      --Reject the President's budget recommendation to cut $7,000,000 from
            Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU) and Southwestern
            Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI), the Bureau of Indian
            Education's two postsecondary institutions and fund HINU/SIPI
            at a minimum of $23,000,000. The request to make such a deep
            funding cut to the BIE's two postsecondary institutions, if
            enacted, would yield devastating results and could lead to the
            closing of these institutions that are vital to the
            postsecondary education goals of many American Indian and
            Alaska Native students.
      --Lastly, each year the Bureau of Indian Education provides $60
            million to K-12 institutions under its purview for professional
            development training and activities. We request that Congress
            instruct the BIE to prioritize the Nation's TCUs as providers
            of professional development to these elementary and secondary
            schools that educate a large proportion of American Indians and
            Alaska Natives. TCUs are ideally situated to offer high
            quality, culturally relevant professional development
            opportunities as they are place-based institutions that are
            acutely aware of the needs of Native students.
        Other than HINU, SIPI, and IAIA, TCUs are founded and chartered by
    their respective American Indian Tribes, which hold a special legal
    relationship with the Federal Government, actualized by more than 400
    treaties, several Supreme Court decisions, prior congressional action,
    and the ceding of more than one billion acres of land to the Federal
    Government. Despite the trust responsibility and treaty obligations,
    the TCUs' primary source of basic operating funds has never been
    adequately funded. Further, our member institutions--already operating
    on marginal budgets--have suffered the ramifications of perennial
    across-the-board cuts, including sequestration.
                ii. opportunity and innovation in indian country
        Tribal Colleges and Universities are an essential component of
    American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) education. Currently, 37 TCUs
    operate more than 75 campuses and sites in 16 States, within whose
    geographic boundaries 80 percent of all American Indian reservations
    and Federal Indian trust land lie. They serve students from well over
    250 federally recognized Tribes, more than 85 percent of whom receive
    Federal financial aid--primarily Pell grants. In total, the TCUs
    annually serve 160,000 AI/ANs and other community members through a
    wide variety of academic and community-based programs. TCUs are public
    institutions accredited by independent, regional accreditation agencies
    and, like all U.S. institutions of higher education, must regularly
    undergo stringent performance reviews to retain their accreditation
    status. Each TCU is committed to improving the lives of its students
    through higher education and to moving AI/ANs toward self-sufficiency.
    To do this, TCUs serve many roles in their reservation communities,
    functioning as workforce and job creation engines, community centers,
    public libraries, Tribal archives, entrepreneurial, small business, and
    career centers, computer labs, summer camps, community farms and
    gardens, economic development centers, applied research hubs, child and
    elder care centers, and more.
        The Federal Government, despite its direct trust responsibility and
    binding treaty obligations, has never fully funded TCU institutional
    operations as authorized under the Tribally Controlled Colleges and
    Universities Assistance Act of 1978. Yet despite funding challenges,
    TCUs are leading the Nation in preparing an AI/AN workforce, including
    nurses, land managers, and teachers for our Native schools. For
    example, half of all AI/AN special education teachers in Montana are
    graduates of one college: Salish Kootenai College. TCUs prepare other
    professionals in high-demand fields, including agriculture and natural
    resources management, human services, IT, and building tradesmen. By
    teaching the job skills most in demand on our reservations, TCUs are
    laying a solid foundation for Tribal economic growth, which is the only
    way to move Tribes and Tribal members to self-sufficiency. But
    workforce development is not enough. TCU leadership understands that we
    must do more to accelerate the move to self-sufficiency--we must move
    beyond simple workforce training. Today, TCUs are tackling the
    tougher--but much more significant--issue of job creation, because we
    know that to break the cycle of generational poverty and end the
    culture of dependency that grips so much of Indian Country, simply
    filling jobs that would be filled anyway is not enough. We must create
    new industries, new businesses, and build a culture of innovation. Our
    job creation initiative is focusing initially on advanced
    manufacturing, through a partnership with the U.S. Department of
    Energy, National Laboratories, TCUs, and industry. Already, we are
    seeing results with new TCU-Tribal-industry partnerships, new
    contracting opportunities, and new jobs for our students and graduates.
        Tribal Colleges continually seek to instill a sense of hope and
    identity within Native youth, who one day will lead our Tribal nations.
    Unacceptably, the high school drop-out rate for Native students remains
    around 50 percent. To help address this alarming reality, TCUs
    partnered with the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian
    Education to help create a durable ``college-going culture'' in BIE
    middle and high schools. TCUs are reaching back to create a bridge for
    Indian students as early as the elementary school, encouraging them to
    abandon any notion of dropping out of high school and instead, to think
    that the natural course is to finish high school and go on to the local
    TCU. In addition, TCUs offer dual credit courses for high school
    students, provide math teachers for local high schools as a strategy
    for improving course delivery, host Saturday academies, after school
    programs and summer camps for middle and high school students, and at
    the other end of the spectrum, offer GED or HiSET training and testing,
    depending on their location. All are solid steps to bolster the
    prospects for future of Native youth and breaking the cycle of
    generational poverty.
        As noted earlier, the TCUs' operations funding remains
    insufficient, and their budgets are further disadvantaged, because
    unlike other institutions of higher education, TCUs receive operations
    funding based on the number of Indian students served, with ``Indian
    student'' defined as a member of a federally recognized Tribe or a
    biological child of enrolled Tribal members. Yet, approximately 15
    percent of the TCUs' collective enrollments are non-Indian students.
    While many TCUs do seek operating funds from their respective State
    legislatures for their non-Indian, State-resident students (also
    referred to as ``non-beneficiary'' students) successes have been, at
    best, inconsistent. Given their locations, often hundreds of miles from
    another postsecondary institution, TCUs are open to all students,
    Indian and non-Indian, believing that education in general, and
    postsecondary education in particular, is a catalyst to a better
    economic future in remote areas.
                     iii. solid investment of federal funds
        In August 2015, an economic impact study on the TCUs, conducted by
    Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI), revealed that the
    known TCU alumni impact is $2.3 billion, which supports 28,778 jobs in
    the Nation. From a taxpayer's perspective, the study concluded that the
    total monetary benefits to taxpayers compared to their costs (equal to
    the Federal funds the TCUs received during the analysis year) yield a
    2.4 benefit-cost ratio. In other words, for every Federal dollar
    invested in the TCUs, the taxpayers receive a cumulative value of
    $2.40. The average annual rate of return is 6.2 percent, a solid rate
    of return that compares favorably with other long-term investments. On
    an individual basis, TCU students see an annual return of investment of
    16.6 percent, and the vast majority of TCU-trained workers remains in
    Indian Country and contributes to the local economy. TCUs benefit
    taxpayers through increased tax receipts and reduced demand for Federal
    social services; a win all-around.
                iv. challenges: tax base & gaming misconceptions
        Local Tax and Revenue Base: TCUs cannot rely on a local tax base
    for revenue. Although Tribes have the sovereign authority to tax, high
    reservation poverty rates, the trust status of reservation lands, and
    the lack of strong reservation economies hinder the creation of a
    reservation tax base. As noted earlier, on Indian reservations that are
    home to TCUs, the unemployment rate can well exceed 70 percent. By
    contrast, the national unemployment rate is currently 4.5 percent.
        Gaming and the TCUs: Although several of the reservations served by
    TCUs have gaming operations, they are not the mega-casinos located in
    urban areas and featured in the broad-based media. Only a handful of
    TCUs receive regular income from the chartering Tribe's gaming revenue,
    and the amounts received can vary greatly from year to year. Most
    reservation casinos are small businesses that use their gaming revenue
    to improve the local standard of living and potentially diversify into
    other, more sustainable areas of economic development. In the interim,
    where relevant, local TCUs offer courses in casino management and
    hospitality services to formally train Tribal members to work in their
    local tribally run casinos.
        Some form of gaming is legalized in 48 States, but the Federal
    Government has not used the revenues generated from State gaming as a
    justification to decrease Federal funding to other public colleges or
    universities in those States. Some have suggested that those Tribes
    that operate the handful of extremely successful and widely publicized
    casinos located in or near urban areas, should be financing higher
    education for all American Indians. And yet, no State is expected to
    share its gaming revenue with a less successful or non-gaming State.
                 v. appropriations request for fiscal year 2018
        As noted earlier, it has been more than 35 years since the Tribal
    College Act was first funded, and the TCUs have yet to receive the
    congressionally authorized per Indian student funding level. Full
    funding for the TCUs' institutional operating grants under Titles I and
    II in fiscal year 2018 would require only a modest increase of
    approximately $10.4 million over the fiscal year 2017 appropriated
    level. These TCUs that educate the vast majority of TCU-attending
    students and serve some of the largest Indian Tribes in the Nation,
    have been level-funded since fiscal year 2014. Since that time, the
    College of the Muscogee Nation in Okmulgee, Oklahoma became eligible
    for funding under Title I of the Tribal College Act, and several more
    could potentially gain eligibility in the next few years.
                                 vi. conclusion
        AIHEC Member institutions/Tribal Colleges and Universities provide
    quality higher education to thousands of American Indians and other
    reservation residents, as well as essential community programs and
    services to those who might otherwise not have access to such
    opportunities. The modest Federal investment that has been made in TCUs
    has paid great dividends in terms of employment, education, economic
    development and has significantly reduced social, healthcare, and law
    enforcement costs. Continuation of this investment makes sound moral
    and fiscal sense.
        We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's past and continued support
    of the Nation's Tribal Colleges and Universities and your thoughtful
    consideration of our fiscal year 2018 appropriations requests.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
        The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) appreciates
    the opportunity to provide testimony in support of appropriations for
    the United States Geological Survey (USGS), United States Forest
    Service (USFS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), United States
    Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Smithsonian Institution for
    fiscal year 2018. We encourage Congress to provide the USGS with $1.2
    billion in fiscal year 2018 and $173.9 million for the Ecosystems
    mission area. We further request that Congress provide the USFS Forest
    and Rangeland Research program with at least $296.0 million and EPA
    Science and Technology with at least $715 million. We also request the
    restoration of funding for Science Support in USFWS to the fiscal year
    2017 enacted level of $17.0 million. Lastly, we support $729.4 million
    for Smithsonian salaries and expenses, the same as in fiscal year 2017.
        The AIBS is a nonprofit scientific association dedicated to
    advancing informed decisionmaking that advances biological research and
    education for the benefit of science and society. AIBS works to ensure
    that the public, legislators, funders, and the community of biologists
    have access to and use information that will guide them in making
    informed decisions about matters that require biological knowledge.
    Founded in 1947 as a part of the National Academy of Sciences, AIBS
    became an independent, member-governed organization in the 1950s.
    Today, AIBS has individual members and more than 130 member
    organizations with a combined individual membership and staff of more
    than 200,000.
                             u.s. geological survey
        The USGS provides unbiased, independent research, data, and
    assessments that are needed by public and private sector decision-
    makers. Data generated by the USGS save taxpayers money by enabling
    more effective management of water and biological resources, and
    providing essential geospatial information that is needed for
    commercial activity and natural resource management. The data collected
    by the USGS are not available from other sources and our Nation cannot
    afford to sacrifice this information.
        The Ecosystems activity within USGS underpins the agency's other
    science mission areas by conducting the research required to understand
    the impacts of water use, energy exploration and production, and
    natural hazards on natural systems. The USGS conducts research on and
    monitoring of fish, wildlife, and vegetation--data that informs
    management decisions by other Interior bureaus regarding protected
    species and land use.
        Biological science programs within the USGS gather long-term data
    not available from other sources. The knowledge generated by USGS is
    used by Federal and State natural resource managers to maintain healthy
    and diverse ecosystems while balancing the needs of public use.

        Examples of successful USGS Ecosystem initiatives include:

      --Development of comprehensive geospatial data products that
            characterize the risk of wildfires on all lands in the United
            States. These products are used to allocate firefighting
            resources and to plan wildfire fuel reduction projects.
      --Identification and evaluation of control measures for Asian carp,
            sea lamprey, Burmese pythons, and other invasive species that
            cause billions of dollars in economic losses annually.
      --New insights on the spread of avian flu, chronic wasting disease,
            and other diseases spread by wildlife in North America.

        The President's fiscal year 2018 budget request would cut the
    Ecosystems mission by 17 percent relative to the fiscal year 2017
    enacted level. Simply put, there is no way the agency can absorb these
    cuts without negatively affecting research and jeopardizing data
    quality. As a science agency, much of the USGS budget is dedicated to
    staff as well as equipment and facilities that must be maintained and
    updated to ensure the continuity of data acquisition and that the data
    gathered are reliable and available for future scientific
    investigations. The leadership of the USGS is doing all they can, and
    has been for a number of years, to contain costs while continuing to
    deliver high quality science.

        Among the proposed reductions are:

      --Elimination of curation of and research on biological collections
            at the Smithsonian Institution. USGS has more than a million
            specimens of birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles that are
            housed at the Smithsonian. This arrangement goes back to 1889.
      --Elimination of research on the ecological effects of fracking.
            Research by the USGS on this topic compliments research
            conducted by EPA on water quality issues associated with
            fracking. This information is vital to Federal and State
            management of energy development.
      --Reduce wildlife and fisheries research. USGS conducts this research
            for the benefit of Federal and State stakeholders. Without
            these research programs, USFWS, the National Park Service, and
            other Interior bureaus will not have the scientific information
            needed to fulfill their agency missions to manage wildlife, as
            these agencies do not have the scientific capacity of the USGS.
      --Reduced research on ecosystems of concern. This research is a
            critical component of efforts to restore important national
            treasures, such as the Everglades and the Chesapeake Bay. The
            Arctic ecosystem research and monitoring program addresses the
            needs of Native communities, and also promotes public health
            throughout the US through monitoring avian flu.

        Although we are pleased that the Invasive Species Program and
    Cooperative Research Units were spared from cuts in the
    administration's request, we urge Congress to reject the deep cuts to
    other parts of the Ecosystems mission area.
                              u.s. forest service
        USFS research provides scientific information and new technologies
    to support sustainable management of the Nation's forests and
    rangelands. These products and services increase the basic biological
    and physical knowledge of the composition, structure, and function of
    forest, rangeland, and aquatic ecosystems. This research also saves
    lives and prevents property damage from wildfires.
        Forest and Rangeland Research is proposed for a 10.2 percent cut in
    the fiscal year 2018 budget request. Because the administration's
    request specifies that forest inventory and analysis be held at the
    fiscal year 2017 enacted level, the remaining six research areas would
    be subject to a collective 14 percent cut. This would negatively impact
    research on wildfires, invasive species, and forest management, and
    will have negative consequences for Americans' safety, health, and
    enjoyment of public forests.
        We ask Congress to fund the Forest and Rangeland Research program
    at $296.0 million, the same amount as in fiscal year 2015. Continued
    cuts to research will hinder the USFS's ability to fulfill its mission
    to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's
    forests and grasslands.
                        environmental protection agency
        Funding for EPA Science and Technology supports valuable research
    that is used to identify and mitigate environmental problems facing our
    Nation. EPA research informs decisions made by public health and safety
    managers, natural resource managers, businesses, and other stakeholders
    concerned about air and water pollution, human health, and land
    management and restoration. In short, this program provides the
    scientific basis upon which EPA monitoring and enforcement programs are
    built.
        Despite the important role of the Science and Technology
    appropriation, the proposed funding level for fiscal year 2018 is
    roughly half of what the program received in fiscal year 2002. The EPA
    Science Advisory Board has expressed concern repeatedly about the long-
    term decline in research funding at EPA. ``These limitations pose a
    vulnerability for EPA at a time when the agency faces significant
    science questions with long-term implications for protecting the
    environment and public health.''
        We are especially concerned to see the proposed eliminations of the
    Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Research Grants and climate change
    research. These programs are important parts of the Federal
    government's ability to ensure clean air and water for its citizens.
        We ask Congress to fund the program at $715.0 million in fiscal
    year 2018.
                         u.s. fish and wildlife service
        The President's budget request would eliminate the Science Support
    program within USFWS. This program provides scientific information
    needed by USFWS, such as research on conservation of priority species
    prior to Endangered Species Act listing, on the impacts of energy
    production on wildlife, and best management practices for combating
    invasive species. For this program to be eliminated in conjunction with
    significant reductions in USGS biological research would mean that
    USFWS will have very little scientific information available as it
    tries to fulfill its mission to conserve, protect, and enhance the
    living resources of the United States for the benefit of the American
    people.
                            smithsonian institution
        The Smithsonian Institution is a valuable Federal partner in the
    curation and research on scientific specimens. The scientific experts
    at the National Museum of Natural History care for an astounding 140
    million specimens and ensure the strategic growth of this national
    treasure. To increase the availability of these scientific resources to
    researchers, educators, other Federal agencies, and the public,
    Smithsonian is working on a multi-year effort to digitize its
    collections. That effort will substantially increase the scientific
    uses of these collections.
        The Smithsonian has also been working to strengthen curatorial and
    research staffing and to backfill positions left open by retirements
    and budget constraints. The current staffing level is insufficient to
    provide optimal care for the collections. Future curatorial and
    collections management staffing levels may be further jeopardized given
    the proposed funding cuts at science agencies that support staff
    positions embedded at Smithsonian, such as the U.S. Geological Survey.
                                   conclusion
        We urge Congress to reject the administration's budget request for
    fiscal year 2018 and to continue the bipartisan tradition of investing
    in our Nation's scientific capacity.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request.

        [This statement was submitted by Julie Palakovich Carr, Public
    Policy Manager, and Robert Gropp, Ph.D., Co-Executive Director.]
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Americans for the Arts
        Americans for the Arts is the leading nonprofit organization for
    advancing the arts and arts education in America. With offices in
    Washington, DC and New York City, we have more than 55 years of service
    and are dedicated to representing and serving local communities, and
    creating opportunities for every American to participate in and
    appreciate all forms of the arts.
        I am pleased to submit written testimony supporting Federal funding
    for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at the level of $155
    million for fiscal year 2018. Thank you to Chairman Murkowski, Ranking
    Member Udall, and members for the opportunity to provide public comment
    on the budget request for the NEA, on behalf of arts and culture across
    the country.
        I am deeply troubled by the Trump administration's proposed fiscal
    year 2018 budget calling for the elimination of the NEA. President
    Trump is the first and only American president who has made such a
    recommendation. Our nation's parents, teachers, community leaders, arts
    advocates, government officials, and even economists will not accept
    this proposal. For more than 50 years, the NEA has expanded access to
    the arts for all Americans, awarding grants in every congressional
    district throughout all 50 States and U.S. territories, as well as
    placing arts therapists in military hospitals to help returning
    military heroes heal from physical and traumatic brain injuries.
    Republican and Democratic leaders alike deeply value the work of the
    NEA.
        The administration's budget proposal shows a lack of understanding
    of the important role that the NEA plays in America today. With only a
    $150 million annual appropriation, the NEA's investment in every
    congressional district in the country contributes to a $730 billion
    arts and culture industry in America, according to the U.S. Bureau of
    Economic Analysis at the U.S. Department of Commerce, representing 4.2
    percent of the annual U.S. GDP. This arts and culture industry supports
    4.8 million jobs and yields a $26 billion trade surplus for our
    country.
        Beyond those numbers, the NEA work is critical to America's future,
    generating substantial economic, educational, and direct community
    impact. In fiscal year 2016, NEA grants resulted in $500 million in
    matching support. These are additional dollars investing in projects,
    services, and programming, like access to arts education, teacher
    training, and preservation of historic artifacts.
        In total, throughout its 50 years, the NEA has made over 147,000
    grants totaling more than $5 billion dollars, leveraging up to ten
    times that amount through private philanthropies and local
    municipalities.
        By law, 40 percent of both the NEA's grantmaking budget goes
    directly to States. States make the decisions on where these dollars go
    in their States.
        This cost? Approximately 0.004 percent of the Federal budget.

        Here are some outcomes if the cultural agencies were terminated:

      --States would lose funding. There would be the immediate, direct
            loss, but also the leveraging loss. In Alabama, for example,
            the Alabama State Council on the Arts receives about $775,000
            from the NEA annually. From that $775,000 that the NEA gives,
            the Alabama State Council on the Arts can typically leverage
            another $4.6 million in donations that wouldn't otherwise
            occur.
      --National initiatives would end. Just to highlight a few:
        --Creative Forces: Since 2011, the military healing arts
                partnership has supported creative arts therapies for
                service members with traumatic brain injury and associated
                psychological health issues. With your leadership and
                congressional support, in 2016, the initiative expanded to
                ten additional sites nationwide and increased access to
                therapeutic arts activities in local communities for
                military members, veterans, and their families.
        --Big Read: Over the last decade, the NEA has funded more than
                1,300 Big Read programs, providing more than $18 million in
                grants to organizations in every congressional district. In
                turn, these organizations have leveraged nearly $42 million
                in local funding to support their NEA Big Read programs.
                More than 4.8 million Americans have attended an NEA Big
                Read event, approximately 79,000 volunteers have
                participated at the local level, and over 37,000 community
                organizations have partnered to make Big Read activities
                possible.
        --Mayors' Institute on City Design: A leadership initiative in
                partnership with the United States Conference of Mayors.
                Since 1986, the Mayors' Institute has helped transform
                communities through design by preparing mayors to be the
                chief urban designers of their cities.
        --Shakespeare in American Communities: Since its inception, over
                100 theater companies have taken part in the program,
                benefitting more than 2.8 million individuals, including
                2.3 million students in all 50 States.
      --Improving access to the arts would be stymied. Currently, 40
            percent of NEA-supported activities take place in high-poverty
            neighborhoods; 36 percent of NEA grants go to organizations
            that reach underserved populations such as people with
            disabilities, people in institutions, and veterans; and more
            than half of NEA-funded art events take place in locations
            where the median household income is less than $50,000.
            Moreover, a non-Federal funding model will leave too many
            communities behind. Philanthropic giving as a whole in the
            United States is geographically disproportional, with rural
            areas receiving only 5.5 percent of foundation grant dollars.
            Public funding for the arts plays an essential role in making
            sure all American communities may benefit.

        The administration's proposal also comes on the heels of recent
    passage of a funding increase of nearly $2 million for the agency,
    bringing its budget to nearly $150 million. As before and as always, we
    stand ready to assist and remain focused on getting the Endowments to
    the $155 million level in the coming months.
        I thank you for your support and recognition of the valuable
    contributions of cultural institutions to every community across the
    nation, and the role that Federal agencies such as the Institute of
    Museum and Library Services (IMLS), National Endowment for the
    Humanities (NEH), the NEA, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
    (CPB) play in invigorating communities and promoting lifelong learning.
    These are indeed core Federal responsibilities.
        Thank you for your consideration and support of the NEA in the
    fiscal year 2018 budget, which I am proud to say is also publicly
    supported by 40 Senators, in the recent letter to your committee
    delivered on March 31, 2017, led by Senate Cultural Caucus co-chair
    Senator Tom Udall.

        [This statement was submitted by Robert L. Lynch, president and
    CEO.]
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute
        We ask the subcommittee to reject the administration's fiscal year
    2018 budget, which represents a wholesale abdication of responsibility
    to protect the Nation's wildlife and the environment.
    Bureau of Land Management (BLM)--Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros
            Act
        The BLM continues to mismanage America's wild horses and burros,
    emphasizing their removal from public lands instead of implementing
    humane solutions, including the use of immuno-contraception to control
    fertility rates, that manage the animals on the range. We ask the
    Committee to fund the BLM at fiscal year 2017 levels and to urge it to
    continue exploring more effective and longer lasting fertility control
    agents. Alternatives to warehousing tens of thousands of healthy wild
    horses are needed but we oppose Sec. 116 ``Humane Transfer of Excess
    Animals'' of the fiscal year 2017 omnibus (Public Law 115-31). This
    language is unnecessary and could result in once-protected wild horses
    ending up in slaughter despite the directive to the contrary. Thousands
    of healthy and viable wild horses, not bound by limitations of the Act
    and currently being held by the BLM, are already available for sale to
    other Federal, State, and local entities. Finally, we oppose the budget
    directive regarding euthanasia and unrestricted sale of unadopted wild
    horses and burros and strongly support the inclusion of the ``no-kill''
    language found in the fiscal year 2017 omnibus to ensure that BLM does
    not kill healthy wild horses and burros: ``Appropriations herein made
    shall not be available for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild
    horses and burros in the case of the Bureau or its contractors or for
    the sale of wild horses and burros that results in their destruction
    for processing into commercial products.''
    Fish and Wildlife Service--National Wildlife Refuge System--Signage and
            Reporting
        We request that fiscal year 2018 funding be maintained at the
    fiscal year 2017 level. Given the NWRS's stated purpose of conserving
    wildlife (including species threatened with extinction) and to ensure
    that these refuges are safe for the millions of Americans who visit
    them, we ask the Committee to adopt the language contained in the House
    Committee fiscal year 2017 report (H. Rpt. 114-632), and reaffirmed by
    the fiscal year 2017 omnibus, regarding signage for body-gripping
    traps: ``The Committee directs the Service to institute signage on any
    individual refuge where trapping occurs. The Service is also directed
    to establish guidance on such signage and include it in the refuge
    manual. Information should be posted on the National Wildlife Refuge
    System website and the websites of the individual refuges where
    trapping is occurring so the public is informed.'' Such signage and
    other public alerts are needed to promote public safety and greater
    transparency regarding the use of such devices on wildlife refuges.
    Currently, over half of the System's 563 refuges allow trapping. Steel-
    jaw leghold traps, Conibear traps, and strangulation snares pose
    distinct risks to humans, wildlife, and other animals (e.g., pets)
    given their indiscriminate nature and the trauma such devices inflict
    upon those caught in these traps.
    Fish and Wildlife Service--Office of Law Enforcement (OLE)--$75,053,000
        The FWS OLE is one of the most important lines of defense for
    wildlife both at home and abroad. OLE enforces over a dozen Federal
    wildlife and conservation laws that frequently impact both domestic and
    global security. OLE protects the public against the illegal trade in
    wildlife and wildlife products and, in so doing, also provides a
    defense against the introduction of dangerous pathogens that could harm
    animal and/or human health. We ask that the Committee maintain its
    approved level of $75.053 million for OLE.
    Fish and Wildlife Service--International Affairs--Wildlife
            Trafficking--$15,196,000
        We ask that the current funding be maintained in fiscal year 2018.
    US assistance combating wildlife trafficking is essential for species
    conservation and national and global security given its close
    association with terrorism and criminal syndicates. Congress has
    demonstrated a strong bipartisan commitment to this work and it is
    important to ensure adequate funding to implement Public Law 114-231,
    the Eliminate, Neutralize, and Disrupt Wildlife Trafficking Act of
    2016. With poaching and illegal wildlife trade reaching unprecedented
    levels, governments and private entities here and abroad have turned to
    FWS for leadership in coordinating, guiding, and implementing a
    response. Continuing to fund this important work will help provide
    financial assistance to projects in foreign countries that counter
    wildlife trafficking activities as outlined in the National Strategy
    for Combating Wildlife Trafficking and actions articulated in the
    associated Implementation Plan. Specifically, the activities/actions
    build further capacity and develop partnerships for species
    conservation, which also facilitates cooperation between the US and
    foreign governments fighting terrorist organizations and international
    crime syndicates that profit from wildlife trafficking.
                           white-nose syndrome (wns)
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--$4.5 million total; $2 million in
            Endangered Species Recovery; $2.5 million in Service Science
    U.S. Geological Survey--$1.6 million in Ecosystems/Wildlife
    National Park Service--$3,155,000 in Natural Resource Stewardship
    Bureau of Land Management--$500,000
    U.S. Forest Service--$2.5 million, Research & Development; $500,000,
            Forest Systems.
        Eleven years after the first-known observation of white-nose
    syndrome, this bat disease remains at the heart of North America's most
    precipitous wildlife die-off of the past century, but Federal agencies
    and their partners are making progress in addressing this crisis.
    Caused by an invasive species of fungus, Pseudogymnoascus destructans
    (Pd), WNS has killed at least 5.7 million bats, and has spread from its
    first site in upstate New York to 31 States and 5 Canadian provinces.
    Mortality has been so severe that some populations have declined by
    over 90 percent. WNS has struck nine species, including the federally
    endangered Indiana and gray bats. The disease is also responsible for
    the population crash of the northern long-eared bat, leading to its
    2015 designation as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The
    fungus Pd also has been found in an additional two States, and on
    another seven bat species, including the endangered Virginia big-eared
    bat. WNS has the potential to affect 25 of our country's 47 bat
    species.
        Since the last appropriations cycle, two events have taken place
    that are significant for the WNS outlook. First is the discovery of WNS
    and Pd in Washington State last year, the first known incidence of WNS
    or Pd in western North America, occurring 1,300 miles from the previous
    westernmost detection of the disease or fungus. Second is the discovery
    of Pd in Texas earlier this year. Texas has the greatest diversity of
    bat species of any U.S. State. It is also located at the intersection
    of the ranges of eastern, southern, and western bat species. Two of
    these species have extensive distributions in the western United States
    and Central America. If WNS were to spread further, the number of
    species and ecosystems affected by the disease would escalate.
    Moreover, bat ecology in the West poses additional challenges for
    managing the disease. Western bat species roost and hibernate singly or
    in small groups, making the bats hard to locate for surveillance or
    treatment purposes. This is compounded by the difficulty of finding or
    accessing potential bat roosts or hibernacula in the West's
    mountainous, rugged topography.
        These developments have implications for WNS response. The WNS
    community is revisiting the WNS surveillance process in order to
    address questions that the westward movement poses, such as whether
    WNS's/Pd's appearance in Washington was a true jump from East to West
    or whether existing surveillance methods failed to detect the disease
    or fungus in the intervening regions, and how to conduct surveillance
    in western habitats where bats are difficult to locate. The new
    incidences of the disease and fungus also underscore the need--
    heretofore unmet--for standardized bat population counts and trend
    monitoring across the Nation. The North American Bat Monitoring Program
    (NABat), a nascent initiative to which staff from several agencies
    contribute, aims to fill this gap by developing and implementing a plan
    for monitoring and tracking bats continent-wide in a coordinated and
    statistically rigorous manner.
        The loss of bats from WNS is expected to have serious implications
    for our economy and environment. Bats are primary predators of night-
    flying insects, including agricultural pests that attack corn,
    soybeans, cotton, and other crops. By eating these pests, bats reduce
    the need for pesticides and lower food production costs; in this way,
    save U.S. farmers an average of $22.9 billion per year. Bats also
    perform ecological services for 66 plant species that produce timber.
        Thanks to consistent funding from Congress, the Federal Government
    and its partners have made great strides in the response to WNS.
    Accomplishments in the past year include:
        In addition to making grants to States and other entities for WNS
    research, monitoring, and management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, the lead agency for WNS response, created a new WNS funding
    initiative in partnership of FWS and the National Fish and Wildlife
    Foundation: the Bats for the Future Fund. The BFF will provide grants
    for developing and deploying WNS treatments. NFWF will administer the
    fund and match government contributions with private-sector monies. FWS
    provided $1 million to launch BFF. In collaboration with partners, the
    agency also began developing a structured decisionmaking model for
    prioritizing WNS scientific efforts. In this way, FWS hopes to help
    Federal, State, and other entities working on WNS get the best results
    possible with limited funds. In the last year, FWS also released a
    number of products for the WNS-related community: an updated gear-
    decontamination protocol, aimed at preventing Pd spread, for cavers,
    wildlife/public lands managers, and others who access caves;
    informational postcards on gear decontamination and unusual bat
    behavior for audiences considered at secondary risk for Pd exposure and
    contact with bats, to be distributed at sites such as recreation stores
    and public-lands visitor centers; and recommendations for natural
    resources managers on minimizing human disturbance of bats. FWS also
    coordinated an update to the nationwide WNS surveillance plan, which
    guides nationwide sampling for WNS and Pd; included in the plan are
    steps to begin addressing the surveillance issues raised by last year's
    westward spread of the disease and fungus. Finally, FWS lent funding,
    collaboration, or other support to more than five trials of potential
    treatments carried out by various entities.
        The U.S. Geological Survey continues its role in WNS research and
    data-gathering. The agency supports State WNS and Pd surveillance,
    particularly in regions on the edge of the disease spread. USGS hired a
    coordinator for NABat, with additional funding from FWS. The agency is
    validating software for acoustic detection of bats, which in the
    western United States is one of the only bat-survey methods available.
    This supports not only the goals of NABat but also FWS's requirements
    for monitoring listed bat species. Topics of current USGS WNS-related
    research include: the fungi normally found on various species of bats
    and possible correlations to the differential WNS susceptibility of
    those species; determining ideal environmental conditions for bat
    refugia in case populations must be taken from the wild to ensure their
    survival; and evolving hibernation behavior in post-WNS bats. USGS
    staff also are lending expertise to the development of the structured
    decisionmaking model led by FWS.
        Since 2013, the National Park Service has funded more than 158 WNS-
    related projects in 78 park units. The Service monitors bat populations
    on its lands, both in post-WNS areas to assess the disease's impacts
    and species' survival, and in unaffected areas to gather baseline data
    on bat populations and ecology. NPS's Bat Acoustic Survey Database is a
    repository for acoustic monitoring data gathered from these activities,
    providing guidance for collecting acoustic data, allowing for
    standardization and data comparability across the Service. Furthermore,
    the data-base is designed to allow for integration of data into NABat.
    NPS supports NABat in other ways as well. The agency conducts some of
    its surveys under the NABat framework, and in fiscal year 2016 NPS's
    Upper Columbia Basin Inventory and Monitoring Network hired a NABat
    coordinator for the Northwest--a region where there is a paucity of
    knowledge about bat populations and ecology. In addition, as the
    Federal agency that welcomes the largest number of visitors every year,
    NPS plays an key role in educating the public about WNS, through ranger
    outreach, visitor infrastructure, and multimedia materials. Finally,
    NPS continues to fund research into WNS.
        Congress has never allocated money for the Bureau of Land
    Management--the majority of whose lands are in the western United
    States--to respond to WNS. Pursuant to directive language in fiscal
    year 2012 and fiscal year 2014, the agency did undertake some WNS work.
    But the disease's and fungus's westward movement, as well as the 3,000-
    plus caves and estimated 31,000 abandoned mines on BLM lands,
    underscore the need for the agency to increase its WNS response. In a
    limited number of sites, BLM is conducting the following WNS-related
    actions: WNS surveillance; planning and implementation of NABat
    monitoring; English- and Spanish-language signage installation to
    educate visitors about WNS. The agency also is providing funds through
    a small-grants program for field offices to get equipped for WNS
    response.
        Congress also has never allocated money for the U.S. Forest Service
    to engage on WNS, despite the fact that since the early days of the
    crisis the agency has contributed proactively to research and on-the-
    ground management to address the disease. Ongoing USFS research
    includes: DNA sequencing of bats across eastern and midwestern States,
    looking for possible adaptive selection of immune systems and comparing
    them; silencing WNS-related genes to increase bat resistance to the
    disease; the effects of UV light to treat WNS-stricken bats; and a so-
    called electronic nose to identify WNS and Pd without direct contact
    with bats. In addition, a USFS scientist conducted research that was
    critical to the updated decontamination protocol that FWS issued.
    Drawing on USFS's successful treatment in fiscal year 2015 of WNS-
    afflicted bats with airborne volatile organic compounds released by the
    native soil bacterium Rhodococus rhodochrous, and subsequent release of
    those bats to the wild, future USFS research could focus on similar
    treatment agents that can be deployed without physically handling the
    bats. From a lands-management perspective, USFS is purchasing bat
    acoustic monitoring equipment to implement NABat in multiple National
    Forests; staff from the National Forest System and Research and
    Development branches are collaborating on implementation details for
    specific locations. It is clear that the Forest Service has made and
    continues to make major contributions to our understanding, detection,
    and treatment of Pd and WNS, but it has been doing so at the expense of
    other programs. We believe that the redirection of surplus funds from
    other accounts (such Forest Inventory and Analysis), as well as new
    funds, are more than justified.

        [This statement was submitted by Nancy Blaney, Director, Government
    Affairs.]
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Arctic Slope Native Association
        The Arctic Slope Native Association (ASNA) appreciates the
    opportunity to submit written testimony regarding the fiscal year 2018
    budget for the Indian Health Service. We are an inter-Tribal health
    organization based in Barrow, Alaska. We operate under the resolutions
    of six federally recognized Tribes situated across Alaska's North Slope
    and serve the communities of Barrow, Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Kaktovik,
    Nuiqsut, Point Hope, Point Lay and Wainwright. Our mission is to
    provide culturally sensitive quality healthcare for all the communities
    we serve.
        Our Samuel Simmonds Memorial Hospital in Barrow is the core of our
    program. This facility was rebuilt in 2013 with IHS funds and our
    state-of-the-art hospital means we can provide more services close to
    home instead of sending our ailing community members far away from
    their support networks. To give you an idea of our location, the
    closest hospital to the east is in Whitehorse, Canada; the closest
    hospital to the west is in Kotzebue, 220 air miles away; and the
    closest hospital to the south is in Fairbanks, 400 air miles away.
    Thank you so much for your support over the years in funding the
    construction of our hospital. It has made an enormous difference in the
    quality of healthcare our people are receiving.
               proposed changes to medicare and medicaid funding
        Many health reform proposals being considered in Congress would
    transform the Medicare and Medicaid programs, either through converting
    them into block grants provided to individual States, drastically
    changing payment policies, imposing payment limits and/or higher co-
    pays for individual beneficiaries, or some combination of all these
    measures.
        We have serious concerns about any legislation that reduces or
    changes the way in which payments are made to Tribal programs under
    Medicare and Medicaid. Our healthcare programs are unique--both in
    their very nature and because of the severe health needs of the
    population we serve--and they are severely underfunded. These funding
    deficiencies will only be exacerbated further if these payments are
    reduced. Any of these legislative proposals would likely lead to
    drastic reductions in our ability to recover third-party revenues,
    without which we would be unable to operate, at least not at anywhere
    near current levels. To ensure the Federal government meets its special
    trust responsibility, IHS budget appropriations would have to double or
    triple to absorb the impact.
     the ahca and its detrimental impact on the alaska native and american
                               indian population
        Medicaid expansion has been a tremendous advantage for the Alaska
    Native and American Indian community, extending insurance coverage to
    previously uninsured individuals, especially here in Alaska. The AHCA
    would not only undo those gains, but would be disastrous even for those
    patients with private insurance. The repeal of essential health benefit
    requirements for benchmark plans would mean that even those with
    private insurance may no longer be covered for necessary life-saving
    care. The costs of providing treatment--especially to those in remote
    communities--will skyrocket. The AHCA also proposes to eliminate the
    three-month retroactive payment option, a necessary component for us to
    receive reimbursement for care to many of our patients who reside in
    remote communities and who may not register for Medicare or Medicaid
    until they literally show up at our facilities. The bill also proposes
    to reduce State Medicaid reimbursements, which as noted above, would be
    disastrous for our program. We cannot emphasize enough how disastrous
    this bill as currently written would be for our programs.
                       increasing the ihs service budget
        ASNA is grateful for the large increases Congress provided for IHS
    overall in the fiscal year 2017 budget, especially the $78 million for
    Hospitals and Clinics programs, $14 million for Purchased/Referred
    Care, $13 million for Alcohol and Substance Abuse, $12 million for
    Mental Health, and the full reimbursement of Contract Support Costs.
    That said, many of the other budget increases are targeted for new
    facility staffing and targeted grants or pilot projects--programs all
    with worthy goals but that take away from overall increases that affect
    all Tribal programs, such as the need to keep pace with inflation and
    population growth. We request the Committee continue to prioritize
    increases to the general services budget--funds that will trickle down
    through our Compacts to all Tribal programs.
        We ask this Committee to reiterate its instruction to IHS that the
    agency must streamline and simplify its CSC calculations. IHS's new
    policy is still quite complicated and its inability to implement simple
    solutions has had adverse consequences for Tribal programs--such as the
    inaccurate estimates for 2016 and 2017 contract support cost
    requirements that decreased the other funds available that could have
    been provided for the delivery of healthcare services. We believe IHS
    needs to explore other options to simplify the CSC payment process.
        For the above-noted reasons, we are baffled by the Administration's
    fiscal year 2018 budget proposal to reduce IHS funding by $107 million
    below the fiscal year 2017 enacted level. Congress must reject the
    Administration's ill-conceived proposal that would exacerbate health
    disparities experienced by Alaska Natives and American Indians which
    shortens their lives and undermines community stability and family
    cohesion. Continue your good work to increase funding for Tribal health
    programs which will permit the health status of Alaska Natives and
    American Indians to be ``raised to the highest possible level,'' and
    permit ASNA and other Tribal healthcare providers to reduce the
    ``prevalence and incidence of preventable illnesses among, and
    unnecessary and premature deaths of, Indians,'' as your colleagues in
    prior years sought to achieve with passage of the Indian Health Care
    Improvement Act.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to present testimony on these
    important issues.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
                                  Reservation
        The Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation
    thanks the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for the opportunity to
    submit written testimony concerning fiscal year 2018 appropriations for
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS).
        The Fort Peck Reservation is in northeast Montana, forty miles west
    of the North Dakota border, and 50 miles south of the Canadian border,
    with the Missouri River defining its southern border. The Reservation
    encompasses over two million acres of land. We have approximately
    12,000 enrolled Tribal members, with approximately 7,000 Tribal members
    living on the Reservation. We have a total Reservation population of
    approximately 11,000 people.
        Congress has long recognized that the foundation for economic
    development and prosperity in Indian Country lay in community
    stability, which begins with infrastructure such as safe drinking
    water, roads, public safety, and healthcare. We ask the subcommittee to
    reject the Administration's proposal for fiscal year 2018 to reduce
    appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian
    Education and Indian Health Service which are core Federal programs
    serving the Fort Peck Reservation and our members. Reducing funding for
    Federal programs by some $400 million, that at current appropriation
    levels do not address the full measure of well documented Tribal needs,
    makes little sense.
                    fort peck reservation rural water system
        We ask the subcommittee to continue to fund the required $2.4
    million for the Operation and Maintenance (OM&R) funding for the Fort
    Peck Reservation Rural Water System for fiscal year 2018, within
    appropriations to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Construction
    account. This funding increase, of $138,000, is necessary for this
    System to safely operate with the correct level of staff and operating
    supplies, including chemicals. The System provides drinking water to
    more than 18,000 residents in Northeast Montana and several social and
    governmental agencies, including the BIA Agency Office, Poplar Schools,
    and Poplar hospital, Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge, as well as
    several towns including Wolf Point, Frazier, Culbertson, and Medicine
    Lake.
        Federal legislation authorizing the Fort Peck Reservation Rural
    Water System requires that the OM&R of the Assiniboine and Sioux Rural
    Water System--the portion on the Reservation that is held in trust by
    the Federal government--be paid in full by the BIA as a Federal
    obligation. This is consistent with the Federal trust responsibility to
    the Tribes who were promised a permanent home when we agreed to move to
    the Reservation. A permanent home requires safe drinking water. If this
    funding is not made available to the Tribes, this system will have to
    shut down and all of the people, towns, and Federal, Tribal, State,
    public and private agencies, and businesses will have no source of
    drinking water. Interruption
        Thus, the $2.4 million requested in fiscal year 2018 for the OM&R
    of this vital infrastructure project is critical. If Congress does not
    appropriate the required funds for OM&R, then this System will not
    operate and the people of Northeast Montana will have no drinking
    water.
                       public safety and drug trafficking
        Six years ago, through effective policing techniques, our Chief of
    Police was seeing a reduction in methamphetamine use on our
    Reservation, but over the last few years it has returned with a
    vengeance and now we battling opioid abuse and addiction. This problem
    must be attacked on all fronts: law enforcement; treatment; and
    improved social services. The administration's proposal to cut BIA
    Public Safety funding is unwise.

    A. Law Enforcement

        There is no greater need in Indian county than public safety and
    justice and these programs cannot be sacrificed for any purpose. Our
    Police Chief estimates that 70%-80 percent of criminal conduct has a
    drug component to it, with assaults and burglaries arising out of drug
    use and addiction. The BIA's own statistics are alarming; over a 5-year
    period, drug related arrests in Indian Country increased nearly ten-
    fold from 443 arrests in fiscal year 2008 to 4,289 arrests in fiscal
    year 2013. Our Tribal police department has 18 police officers, two
    dedicated to drug enforcement, three criminal investigators, and we
    share dispatchers with Roosevelt County. Our Police Chief said he could
    use six drug enforcement agents to help with the rising workload. The
    needs of our community and those throughout Indian Country cry out for
    increase law enforcement and justice funding.
        The crime in our community is impacting the most vulnerable in our
    community the most. In 2015, our Tribal court had 329 criminal cases
    involving crimes against children. These cases included aggravated
    sexual assault of a child, felony abuse of a child and endangering the
    welfare of child. These cases only reflect the cases where we had the
    jurisdiction to prosecute.

    B. Detention Services

        The Fort Peck Tribes completed construction of a modern detention
    facility to serve the Reservation and other Tribes. This allows for
    inmates to be close to their homes and families which will be a benefit
    to the families as well as those serving a period of incarceration. It
    will do a great deal to ensure continuity in our families. We are
    concerned that the President's fiscal year 2018 Budget will further
    jeopardize the operation of BIA- or tribally-operated detention
    facilities like Fort Peck. Perhaps the greatest omission by BIA is its
    chronic failure to request sufficient operation and maintenance funds
    to fully staff, operate and maintain BIA-owned and Tribally-owned
    facilities and systems. Undermining the useful life of facilities and
    systems in Indian Country, which are all too scarce, perpetuates
    staffing and operational shortages which undermine our mission to
    improve living conditions on our Reservation.
        The Tribes worked with the BIA Office of Justice Services when we
    were building this new detention facility, including on the staffing
    and operations costs. The Tribes entered into a contract with the BIA
    for the operation of this facility. And while we received some funding
    associated with this contract, it is approximately 30 percent of what
    we negotiated with the BIA to have a fully functional detention center.
    Reductions in fiscal year 2018 appropriations for BIA Public Safety
    needs would simply set us further back and jeopardize a modern
    detention facility.
                                road maintenance
        The current level of road maintenance funding will permit Tribes to
    maintain approximately 16 percent of BIA-owned roads and 68 percent of
    BIA-owned bridges in ``acceptable'' condition. This leaves nearly 8 out
    of 10 BIA-owned roads and more than 3 out of 10 BIA-owned bridges with
    funds sufficient to maintain them in their current poor or failing
    condition. This is a public safety issue which contributes to delayed
    response times for Emergency Medical Services (EMS), police officers,
    and other first responders, missed medical appointments, school and
    work days and higher maintenance costs on Tribally- and privately-owned
    motor vehicles.
        Most BIA System routes are gravel and earthen school bus routes
    that require more frequent maintenance than paved roads. We are
    appreciative of the action taken by the Subcommittee for fiscal year
    2017, which added $3.6 million to the BIA Road Maintenance Program. We
    urge the Subcommittee to increase funding for the Road Maintenance
    Program for fiscal year 2018 by $10 million so that the percentage of
    public BIA System roads and bridges in ``acceptable'' condition may
    continue to rise in future years. This will promote public safety on
    BIA System routes and provide jobs to Tribal members who serve the
    Reservation community. As noted above, shortfalls in maintenance funds
    undermines our mission.
                             indian health service
        We continue to build government services and programs on the
    Reservation and attract businesses to improve the quality of life for
    our members. The IHS operates two clinics on the Reservation; the Verne
    E. Gibbs IHS Health Center in Poplar, and the Chief Redstone IHS Health
    Center in Wolf Point. In-patient services are available at the non-IHS
    Poplar Community Hospital and Trinity Hospital in Wolf Point. To combat
    the high incidence of heart disease, cancer and diabetes, the Tribes
    supplement health services on the Reservation through our Health
    Promotion and Disease Prevention (HPDP) Wellness Program and the
    Spotted Bull Resource and Recovery Center, which we operate pursuant to
    an ISDA contract with the IHS.
        We greatly appreciate the work of this Subcommittee to maintain the
    level of funding for the Indian Health Service. The healthcare provided
    through these dollars, whether it be direct medical care, dental care,
    substance abuse treatment or purchased/referred care, is saving lives
    and is making a difference on our Reservation. Our members know well
    what it means to have access to care, so the Tribes can only ask that
    you continue to fund these critical program and reject the
    administration's proposal to reduce IHS funding by $107 million below
    the fiscal year 2017 enacted level.
                                   conclusion
        We thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to present testimony
    concerning the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service
    fiscal year 2018 budget.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Association of Art Museum Directors
        The Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) requests funding of
    $155 million each for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the
    National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) for fiscal year 2018. We
    also ask that the subcommittee provide the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) with the funding necessary to staff and train personnel
    in order to avoid placing any additional impediments on American art
    museums that are importing works of art containing ivory for the
    purposes of temporary public exhibition.
                      arts and artifacts indemnity program
        AAMD again thanks the subcommittee for revising the statutory caps
    for exhibition indemnity agreements under the Arts and Artifacts
    Indemnity Act, which is administered by the NEA on behalf of the
    Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, of which both NEA and
    NEH are members. Participating AAMD members reported saving an average
    of more than $650,000 in insurance fees in 2015. A few examples of
    recent, current or upcoming indemnified exhibitions that may be of
    particular interest to members of the Subcommittee include:
      --Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco--Monet: The Early Years
      --Shelburne Museum, Shelburne, Vermont--Hunting and Fishing in
            American Art
      --Albuquerque Museum of Art and History and Portland (Oregon) Art
            Museum--Masterpieces from Ecole des Beaux Arts
      --Baltimore Museum of Art--Matisse/Diebenkorn
      --Dixon Gallery and Gardens, Memphis, Tennessee--Thomas Cole's The
            Voyage of Life
      --Frist Center for the Visual Arts, Nashville, Tennessee--WWI and
            American Art
      --Mississippi Museum of Art, Jackson, Mississippi--When Modern was
            Contemporary: Selections from the Neuberger Collection
      --Rhode Island School of Design, Providence, Rhode Island--Lines of
            Thought: Drawing from Michelangelo to Now from the British
            Museum
                        national endowment for the arts
        As stated above, AAMD requests that Congress appropriate $155
    million for the NEA. The agency continues to make modest but important
    grants that leverage significant private support, disseminate best
    practices, and foster innovation. A few examples of recent grants
    listed on the NEA's website include:
      --Anchorage Museum, Anchorage Alaska: To support a series of programs
            exploring the ecology of the Arctic in partnership with the
            University of Alaska Anchorage's Alaska Center for Conservation
            Science. Through augmented reality and other experimental
            technologies, the organizations will work with artists and
            scientists on a series of projects including exhibitions,
            events, and online presentations that will engage the public in
            immersive virtual environments as a way to convey the
            complexity of the Northern landscape through curated
            experiences.
      --St. Louis Art Museum, St. Louis, Missouri: To support the
            exhibition, ``Degas, Impressionism, and the Paris Millinery
            Trade.'' More than 100 artworks were showcased, including
            paintings and works on paper by Degas. The exhibition explored
            the millinery industry of the period, the international trade
            in exotic feathers and floral decorations, the importance of
            men's hats as a counterpart to what has traditionally been
            considered a feminine fashion, and the connections to France's
            colonial history. Free public programs and a symposium
            accompanied the exhibition.
      --Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, Maryland: To support promotion and
            installation costs for the exhibition ``A Feast for Senses: Art
            and Experience in Medieval Europe.'' In medieval Europe, the
            walled garden with fragrant flowers, herbs, sweet breezes, bird
            songs, and a gurgling fountain was idealized as a place of
            delight for the senses and escape from the tumult of everyday
            cares. Such aspects of life inspired works of art that were the
            focus of this international loan exhibition. Lectures,
            workshops, and performances for adults, drop-in activities and
            hands-on learning for families, and outreach, tours, and
            workshops for students and teachers complemented the visitor
            experience.
      --RISD Museum, Providence, Rhode Island: To support professional
            development programs for artists at the RISD Museum. The
            program includes a fellowship, professional development
            activities, and special museum membership for artists. Run by
            the museum at the Rhode Island School of Design, the program
            engages emerging and mid-career artists to develop their
            creative practice, increase their visibility among new
            audiences, connect creative sectors, and support the generation
            of new work. The program includes workshops and training on
            professional practice, access to curators and globally
            recognized artists, participation in programs for creative
            professionals, and research opportunities that support the
            creation of new work inspired by the collections.

        AAMD commends NEA for its commitment to the Blue Star Museums
    initiative, now in its eighth year. AAMD members have responded with
    overwhelming enthusiasm to Chairman Chu's invitation to offer free
    admission to active duty military and their families at least from
    Memorial Day through Labor Day. In 2016, approximately 90 percent of
    AAMD members in the United States either formally joined the program or
    already offered free admission to all. According to a survey conducted
    by Blue Star Families, 900,000 people took advantage of the program,
    and fifteen percent of participants reported that it was the first time
    they had visited a museum. AAMD is grateful to Blue Star Families and
    the NEA for the opportunity to serve this new audience.

        Comments to Blue Star Families from museums included:

            ``Blue Star allowed us the extra opportunity to reach out to
            our local marine corps logistics base and other service members
            as a way to thank them for their role in our Nation and
            community.''

            ``Offering free admission and other programs to vets and blue
            star families is the least we can do to thank these brave men
            and women and their families who sacrifice so much. It is our
            honor to do this small thing.''

            ``Loved seeing families come and being able to offer them free
            admission as a thank you for all they've done for the
            country.''
                     national endowment for the humanities
        This important agency assists art museums in presenting humanities
    scholarship to the general public and in strengthening the teaching of
    humanities in our Nation's schools. For example, the NEH awarded the
    Walters Art Museum a planning grant to explore collaborative approaches
    with cultural, educational, and philanthropic stakeholders to more
    deeply engage Baltimore City schools with the humanities. With funding
    from the NEH, the Walters is creating an intentional, strategic, and
    holistic plan that will ``launch new forms of collaboration towards the
    goal of restoring and enhancing meaningful student exposure to
    humanities instruction.'' This dialogue and process is timely as
    Baltimore City welcomes a new superintendent of schools. Similarly, the
    St. Louis Art Museum received a grant to establish the St. Louis
    Humanities Education Collaborative, a new Museum-led project that will
    co-create approaches to advancing the humanities and connecting schools
    to innovative curriculum.
        NEH also plays an invaluable role in assisting with the
    preservation and conservation of important collections. This is exactly
    the type of unglamorous work for which it is chronically difficult to
    raise private funding, making Federal support all the more valuable.
    For example, a major grant is helping to stabilize and protect the
    Shelburne Museum's wildfowl decoy collection, which numbers nearly
    1,400 objects and spans more than 150 years of decoy making. To protect
    the collections, the museum improved environmental conditions,
    security, and fire protection in the 1832 Dorset House, where the decoy
    collection and related art and artifacts are exhibited and stored.
    Additionally, it improved exhibition and ``open storage'' conditions to
    allow better physical and intellectual access for the collection.
        AAMD commends the NEH for two initiatives in particular. The Common
    Good is designed to demonstrate the critical role that humanities
    scholarship can play in public life. This is especially suitable for
    museums, which have developed expertise in presenting complex ideas to
    non-specialists. Standing Together, the Humanities and the Experience
    of War, supports programs that explore war and its aftermath, promote
    discussion of the experience of military service, and support returning
    veterans and their families.
                         u.s. fish and wildlife service
        The AAMD has had extensive conversations with the Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) about the importance of presenting works of many cultures
    to the American public, works that without temporary exhibitions,
    Americans would never see. These works, entrusted to our museums from
    both foreign museums and foreign private collectors, are fragile,
    invaluable and represent the highest professional quality. American
    museums borrowing these works must be assured that the works can move
    quickly, safely and be fully protected.
        This is especially true when moving works of art, made in whole or
    in part of ivory, through designated ports as called for in the
    Director's Order 210 issued February 25, 2014. The Director's Order 210
    imposed strict requirements on importing works of ivory from abroad,
    with which museums are struggling to comply.
        Unfortunately, the FWS has limited capacity to staff and train
    personnel at the designated ports to process works of ivory for special
    exhibitions. There must be sufficient staff to ensure that the works
    move in accordance with professionally accepted procedures and the new
    requirements at the speed that a temporary exhibition requires. The
    AAMD urges the committee to provide FWS with the funding necessary to
    staff and train personnel in order to avoid placing any additional
    impediments on American art museums.
                                   about aamd
        The purpose of the Association of Art Museum Directors is to
    support its members in increasing the contribution of art museums to
    society. The AAMD accomplishes this mission by establishing and
    maintaining the highest standards of professional practice, serving as
    forum for the exchange of information and ideas, acting as an advocate
    for its member art museums, and being a leader in shaping public
    discourse about the arts community and the role of art in society.

        [This statement was submitted by Christine Anagnos, Executive
    Director.]
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Association of Clean Water Administrators
        The Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) appreciates
    the opportunity to submit written testimony to the U.S. Senate
    Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and
    Related Agencies. As the national voice of State, interstate, and
    territorial officials responsible for implementation of programs that
    protect surface waters across the Nation, ACWA opposes the fiscal year
    2018 Budget Proposal's suggested drastic cuts of 30 percent.
        Specifically, the budget cuts affecting the State and Tribal
    Assistance Grants (STAG grants) will severely limit States' ability to
    implement core water protection programs as required by the Clean Water
    Act (the Act). Most notably, the budget proposal reduces or eliminates
    Sec. 106 and Sec. 319 funds, both of which are critical funding sources
    for water protection efforts. The proposed reduction in fiscal year
    2018 Federal funding to States will leave States with fewer resources,
    while their obligations under environmental statutes remain.
        The Act relies on State governments for implementation, more so
    than other environmental statutes. In turn, Federal partners have
    recognized the importance of cooperative Federalism, and strong
    relationships with States by providing sorely needed funding through
    the aforementioned grants. For the principles of cooperative Federalism
    to work, and for our waters to be adequately protected, there must be a
    strong and stable State partner. Therefore, we request that the
    Sec. 106 and Sec. 319 fiscal year 2018 funding at least be consistent
    with the enacted fiscal year 2017 amounts of approximately $230.8 and
    $164.9 million respectively--recognizing this is still far below what
    is actually needed to effectively protect the Nation's waters.
        Section 106 of the Act is the main authorized funding source
    provided to the States and interstates to directly assist with
    preventing, reducing, and eliminating pollution to the Nation's waters.
    States use these funds to help develop standards, set pollution
    reduction loads, issue permits, confirm compliance, monitor results,
    and report on successes. Without these funds, States will lose many
    full-time employees that perform these duties, which would negatively
    affect local economic development. Without necessary permits industries
    will not expand or open new facilities.
        Section 319 funds are used for restoration efforts for waterbodies
    impaired by nonpoint source pollution. Currently, the majority of the
    waterbodies listed as not meeting their designated uses are impaired by
    nonpoint source pollution. While further collaboration with USDA is
    important for addressing agriculture based pollution, there is no other
    Federal funding source available to support States efforts to address
    nonpoint source water pollution from non-agriculture sources such as
    mining, urban development, failing septic systems, and other
    hydrological modifications. Eliminating Federal Sec. 319 funding will
    handicap States' ability to address nonpoint source pollution, which is
    already a difficult, cost-intensive problem.
        ACWA supports the focus on water infrastructure funding through the
    State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs. However, infrastructure funding
    will require State resources, including staff, to ensure these funds
    are awarded and disbursed effectively and efficiently. Applying for and
    administering SRF funds will take longer with State resources stretched
    thinner considering the 30 percent reduction to STAG grants. State
    agency operations, which ensure that SRF projects can proceed
    unencumbered, will be affected, and implementation of desperately
    needed infrastructure investments will be slower and less effective.
        The proposed elimination of the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, Puget
    Sound, Long Island Sound, Gulf of Mexico, Lake Champlain regional
    programs, as well as the National Estuary Program is ill-advised. These
    programs protect some of the Nation's most important water resources
    and places from degradation, invasive species, and algal blooms. These
    bodies of water and estuaries have made great progress towards reaching
    their long term goals, and risk backsliding into worse conditions
    without the staff and resources needed to maintain recent progress.
    Therefore, we request that the funding for the regional programs,
    remain at the fiscal year 2017 level.
        In conclusion, ACWA asks that the subcommittee considers these
    funding requests. The proposed fiscal year 2018 EPA budget provides
    insufficient funding, especially now when States are under extreme
    pressure due to increased Federal requirements. Funding must be at
    least consistent with last year's budget to allow States to carry out
    their duties under the Act and increased if the States are to make
    strides in reaching the Nation's water quality goals which benefit all
    Americans. States cannot do it alone. The Act is built on a Federal-
    State partnership. The States' and interstates' contributions to the
    Nation's water goals are vital to the Act's success, which is
    critically important to stimulate economic growth by expanding American
    manufacturing and American jobs while at the same time increasing
    tourism, water-based recreation, and a clean water supply for America's
    water infrastructure.

        [This statement was submitted by Peter LaFlamme, Director, Vermont
    Department of Environmental Conservation, ACWA President.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Association of Public and Land-Grant
              Universities (APLU) Board on Natural Resources (BNR)
        On behalf of the APLU Board on Natural Resources (BNR), we thank
    you for your support of science and research programs in fiscal year
    2017 of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the
    Environmental Protection Agency. We appreciate the opportunity to
    provide the following recommendations: $9 million for the USGS Water
    Resources Research Institutes and $20 million for the USGS Cooperative
    Fish and Wildlife Research Units, and $754 million for EPA's Science
    and Technology.
        APLU BNR requests $9 million for the Water Resources Research
    Institutes (WRRI). The APLU BNR request is based on the following:
    $7,500,000 in base grants for the WRRI as authorized by Section 104(b)
    of the Water Resources Research Act, including State-based competitive
    grants; $1,500,000 to support activities authorized by section 104(g)
    of the Act. Federal funding for the WRRI program is the catalyst that
    moves States and cities to invest in university-based research to
    address their own water management issues. State WRRIs take the
    relatively modest amount of Federal funding appropriated, match it 2:1
    with State, local and other funds and use it to put university
    scientists to work finding solutions to the most pressing local and
    State water problems that are of national importance. The Institutes
    have raised more than $16 in other funds for every dollar funded
    through this program. The added benefit is that often research to
    address State and local problems helps solve problems that are of
    regional and national importance. Many of the projects funded through
    this program provide the knowledge for State or local managers to
    implement new Federal laws and regulations. Perhaps most important, the
    Federal funding provides the driving force of collaboration in water
    research and education among local, State, Federal and university water
    professionals. This program is essential to solving State, regional and
    inter-jurisdictional water resources problems. As USGS itself has
    stated: ``The Water Institutes have developed a constituency and a
    program that far exceeds that supported by their direct Federal
    appropriations.''
        The Institutes also train the next generation of water resource
    managers and scientists. Last year, these institutes provided research
    support for more than 1,400 undergraduate and graduate students at more
    than 150 universities studying water-related issues in the fields of
    agriculture, biology, chemistry, earth sciences, engineering and public
    policy. Institute-sponsored students receive training in both the
    classroom and the field, often working shoulder-to-shoulder with the
    top research scientists in their field on vanguard projects of
    significant regional importance.
        In addition to training students directly, Water Resources Research
    Institutes work with local residents to overcome water-related issues.
    For example, the California Institute for Water Resources, like most of
    its peers, holds field days, demonstrations, workshops, classes,
    webinars, and offers other means of education in an effort to transfer
    their research findings to as many users as possible. Outreach that
    succeeds in changing a farmer's approach to nitrogen application or
    reducing a homeowner's misuse of lawn treatments can reduce the need
    for restrictive regulation.

        Below are some examples of work being done in various States:

      --In 2015, Alaska's Sagavanirktok (Sag) River flooded the Dalton
            Highway, cutting off the only overland passage to the Prudhoe
            Bay Oilfields for a period of approximately 3 weeks. Following
            that event, the University of Alaska Fairbanks Water and
            Environmental Research Center has been continuously working
            with the Department of Transportation and Alyeska Pipeline
            Services Company to understand Sag River flood dynamics and
            reduce the risk of highway and/or pipeline damage from future
            flooding events.
      --Researchers with the New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute
            developed an innovative desalination technology to remove
            organic substances and salts from water produced from oil and
            gas exploration. Water in this system can be potentially
            recycled in the industrial process making it more cost-
            effective. The technology also uses bacteria to convert
            biodegradable pollutants into electricity, which offsets
            operation energy use or supplies additional energy for other
            systems for operators.
      --In California, the Institute for Water Resources is working with
            communities in southern California, like the city of Glendora,
            to help city officials better predict and respond to debris
            flow from the San Gabriel Mountains. Communities like Glendora
            are experiencing costly and damaging flows after high intensity
            rainfalls and these flows often affect water quality
            downstream. By partnering with local governments and other
            stakeholders, the Institute is working to help these
            communities with debris basin management.
      --The Arizona Water Resources Center has initiated nine programs to
            promote and educate the public about water conservation and
            management. The Arizona Water Education program has reached
            over 32,400 students and 500 K-12 teachers with a projected
            water savings over 3.7 million gallons per year from student-
            installed devices. Other programs address desert water
            harvesting, water for drylands systems, and water quality
            research.
      --Researchers with the Mississippi Water Resources Research Institute
            have collaborated with the Grenada Chamber of Commerce to
            develop a preliminary master plan with economic and marketing
            feasibility studies to promote the economic development of
            Grenada Lake. The 90,000-acre multi-use project is managed
            through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Vicksburg District for
            flood control, public recreation, conservation of fish and
            wildlife, and public forests.
      --Researchers with the Idaho Water Resources Research Institute have
            collaborated with community stakeholders to develop satellite
            based remote-sensing technology for assessing crop-water usage
            and aquifer depletion modeling, to investigate and help resolve
            water rights conflicts, and for stream flow management. This
            technology is also being adopted by ten western States and in
            parts of Africa, Europe, and Australia.

        APLU BNR requests $22.5 million for the Cooperative Fish and
    Wildlife Research Units (CRU). The CRU program embeds Federal
    scientists in public universities to: 1) train the next generation of
    fisheries and wildlife managers; 2) conduct research on our Nation's
    fish and wildlife populations and habitats; and 3) provide technical
    assistance to State, Federal and other natural resource managers.
    Originally established in the 1930s to provide training for students in
    fisheries and wildlife biology, the units were formally recognized by
    the Cooperative Units Act of 1960 (PL 86-686). The CRUs provide
    experience and training for approximately 600 graduate students per
    year, a critical need as State and Federal workforces face
    unprecedented retirements over the next 5 to 10 years. There are
    currently 25 vacant CRU scientist positions spread over 21 States. This
    request is a $4 million increase that would enable the CRU program to
    become fully staffed. The CRUs provide valuable mission-oriented
    research for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and cooperating State
    agencies. Today, there are 40 Cooperative Research Units in 38 States
    but there are many vacancies.
        Each unit is a true Federal-State-university-private sector
    collaboration as a partnership between the U. S. Geological Survey, a
    State natural resources management agency, a host university, and the
    Wildlife Management Institute. For every $1 the Federal Government puts
    into the program, $3 more are leveraged through the other partners. The
    U.S. economy has long relied on the bountiful natural resources
    bestowed upon this land. Federal investment in the CRUs will be
    returned many times over though the training of future natural resource
    managers who will guide the Nation in sustainable use of our natural
    resources. The research conducted by CRU scientists directly supports
    the difficult management challenges faced by natural resources
    managers. The examples below demonstrate the value of the CRUs to
    wildlife issues with local and national importance.

      --Minnesota: The Minnesota CRU is currently researching the olfactory
            sensitivity of Asian carps to putative sex pheromones. This
            work has recently received national attention, because Asian
            carps are an invasive species that threatens many of the
            Nation's freshwater native fishes through competition for food.
            The Minnesota CRU hopes to use the sex pheromones to attract
            and trap Asian carp, removing them permanently from the
            Nation's freshwater lakes and rivers. Minnesota CRU researchers
            are also studying human behavior, working to understand the
            motivations of agricultural producers enrolling in USDA water
            quality and wildlife habitat programs. They hope to gain
            insight into designing and developing programs, practices and
            messages that encourage broader participation in those
            programs.
      --Tennessee: In 2011, an estimated 826,293 anglers fished in
            Tennessee, creating an economic impact of nearly $1.3 billion
            for the State. The Tennessee CRU supports this economic driver
            by assessing fish stocks, working on recovery efforts for
            threatened and endangered species, providing research and
            technical assistance to support State decisions related to
            fishing. For example, research on sauger in the Tennessee River
            showed that minimum size requirements by the State were not
            leading to increased mortality of released fish below the
            minimum size. Their research also kept ``stinger'' hooks
            available for fishermen by showing they also did not contribute
            to increased mortality.
      --Oklahoma: The Oklahoma CRU in collaboration with Oklahoma State
            University and the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
            conducted an economic analysis on the impact of protecting the
            lesser prairie chicken (LPC). The political and legal
            controversy surrounding the use of the Endangered Species Act
            (ESA) to protect imperiled species raises questions about the
            development restrictions and opportunity costs the ESA imposes
            on private landowners and industry. The economic effects of
            protecting the LPC have been small and there is no strong
            evidence that regulations affected land values. However, after
            looking for macro-level effects in employment data, regulations
            did modestly reduce the number of jobs, although primarily in
            priority habitat areas.

        Finally, APLU BNR requests $754 million for EPA's Science and
    Technology portfolio. While the S&T portfolio covers a wide range of
    topics, we will cite one historical, but still vitally important
    component of EPA Science. The work done to support pesticide
    regulations, including developing the suitable analytics for measuring
    pesticides in food and feed residue and enforcing tolerances, remains
    absolutely necessary so long as farmers need to control pests, local
    governments need to control mosquitos, or schools, hospitals,
    restaurants, and other venues need to be kept free of rats,
    cockroaches, and other pests. It currently costs life science
    companies, such as Dow AgroSciences, $250,000,000 to develop a new
    molecule for the market. Some of the cost can be attributed to
    complying with EPA regulations on pesticides. It would be highly
    deleterious to such companies and the consumers of their products if
    new chemicals could not be brought to market because the regulatory
    agency was unable to develop suitable analytics for a new product on
    time.
        BNR thanks you for the opportunity to provide our views to the
    subcommittee. We look forward to working with you through the fiscal
    year 2018 appropriations process.
    About APLU and the Board on Natural Resources
        APLU's membership consists of 236 State universities, land-grant
    universities, State-university systems and related organizations. APLU
    institutions enroll more than 4.8 million undergraduate students and
    1.3 million graduate students, and conduct $43.2 billion annually in
    university-based research annually. The Board's mission is to promote
    university-based programs dealing with natural resources, fisheries,
    wildlife, ecology, energy, and the environment. BNR representatives are
    chosen by their president's office to serve and currently number over
    500 scientists and educators, who are some of the Nation's leading
    research and educational expertise in environmental and natural-
    resource disciplines.

        [This statement was submitted by Keith Owens, Chair of the Board on
    Natural Resources; and Associate Vice President, Oklahoma Agriculture
    Experiment Station, Oklahoma State University,
    keith.owens@okstate.edu.]
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Association of State Drinking Water
                                 Administrators
        The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA)
    respectfully submits the following recommendations for fiscal year 2018
    appropriations on behalf of the drinking water programs in the fifty
    States, five territories, District of Columbia, and Navajo Nation.
                               summary of request
        ASDWA respectfully requests that, for fiscal year 2018, the
    Subcommittee appropriate funding for three programs at levels
    commensurate with Federal expectations for performance; that ensure
    appropriate public health protection; and that will result in enhancing
    economic stability and prosperity in American cities and towns. ASDWA
    requests $200 million for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
    program and $1 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund
    (DWSRF) program. These requests are based on demonstrated need and the
    reality of the job that State drinking water programs are expected to
    do. A more complete explanation of the needs represented by these
    requested amounts and their justification follows.
    overview: the importance of safe drinking water for our communities and
            the economy & the role of state drinking water programs
        States need sustained Federal support to maintain public health
    protection and to support the needs of the water systems they oversee.
    State drinking water programs strive to meet the Nation's public health
    protection goals through two principal funding programs: the Public
    Water System Supervision Program (PWSS) and the Drinking Water State
    Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) Program. These two programs, with their
    attendant State match requirements, provide the means for States to
    work with drinking water utilities to ensure that American citizens can
    turn on their taps with confidence that the water is both safe to drink
    and the supply is adequate. In recent years, State drinking water
    programs have accepted additional responsibilities in water system
    security and resiliency that include working with all public water
    systems to ensure that critical drinking water infrastructure is
    protected, including cyber security; that plans are in place to respond
    to both natural and manmade disasters; and that communities are better
    positioned to support both physical and economic resilience in times of
    crisis.
        Vibrant and sustainable communities, their citizens, workforce, and
    businesses all depend on a safe, reliable, and adequate supply of
    drinking water. Economies only grow and sustain themselves when they
    have safe and reliable water supplies. Over 90 percent of the
    population receives water used for bathing, cooking, and drinking from
    a public water system--overseen by State drinking water program
    personnel.
        In addition to the water we drink in our homes, water produced by
    public water systems is also used by businesses for a variety of
    purposes, including processing, cooling, and product manufacturing.
    Public water systems--as well as the cities, villages, schools, and
    businesses they support--rely on State drinking water programs to
    ensure they comply with all applicable Federal requirements and the
    water is safe to drink. State drinking water programs must have
    adequate funding to protect public health and maintain the economic
    health of communities. Incidents such as the chemical spill in
    Charleston, West Virginia where residents were without safe drinking
    water for more than a week; unsafe drinking water in Toledo, Ohio for
    more than a day due to the presence of algal toxins; and the leaching
    of lead from lead-containing pipelines into the water supply in Flint,
    Michigan all serve as stark reminders of the critical nature of the
    work that State drinking water programs do--every day--and the reason
    why the funding for State drinking water programs must be sustained.
    state drinking water programs: how they operate, why support is needed,
                    and justifications for requested amounts
    The Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program
        How the PWSS Program Operates: To meet the requirements of the Safe
    Drinking Water Act (SDWA), States have accepted primary enforcement
    responsibility for oversight of regulatory compliance and technical
    assistance efforts for more than 152,000 public water systems to ensure
    that potential health-based violations do not occur or are remedied in
    a timely manner. Over 90 contaminants are regulated in Federal drinking
    water regulations and the pace and complexity of regulatory activity
    has accelerated in recent years. States also assist communities by
    reviewing and approving engineering plans of new or modified public
    water systems. Beyond the contaminants covered by Federal drinking
    water regulations, States are also implementing an array of proactive
    initiatives to protect public health from ``source to tap.'' These
    include source water assessments and protections for communities and
    watersheds; outreach and education on programs such as asset management
    and workforce, technical assistance for water treatment and
    distribution for challenged utilities; and enhancement of overall water
    system performance.
        In recent years, States have also taken on an increasingly
    prominent role in working with Federal and local partners to help
    ensure sufficient water quantity. Many States have worked intensively
    with numerous small water systems in recent years that were within days
    of running completely dry. The public health and economic consequences
    of such a catastrophe would have been incalculable to the residents of
    those communities. In short, State activities go well beyond simply
    ensuring compliance at the tap--and, States perform these tasks more
    efficiently and cheaply than would be the case if the program were
    federally implemented. Well-supported State drinking water programs are
    a good deal.
        Why Adequate Support is Needed: States are unable to fulfill their
    obligation to the American public without adequate Federal funding
    support. Inadequate Federal funding for State drinking water programs
    has several negative consequences. Many States are simply unable to
    implement major provisions of the newer regulations, leaving the work
    undone or ceding the responsibility back to EPA, which is also
    challenged by the Agency's own resource constraints and lack of ``on
    the ground'' expertise. States also want to offer the flexibilities
    allowed under existing rules to local water systems. However, fewer
    State resources mean less opportunity to work individually with water
    systems to meet their individual needs. This situation has created a
    significant implementation crisis in several regions of the country and
    is ultimately delaying or hampering implementation of critically needed
    public health protections.
        State drinking water programs are extremely hard pressed
    financially and the funding gap continues to grow. States must
    accomplish all the above-described activities--and take on new
    responsibilities--in the context of a challenging economic climate.
    State-provided funding has historically compensated for inadequate
    Federal funding, but State budgets have been less able to bridge this
    funding gap in recent years. State drinking water programs have often
    been expected to do more with less and States have always responded
    with commitment and integrity, but they are currently stretched to the
    breaking point. Insufficient Federal support for this critical program
    increases the likelihood of contamination events that puts the public's
    health at risk. $101.9 million was appropriated for the PWSS program in
    fiscal year 2017--the same funding level as was appropriated in fiscal
    years 2014, 2015, and 2016. According to data available as of this
    writing, the Administration is expected to request a 31 percent
    decrease for PWSS funding. This reduces the grant to approximately $71
    million--a funding figure not seen since 1995, more than 20 years ago.
    This is an untenable situation--a significant decrease in funding to
    work with a growing population who are increasingly concerned about
    drinking water contaminants. There are no commensurate decreases in the
    number of public water systems to be overseen; no decreases in the
    number of regulatory requirements to be implemented; and certainly, no
    decreases in the level of allowable public health protection. Our ever-
    improving ability to detect contaminants in drinking water and our
    understanding of their toxicity add to the demands on States, EPA, and
    the public water supply systems. In each of the drinking problems that
    occur each year, States step in to help resolve the problems and return
    the systems to providing safe water as quickly as possible. Yet, States
    are being asked to continue and even enhance the level of oversight
    with far fewer dollars than provided before the 1996 Amendments to the
    Safe Drinking Water Act. The current $101.9 million that was
    appropriated for the PWSS program for fiscal year 2017 is key for State
    oversight programs, and any reductions, no matter how small, exacerbate
    States' tenuous financial difficulties.
        For the PWSS Program in fiscal year 2018, ASDWA Respectfully
    Requests $200 million: The number of regulations requiring State
    implementation and oversight as well as performance expectations
    continue to grow while at the same time, the Federal funding support
    has been essentially ``flat-lined.'' Inflation has further eroded these
    static funding levels. This recommended amount is based on ASDWA's
    January 2014 resource needs report and begins to fill the above-
    described resource gap. These funds are urgently needed for
    implementing existing drinking water rules, taking on new initiatives,
    and to account for the eroding effects of inflation. It is a small
    price to pay for public health protection.
    The Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) Program
        How the DWSRF Program Operates: Drinking water in the U.S. is among
    the safest and most reliable in the world, but it is threatened by
    aging infrastructure. Through low interest loans provided by the DWSRF,
    States help water utilities overcome this threat. The historical
    payback to the DWSRF on this investment has been exceptional. Since its
    inception, the DWSRF has touched millions of Americans through projects
    that enhance drinking water capabilities at water utilities. In the
    core DWSRF program, approximately $18.2 billion in cumulative Federal
    capitalization grants since 1997 have been leveraged by States into
    over $32.5 billion in infrastructure loans to small and large
    communities across the country. 25.5 percent of the cumulative DWSRF
    assistance, including negative interest loans and principal
    forgiveness, has been provided to disadvantaged communities. Such
    investments pay tremendous dividends--both in supporting our economy
    and in protecting our citizens' health. States have very effectively
    and efficiently leveraged Federal dollars with State contributions for
    more than 13,000 projects, improving health protection for millions of
    Americans.
        An important feature of the DWSRF program is the State ``set-
    aside'' fund component and another key reason for adequately funding
    this critical program. Set-asides function as a proactive way for
    States to work with drinking water systems to maintain compliance and
    avoid violations. States may reserve up to 31 percent of these funds
    for a variety of critical tasks, such as increasing the technical,
    managerial, and financial capacity of water systems; providing training
    and certification for water system operators; and continuing wellhead
    protection efforts. Set-asides are an essential source of funding for
    States' core public health protection programs and these efforts work
    in tandem with infrastructure loans.
        Drinking Water Infrastructure Investment is Well below the
    Documented Need: The American Society of Civil Engineers, once again,
    has given the Nation's drinking water infrastructure a D+ grade and
    EPA's most recent National Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
    (2011) indicated that drinking water system infrastructure needs total
    $384 billion over the next 20 years; $72.5 billion of that total is
    needed to prevent contamination of 73,400 water systems. The American
    Water Works Association has estimated the 20 year need at $1 trillion
    (which more fully accounted for water distribution system replacement
    costs). Investment is needed for aging treatment plants, storage tanks,
    pumps, and distribution lines that carry water to our Nation's homes,
    businesses and schools. The DWSRF must continue to be a key part of the
    infrastructure solution.
        For the DWSRF Program in fiscal year 2018, ASDWA respectfully
    requests $1 billion: States were very encouraged by the $1.387 billion
    appropriated for the DWSRF in fiscal year 2010 but have been
    disappointed by the subsequent generally downward trend--$963 million
    in fiscal year 2011, $919 million in fiscal year 2012, $854 million for
    fiscal year 2013 (a figure not seen since 2006), $907 million in fiscal
    years 2014 and 2015, and $863 million in fiscal years 2016 and 2017.
    The primary purpose of the DWSRF is to improve public health protection
    by facilitating water system compliance with national primary drinking
    water regulations through the provision of loans to improve drinking
    water infrastructure. Water infrastructure is needed for public health
    protection as well as a sustainable economy, as explained above.
    Considering these indicators of success and documented needs, we
    believe funding at the $1billion level will better enable the DWSRF to
    meet the SDWA compliance and public health protection goals.
                                   conclusion
        ASDWA respectfully recommends that the Federal fiscal year 2018
    budget needs for States' role in the provision of safe drinking water
    be adequately funded by Congress. A strong State drinking water program
    supported by the Federal-State partnership will ensure that the quality
    of drinking water in this country will not deteriorate and, in fact,
    will continue to improve--so that the public can be assured that a
    glass of water is safe to drink no matter where they travel or live.
    States are willing and committed partners. However, additional Federal
    financial assistance is needed to meet ongoing and ever growing
    regulatory, infrastructure, and security needs. In 1996, Congress
    provided the authority to ensure that the burden would not go
    unsupported. For fiscal year 2018, ASDWA asks that the promise of that
    support be realized.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Association of State Floodplain Managers
        The Association of State Floodplain Managers appreciates the
    opportunity to offer our comments on the fiscal year 2018 budget
    request for the U.S. Geological Survey. We focus primarily on the
    essential water monitoring work of USGS and on the important effort to
    collect elevation data for the Nation through the 3-DEP mapping
    program. These data collection programs provide critical information
    for many programs at multiple Federal agencies, but we are particularly
    focused on their importance for production of accurate, up-to-date
    flood hazard maps and for assisting our efforts to reduce flood risk,
    loss of life and property and disaster-related costs to U.S. taxpayers.
        The National Streamflow Network and the 3D Elevation Mapping
    program are important information sources for other Federal agencies as
    well as for State and local entities, non-profit organizations and
    private sector interests. We appreciate the efficiency of centralizing
    collection of this data at USGS to avoid duplication by other Federal
    and State agencies and to provide nationally uniform data so all
    communities and States have consistent data for managing hazard risk.
        After a budget briefing by USGS officials, we were pleased to learn
    that the proposed budget will not include cuts to the National
    Streamflow Network. We urge you to support this aspect of the budget.
    Of key importance for the value of the National Streamflow Network is
    the uninterrupted collection of long-term data. This is essential for
    projections of flood risk and forecasting. Adequate funding is needed
    to both assure continuity of data collection and to make progress
    toward completing the authorized network of gages. The costs are very
    appropriately shared by the many users of the data. While about 31
    percent of the costs are provided in Federal funds, another 45 percent
    comes from States, localities and Tribes, another 20 percent comes from
    other Federal agencies and the remainder comes from non-profits and the
    private sector. It is our understanding that the USGS budget for the
    National Streamflow network has been about $170 million. We urge that
    funding be maintained at that level at a minimum.
        We are very concerned about the proposed $3 million reduction in
    the budget for the 3-DEP mapping program. When considered in
    association with the recently approved fiscal year 2017 budget, this
    represents a cut of $7.5 million for 3DEP mapping. The 3-DEP
    topographic mapping program is a very important investment for the
    Nation. Fortunately, due to improved technology, the costs of LiDAR
    data collection are coming down, but investment in the effort to
    assemble this data for the entire Nation is necessary for continued
    progress toward the objective of accurate up to date topographic data
    for the Nation by 2023. The funding structure for the program is not
    reliable, since only a portion of the funding comes from USGS and the
    rest is dependent on data purchase by other governmental or private
    entities. One of the largest purchasers of the data is the Federal
    Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) because the topographic information
    is essential for production of accurate flood risk maps. Those flood
    risk maps are used to guide development decisions, siting of
    infrastructure and critical facilities, evacuation planning and other
    functions which save lives, property and costs to taxpayers. For these
    reasons, we urge that 3DEP mapping be funded at least at current levels
    in the USGS budget. If at all possible within budgetary constraints,
    this would be a wise area for increased appropriations as the Nation
    plans for a major investment in infrastructure.
        The ASFPM and its 36 chapters represent more than 17,000 local and
    State officials as well as other professionals engaged in all aspects
    of floodplain management and flood hazard mitigation including
    management of local floodplain ordinances, flood risk mapping,
    engineering, planning, community development, hydrology, forecasting,
    emergency response, water resources development and flood insurance.
    All ASFPM members are concerned with reducing our Nation's flood-
    related losses. For more information on the association, its 14 policy
    committees and 36 State chapters, our website is: www.floods.org.
        We appreciate the chance to share our comments and recommendations
    regarding the USGS budget for fiscal year 2018. Please contact Chad
    Berginnis, Executive Director, or Larry Larson, Senior Policy Advisor,
    with any questions at cberginnis@floods.org or larry@floods.org.

        [This statement was submitted by Chad Berginnis, Executive
    Director.]
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums
        Thank you Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall for
    allowing me to submit written testimony on behalf of the Nation's 215
    AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums. Specifically, I want to express my
    support for the inclusion of $11,100,000 for the Multinational Species
    Conservation Funds (MSCF) operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (USFWS), $15,200,000 for the USFWS's International Affairs
    program, and $8,700,000 for National Environmental Education Act
    programs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the fiscal
    year 2018 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations
    bill. I also urge you to support robust funding of programs to conserve
    species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and reject any proposed
    cuts in funding to the USFWS.
                    multinational species conservation funds
        MSCF programs support public-private partnerships that conserve
    wild tigers, elephants, rhinos, great apes, and marine turtles in their
    native habitats. Through the MSCF programs, the United States
    supplements the efforts of developing countries that are struggling to
    balance the needs of their human populations and endemic wildlife. MSCF
    programs help to sustain wildlife populations, address threats such as
    illegal poaching, reduce human-wildlife conflict, and protect essential
    habitat. By working with local communities, they also improve people's
    livelihoods, contribute to local and regional stability, and support
    U.S. security interests in impoverished regions. This Federal program
    benefits AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums in their field conservation
    efforts and partnerships with the USFWS.
                 national environmental education act programs
        The EPA offers valuable environmental education initiatives that
    AZA encourages you to support. Education programs at AZA-accredited
    institutions provide essential learning opportunities, particularly
    about science, for schoolchildren in formal and informal settings.
    Studies have shown that American schoolchildren are lagging behind
    their international peers in certain subjects including science and
    math. In the last 10 years, accredited zoos and aquariums formally
    trained more than 400,000 teachers, supporting science curricula with
    effective teaching materials and hands-on opportunities. School field
    trips annually connect more than 12,000,000 students with the natural
    world. Increasing access to formal and informal science education
    programs has never been more important, and EPA environmental education
    grants help to support some of these opportunities at AZA-accredited
    facilities.
                             endangered species act
        The AZA and its members take the issue of wildlife conservation
    very seriously and wholeheartedly support the ESA, which has prevented
    hundreds of listed species from going extinct. Simply put, the ESA,
    which is recognized globally as a model for species preservation, is
    working. It has prevented the extinction of 99 percent of the species
    it protects since its inception in 1973. However, we know that the
    challenges facing our planet in the 21st century are as complex as they
    are urgent. Scientists estimate that the total number of mammals,
    birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish has declined by more than 50
    percent since 1970, and many believe that we are living amidst the
    planet's sixth mass extinction. Climate change threatens to accelerate
    this crisis. Without critical intervention today, we are facing the
    very real possibility of losing some of our planet's most magnificent
    creatures such as cheetahs, elephants, gorillas, sea turtles, and
    sharks.
        AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums have a unique responsibility to
    help others understand this crisis. It is our obligation--to these
    animals and to all life on earth--to take bold action now to protect
    our planet's biodiversity. One achievement that has gone unnoticed by
    most people is that zoos and aquariums have played a significant role
    in bringing over 25 species, including California condor, Florida
    manatee, and black-footed ferret, back from the brink of extinction.
        Although we have made significant progress in saving endangered
    species, this work is far from done. Species protection and
    conservation requires long-term commitment by all of us. It is through
    the ongoing work related to species recovery plans that we will
    conserve these species for future generations. The AZA and its members
    fully support the ESA, and I encourage you to assure that the agencies
    responsible for carrying out the mandates of the Act receive the
    necessary funding, human resource capacity, and regulatory flexibility
    to succeed.
                                  usfws budget
        Finally, much of the important conservation work at AZA-accredited
    zoos and aquariums depends on a robust and fully staffed USFWS.
    Acknowledging the budget challenges facing Congress and the agencies, I
    encourage you to assure that the USFWS has sufficient resources to
    employ qualified professionals, particularly for the programs handling
    permits, which support the science-based conservation breeding and
    wildlife education programs that require animals to be moved in an
    efficient, timely manner: International Affairs (Management Authority),
    Endangered Species, Law Enforcement, and Migratory Birds.
        AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums are essential conservation and
    education partners at the Federal, State, and local levels domestically
    as well as internationally. To assure that AZA-accredited zoos and
    aquariums can continue to serve in these important roles, I urge you to
    provide adequate funding for the USFWS as well as include $11,100,000
    for the MSCF, $15.2 million for the USFWS's International Affairs
    program, and $8,700,000 for critical environmental education programs
    at the EPA in the fiscal year 2018 Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies appropriations bill.
        Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

        [This statement was submitted by Dan Ashe, President and CEO.]

                                     ______

                             BardinDavidJonas deg.
                    Prepared Statement of David Jonas Bardin
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Chairman
    Hon. Tom Udall, Ranking Member
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
    Committee on Appropriations, United States House Senate

    Re:  Proposal to zero out the $1.9 million & 15 FTE USGS Geomagnetism
    Hazards Program

        Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:

        Do not zero out this USGS program in DOI. Strengthen it, instead,
    because productive outputs of its highly-skilled 15 FTE staff are vital
    to our national and international security and critical infrastructure.
        The bipartisan Space Weather Research and Forecasting Act (S. 141),
    approved unanimously by the Senate on May 2, 2017 (see https://
    www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/141), describes and
    relies on this very program as follows:

            SEC. 60701. SPACE WEATHER.
            . . . .
            (b) FEDERAL AGENCY ROLES.--
                    (1) FINDINGS.--Congress finds that--
                    . . . .
                            (E) the Department of the Interior collects,
                            distributes, and archives operational ground-
                            based magnetometer data in the United States
                            and its territories, and works with the
                            international community to improve global
                            geophysical monitoring and develops crustal
                            conductivity models to assess and mitigate risk
                            from space weather induced electric ground
                            currents; . . . [S. Rept. 115-21 (https://
                            www.congress.gov/115/crpt/srpt21/CRPT-
                            115srpt21.pdf).]

        S. 141 recognizes that the USGS Geomagnetism Program has important
    responsibilities prescribed in the National Space Weather Action Plan
    [https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=789864]. Particularly important: USGS
    is responsible for mapping geoelectric hazards of concern for the
    electric power grid, notably to the North American Electric Reliability
    Corporation (NERC) and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) [see
    FERC Order No. 830, https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/2016/
    092216/E-4.pdf].
        USGS tells you [at page I-24 of fy2018_usgs_budget_justification;
    PDF page 176 of 330]:
        Summary of Budget Request
              The 2018 budget request for the USGS Geomagnetism Program is
            $0 and 0 FTE, a change of -$1,884,000 and -15 FTE from the 2017
            Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level.
        Overview
              Magnetic storms are caused by the dynamic interaction of the
            Earth's magnetic field with the Sun. While magnetic storms
            often produce beautiful aurora lights that can be seen at high
            latitude, they can also wreak havoc on the infrastructure and
            activities of our modern, technologically based society. Large
            storms can induce voltage surges in electric-power grids,
            causing blackouts and the loss of radio communication, reduce
            GPS accuracy, damage satellite electronics and affect satellite
            operations, enhance radiation levels for astronauts and high-
            altitude pilots, and interfere with directional drilling for
            oil and gas.
              In order to understand and mitigate geomagnetic hazards, the
            USGS Geomagnetism Program has monitored and analyzed the
            Earth's dynamic magnetic field. The Program is part of the U.S.
            National Space Weather Program (NSWP), an interagency
            collaboration that includes programs in the National
            Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of
            Defense (DoD), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
            Administration (NOAA), and the National Science Foundation
            (NSF). The Geomagnetism Program provides data to the NSWP
            agencies, oil drilling services companies, geophysical
            surveying companies, and several international agencies. USGS
            data, products, and services are also used by the electric-
            power industry to evaluate geomagnetic storm risk.
            . . . .
        2018 Program Changes
              Eliminate the Geomagnetism Program. (-$1,884,000/-15 FTE):
            This eliminates the Geomagnetism Program, an element of the
            U.S. National Space Weather Program. This will reduce the
            accuracy of NOAA and U.S. Air Force forecasting of the
            magnitude and impact of geomagnetic storms. In addition to
            eliminating the data provided to partner Federal agencies, the
            elimination of the program will also reduce the availability of
            geomagnetic information to the oil drilling services industry,
            geophysical surveying industry, several international agencies,
            and electrical transmission utilities.
        Science Collaboration
              The USGS is a member of the multiagency NSWP. Domestically,
            the USGS works cooperatively with NOAA, the Air Force 557th
            Weather Wing, and other agencies. For example, USGS observatory
            data are used by NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center, and by
            the U.S. Air Force, for issuing geomagnetic warnings and
            forecasts. Internationally, the USGS magnetic observatory
            network is itself part of the global INTERMAGNET network. USGS
            research is conducted in collaboration with the Colorado School
            of Mines, the USGS Crustal Geophysics and Geochemistry Science
            Center, the NOAA/SWPC, and the NASA Community Coordinated
            Modeling Center.
              The USGS also works with private entities that are affected
            by space weather and geomagnetic activity, including electric-
            power grid companies and the oil and gas drilling industries.
            In the oil and gas industry, for example, drill operators need
            to know which way their drill bits are going to maximize oil
            production and avoid collisions with other wells. One way to
            accomplish this important task is to install a magnetometer--a
            sort of modern-day ``compass''--in a drill-string instrument
            package that follows the drill bit. Simultaneous measurements
            of the magnetic field in the drill hole are combined with those
            monitored by the USGS to produce a highly accurate estimate of
            the drill bit position and direction.

        But USGS omits that this program brings rapidly evolving earth
    science to NERC and FERC in particular.
        As a concerned citizen with Federal, State, municipal and private
    sector experience [see bio below], I believe that the USGS Geomagnetism
    Program brings modern relevance to earth science. We will need its
    services for many years to come to help protect us from ground-level
    hazards of space weather and, even, from malevolent risks (such as
    electromagnetic pulse attacks).
                Faithfully, David Jonas Bardin
                                   short bio
        Mr. Bardin, a retired member of Arent Fox LLP, has focused on
    energy, environmental, public utility, and governance issues in a
    number of public and private capacities.
      --At Arent Fox beginning in 1980, he practiced energy, public
            utilities, and environmental law on behalf of corporate and
            governmental clients in the United States and abroad.
      --As a citizen, he addressed energy issues involving public
            information, research and development, incentives for enhanced
            oil recovery and carbon dioxide sequestration, unconventional
            petroleum resources (including Bakken oil resources of the
            Williston Basin [see http://www.undeerc.org/News-Publications/
            Leigh-Price-Paper/Default.aspx]), electric power reliability
            and security, and District of Columbia and regional government
            matters (including the University of the District of Columbia).
        He served as Deputy Administrator of the Federal Energy
    Administration (1977) and Administrator of the Economic Regulatory
    Administration of the Department of Energy (1977-79), under
    appointments by President Carter, and as New Jersey's cabinet-level
    Commissioner of Environmental Protection (1974-77) under appointment by
    Governor Byrne. He worked in Israel (1970-74) on public utility and
    environmental matters. He held Federal civil service positions (1958-
    69) as trial attorney, assistant general counsel for legislation, and
    deputy general counsel at the U.S. Federal Power Commission (now FERC)
    during the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon Administrations, and
    did active duty as an enlisted man in the U.S. Army Transportation
    Research & Engineering Command (1956-58).
        He served on the board of directors of the D.C. Water & Sewer
    Authority (2001-2011).
        He is a graduate of Columbia University Law School (1956), Columbia
    College (1954), and the Bronx High School of Science(1950). He and his
    wife, Livia, have four children and five grandchildren.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation
        The Requests of the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) for
    the fiscal year 2018 Indian Health Service Appropriations and our
    comments are as follows:
      --VBC Funding.--Direct the IHS to fully fund Village Built Clinic
            (VBC) leases and make it a line item in the budget and allocate
            at least an additional $12.5 million to the IHS for VBC leases,
            for a total of $17 million.
      --CSC Funding.--Continue to fund Contract Support Costs (CSC) at 100
            percent and provide funding on a permanent and mandatory basis.
      --Sequestration.--Shield the IHS/BIA from sequestration.
      --Increase IHS behavioral healthcare funding (Mental Health/Substance
            Abuse)
      --Land Transfer Legislation.--Enactment of H.R. 236/S. 269, to
            facilitate transfer of from IHS to BBAHC land on which our
            dental clinic is located.
      --Concern of proposal to greatly increase the cost our Internet
            access.

        The Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation was created in 1973 to
    provide healthcare services to Alaska Natives of Southwest Alaska. We
    began operating and managing the Kanakanak Hospital and the Bristol Bay
    Service Unit for the IHS in 1980, and was the first Tribal organization
    to do so under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
    Act (ISDEAA). BBAHC is a co-signer to the Alaska Tribal Health Compact
    with the Indian Health Service (IHS) under the ISDEAA and is now
    responsible for providing and promoting healthcare to the people of 28
    Alaska Native Villages.
        We have made significant progress but now deal with modern-day
    health problems. Today, rather than TB and influenza epidemics, we
    struggle with diseases of a modern society that include chronic
    illnesses such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease and behavioral and
    mental and behavioral health needs. The life expectancy of our people
    has increased from 47 years of age in 1952 to 69.4 in 1998, still below
    that of U.S. residents and other Alaskans.
        Village Built Clinics. The Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation
    thanks Congress for appropriating $11 million for Tribal health clinic
    leases in the fiscal year 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act. We
    appreciate the Alaska Congressional delegation's continued support and
    are particularly thankful to Senator Murkowski for her leadership on
    this issue. We thank her for her steadfast determination in advocating
    for these small chronically underfunded remote clinics that serve as an
    essential health lifeline in rural Alaskan villages where there is no
    road system to connect villages to urban centers. As noted above, BBAHC
    serves 28 remote villages in southwest Alaska.
        BBAHC also appreciates the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on
    Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs holding a hearing on Indian
    infrastructure needs in Indian Country, and the support and
    participation of Chairman Emeritus Young in the discussion that focused
    on the considerable unmet needs of Village Built Clinics. Many of the
    Village Built Clinics are in extreme disrepair and there is a
    considerable need for a reserve fund for upkeep and expansion of these
    essential village facilities. In 2015, the Alaska Native Health Board
    estimated that a $14 million annual appropriation would be needed to
    fund a replacement reserve to tackle the clinic crisis. BBAHC supports
    increased funding for Village Built Clinics and requests that funding
    be a: (1) separate line item in the IHS budget, (2) recurring funding,
    and (3) displayed in the Budget Justification to better enable planning
    and certainty.
        The $11 million increase in fiscal year 2017 was a major step
    forward in funding Village Built Clinics, but that amount still does
    not meet the full amount of funding needed. In 2015, the Alaska Native
    Health Board estimated that in addition to the existing $4.5 million
    base, an additional $12.5 million is needed to fund these rural
    clinics. The fiscal year 2017 funding is a supplement to the
    approximately $4.5 million already being provided to these essential
    village clinics and should be so reflected. In addition, without a
    separate line item for Village Built Clinics, much of the funding could
    be distributed to other types of facility leases, leaving the Village
    Built Clinics falling far short of necessary funding.
        Contract Support Costs (CSC). BBAHC thanks this Subcommittee for
    its leadership in committing to fully fund IHS and BIA contract support
    costs for fiscal year 2016, and fiscal year 2017, funding it at ``such
    sums as necessary'' and making it a separate account in the IHS and BIA
    budgets. For IHS, the fiscal year 2017 estimate for contract support
    costs is $800 million and for the BIA, $278 million. For many years,
    both the IHS and BIA have vastly underpaid the contract support costs
    owed to Tribal organizations and this transformation makes an enormous
    difference in helping to ensure that the Indian Self-Determination and
    Education Assistance Act is fully funded and implemented as Congress so
    intended. The shift is also likely to significantly improve the
    Federal-Tribal government-to-government relationship. BBAHC thanks you
    for responding to Tribal requests and we also appreciate that the
    proviso that effectively denied CSC carryover authority granted by
    ISDEAA is absent from fiscal year 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
        BBAHC will continue to advocate for our long-term goal of ensuring
    that full CSC appropriations are made permanent and mandatory. Under
    the ISDEAA, the full payment of CSC is not discretionary; it is a legal
    obligation affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Funding
    of CSC on a discretionary basis has in the very recent past placed the
    House and Senate Appropriations Committees, in their own words, in the
    ``untenable position of appropriating discretionary funds for the
    payment of any legally obligated contract support costs.'' BBAHC is
    committed to working with the appropriate Congressional committees to
    determine how best to achieve that goal.
        Sequestration. BBAHC respectfully requests the Subcommittee's
    support in amending the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
    Act to exempt Indian programs, such as the IHS and BIA budgets, from
    sequestration. We support congressional efforts to fully exempt
    Veterans Health Administration programs from sequestration. However,
    Indian healthcare, as a Federal trust responsibility, should be
    afforded equal treatment. A number of members of this Subcommittee and
    other members of Congress have voiced support for our position and have
    publicly stated that it was an oversight that the Indian budgets were
    not included in the exempt category when the Balanced Budget and
    Emergency Deficit Control act was enacted.
        BBAHC is very concerned that the current fiscal year 2018 funding
    cap for non-defense discretionary spending is lower than the fiscal
    year 2017 spending cap. When put in the context of the President's
    fiscal year 2018 ``skinny'' budget proposal to raise defense spending
    by $54 billion and lower non-defense discretionary spending by a
    corresponding amount, we are concerned that a significant sequestration
    of funds is likely to occur. Whatever the case, Indian program budgets
    should be a funding priority and exempt from sequestration.
        Behavioral Health. We testified last year regarding the hardships
    in providing for our communities' behavioral and mental health needs,
    particularly with regard to our youth. As you know, there is an
    epidemic of suicide among Alaska Natives, especially teens. BBAHC has
    well-qualified professional staff who service approximately 8,000
    people in our region. But our social workers, counsellors and
    behavioral health aides have a theoretical caseload of 300 persons
    each. The ratio of mental health clinicians to clients is 1 to 1,300.
    Our 14-bed residential youth facility for substance abuse (Jake's
    Place) has an Alcohol and Drug Safety program funded by the State of
    Alaska but it is primarily an education program, not a treatment
    program, and much of the education is done remotely, via the Internet.
        We supported the Obama Administration's requested fiscal year 2017
    increases under Mental Health of $21.4 million for behavioral health
    integration and $3.6 million for the Zero Suicide initiative and under
    Alcohol and Substance Abuse of $15 million for the Generation
    Indigenous initiative and $1.8 million for a pilot youth project. The
    Senate Appropriations Committee also supported these increases and we
    appreciate that. The final fiscal year 2017 Appropriations Act provides
    under Mental Health $6.9 million for behavioral health integration and
    $3.6 million for the Zero Suicide initiative. Under Alcohol and
    Substance Abuse it provides $6.5 million for Generation Indigenous
    initiative, $1.8 million for the pilot youth project, and $2 million
    for detoxification. We are glad for any increases but urge you to make
    an increased commitment for fiscal year 2018 to help address the
    overwhelming behavioral health needs.
        Land Transfer Legislation. BBAHC also asks for your support in
    enacting legislation that would direct the Secretary of the Department
    of Health and Human Services to convey a 1.474-acre parcel of land, via
    warranty deed, to BBAHC for the land on which our new state-of the art
    dental clinic is located. The legislation is HR 236, introduced on
    January 3, 2017 by Congressman Young and S. 269 introduced on February
    1, 2017 by Senators Murkowski and Sullivan.
        The House and Senate bills are identical, and there is no reason
    they should not pass under unanimous consent or under suspension of the
    rules. The property transfer authorized by these bills would enable the
    land transfer from IHS to BBAHC via warranty deed, and would supersede
    any existing quitclaim deed. It would allow the BBAHC to have greater
    control over the land and more opportunities for financing as well as
    to remove any IHS reversionary interests.
        Our new dental facility opened in September 2016, on the grounds of
    the Kanakanak Hospital Compound. The new clinic replaced a dilapidated
    clinic and is providing expanded dental care to the our region where
    there are very few public dental clinics. Our service population is
    8,000. Part of the funding for the dental facility came from BBAHC
    reinvesting its share of a CSC settlement with IHS that was paid to
    compensate for years of contract underpayments to the Tribal health
    organization. The clinic is the first building owned by BBAHC on the
    hospital campus and there is a lot of pride and self-determination that
    flows from the new tribally-owned dental building.
        Universal Service Proposal. A a potentially devastating development
    is the proposal by the FCC to pro-rate by 7.5 percent the subsidies for
    Internet service. We currently have a subsidy from Universal
    Administrative Company (USAC)--the FCC-designated administrator of
    universal services--that subsidizes our Internet so we can connect thru
    satellite. Our current payment is $94,000 per month but under the
    proposal it will be $175,000 per month. That translates to an annual
    $2.72 million annual increase over what we are currently paying. There
    is no way we can afford this additional amount for connectivity. This
    will affect not only us but all Tribal health organizations in the
    State. Connectivity is the lifeline for the provision of health
    services in Alaska. In our case, we serve a vast area covering 28
    Tribal villages. This is obviously a case to be made to the FCC, but we
    want this Subcommittee, which is critical to the provision of providing
    funding for Alaska Native and Indian healthcare, and to be aware of
    this issue.
        In conclusion, we thank you for the opportunity to present
    testimony on IHS programs. We recommend: (1) directing the IHS to fully
    fund Village Built Clinic leases at $17 million and make it a line item
    in the budget, allocating at least an additional $12.5 million to the
    IHS for VBC leases; (2) continue to fund Contract Support Costs at 100
    percent and make funding available on a permanent and mandatory basis;
    (3) shield the IHS/BIA from sequestration; (4) increase funding for
    behavioral healthcare; (5) expedite passage of H.R. 236/S. 269, to
    facilitate transfer of the IHS parcel of land to BBAHC on which our
    dental clinic is located; and (6) ask for your attention on the
    proposal that would greatly increase our cost of internat access which
    his essential for the provision of healthcare.
        We appreciate your leadership and commitment to the advancement of
    the Native American people and thank you for your consideration of the
    concerns and requests of the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation.

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

        Prepared Statement of the Catawba Indian Nation, South Carolina
    Requests:
        1.  Provide necessary funding to support Tribal self-determination
    and economic development.
        2.  Establish avenues for increased capital investment in Indian
    Country.
        3.  Maintain the $1 million allocation for NAGPRA-related law
    enforcement in fiscal year 2018 and beyond.
        4.  Expand funding for effective natural resource management and
    conservation.
        5.  Increase funding for Tribal historic preservation efforts to
    protect sacred sites.
        6.  Support the Johnson O'Malley program at the Bureau of Indian
    Education for Native student resiliency and long-term success.

        Introduction. Thank you Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall,
    and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on
    critical funding needs for American Indian and Alaska Native programs
    in the Department of the Interior. The people of the Catawba Indian
    Nation thank you for your hard work on behalf of Indian Country and for
    inviting Tribal leaders to submit outside witness testimony on their
    communities' behalf. As you are aware, the programs at issue are
    founded on the political relationship that exists between the Federal
    Government and Tribal nations, which frames our government-to-
    government relationship and the trust responsibility to protect the
    interests and well-being of Tribal members.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Recently, there have been suggestions that Federal Indian
    programs and associated funding might somehow be unconstitutional. This
    is absolutely wrong. The Supreme Court has rejected equal protection
    challenges against Federal Indian laws, holding that the ``[T]he
    Constitution itself provides support for legislation directed
    specifically at the Indian Tribes. . . [T]he Constitution therefore
    `singles Indians out as a proper subject for separate legislation.' ''
    United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 649 n. 11 (quoting Morton v.
    Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 552 (1974)). If this were not true, a whole
    title of the U.S. Code (Title 25) would be in jeopardy in total
    contradiction to thousands of judicial decisions and dozens if not
    hundreds of laws passed by both houses of Congress and signed by every
    president.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        My name is William Harris and I am the Chief of the Catawba Indian
    Nation, the only federally recognized Tribe in the State of South
    Carolina. Since before recorded history, the Catawba have lived in the
    Piedmont area of South Carolina, east of the Nantahala National Forest
    and along the life-giving waters of the river bearing our name. Like
    our traditional pottery, the Catawba have been created from southern
    soil, to be shaped and fired over time by unimaginable hardship, and
    now stand tall as a living testament to our ancestors and to the land
    we call home. To advance the socioeconomic development and well-being
    of my Tribe and other Native communities, I offer the following budget
    recommendations for fiscal year 2018.
             i. sustainable economic development for smaller tribes
        Unique Hardships of the Catawba Indian Nation. As a sovereign
    nation and industrious people, we are committed to achieving economic
    self-sufficiency. The ability to provide a safe, vibrant, and fully
    functioning range of services to one's community is the aspiration of
    all Tribal governments. For the Catawba Indian Nation, this goal is
    immeasurably complicated by the terms of our 1993 Settlement Act with
    the State that inhibit meaningful Tribal economic development. For
    example, the Tribe was required to pay an out-of-county rate for Tribal
    students enrolled at public schools within the local Rock Hill School
    District based on an extremely unfair formula that would effectively
    impose a $500,000 annual fee on the Tribe. The justification for the
    fee was that the Tribe would be taking 3,500 acres of land into trust
    that could no longer be taxed, but in reality the Tribe has only taken
    about 300 acres into trust. As a result of legal action brought by the
    local school district following our inability to pay this exorbitant
    amount, there is a judgment against the Tribe exceeding the amount of
    our total assets. We urgently request Congressional support to promote
    our Tribal self-determination and sustainable economic development.
        Increased Support for Non-Gaming Tribes. Our Tribe is currently
    prohibited from establishing gaming operations on Tribal lands under
    the terms of our Settlement Act. Instead, we are allowed to operate
    just two bingo halls--neither of which ever turned even a marginal
    profit for the Tribe due to the mandatory 10 percent fee on gross bingo
    revenue that must be first transmitted to the State. It is our hope to
    come back to the Congress and ask for amendments to our Settlement Act
    that would restore some of our lost sovereignty and free-up our
    economic potential. In the interim, we continue to explore innovative
    avenues for economic development. We urge Congress to invest in
    programs that support economic development for non-gaming Tribes with
    limited resources to further the Federal Government's policy of
    promoting Tribal self-determination and economic self-sufficiency.
        Expanded Access to Investment Opportunities in Indian Country.
    Given adequate support and the appropriate resources, the majority of
    Tribes would likely become--assuming they are not already--significant
    contributors to their local and regional economies. Tribes are economic
    engines of the tourism industry, renewable energies, small business
    development, commercial services, among many others. However, limited
    access to capital and investment financing remain substantial barriers
    to economic development in Indian Country. We struggle with uniquely
    burdensome Federal restrictions and regulations, poor infrastructure,
    and other challenges that limit their economies from flourishing. It is
    important to create avenues for investment funds, financial resources,
    and business models that are mutually advantageous to Tribes and
    potential partners for economic advancement, stability, and
    diversification. We encourage Congress to provide increased support for
    investment opportunities in Indian Country in the fiscal year 2018
    budget.
                  ii. protection for tribal cultural patrimony
        Continued Support for the Protection of Cultural Patrimony; Thank
    You for Supporting Efforts to End Illegal Trafficking in Tribal
    Cultural Materials. As an artist and traditional potter, I am
    intimately familiar with the press of cool clay beneath my fingers and
    the process of creating a new form from the South Carolina earth. Such
    vessels transmit not only the impressions of the artists who created
    them, but also the cultural heritage and worldviews of all those
    individuals who came before. When these items are removed from Native
    communities through illegal trafficking, theft, or disruptions in the
    transmission of traditional practices, an irreplaceable aspect of our
    cultural expression and identity is lost as well.
        We would like to take this opportunity to provide a heartfelt thank
    you to Congress for providing expanded funding for NAGPRA-related law
    enforcement activities in the 2017 Omnibus. With a secure and dedicated
    funding stream, BIA and Tribal officials will have an enhanced capacity
    to combat and deter the trafficking of Tribal cultural patrimony. When
    aligned with the Federal protections of the PROTECT Patrimony
    Resolution, passed by the Congress last year, the Catawba Indian Nation
    can see a positive path forward in ensuring that the next generation
    will have access to these important cultural resources. We strongly
    encourage Congress to continue to support programs that protect our
    cultural heritage and work to bring these irreplaceable objects home
    and to maintain the $1 million NAGPRA-related funding for fiscal year
    2018 and beyond.
        Natural Resource Protection to Safeguard Tribal Cultures. We often
    think of the destruction of cultural heritage in terms of monuments or
    great works of art. However, it is also possible to conceptualize the
    destruction of cultural heritage in terms of living natural resources.
    When natural resources are contaminated or destroyed, such alterations
    necessarily impact the cultures that depend on those resources for
    physical, spiritual, and cultural sustenance. Our cultural heritage as
    the Catawba Indian Nation is intertwined with the natural resources
    that surround and define us, particularly in regards to our sovereign
    lands and the currents of the Catawba River. We urge Congress to
    safeguard Tribal cultures by providing increased funding for natural
    resource protections in the fiscal year 2018 Interior budget.
        Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs). The landscapes and
    features that qualify as Tribal sacred sites are as diverse as the 567
    Tribal nations currently recognized by the Federal Government. Each
    individual Tribe must decide for itself what does or does not
    constitute a sacred site. In recent years, an increasing number of
    Tribes have established THPOs equivalent to State programs under the
    National Historic Preservation Act. Federal funding, however, has not
    kept up with the expansion of THPO programs and, as a result, it is
    difficult for Tribes to meet their preservation compliance duties and
    responsibilities. We request an increase in THPO funding as part of the
    Interior budget to better protect Tribal sacred sites for future
    generations.
                      iii. increased support for education
        Increased Funding for the Johnson-O'Malley Program (JOM). The JOM
    Program provides supplementary educational services to meet the unique
    needs of Native children attending public schools. These services
    include academic counseling, dropout prevention assistance, Native
    language incorporation, and culturally based education activities in
    the classroom. The implementation of culturally and linguistically
    appropriate instruction and program design has proven to contribute to
    Native student resiliency and long-term success. To ensure that Native
    students are receiving appropriate forms of support, the JOM Program
    authorizes parent committees to design and implement their own
    programs. Through this critical program we are able to better support
    our children as they reach for their educational goals. We urge an
    increase in funding for per student allocations under the JOM to
    account for future student growth.
        Thank you for inviting outside witness testimony on the Federal
    budget for fiscal year 2018. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on
    behalf of the Catawba People. We look forward to working with you on
    addressing these complex needs.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Central Arizona Project
        On behalf of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District
    (CAWCD), I encourage you to include $1.5 million for salinity specific
    projects in the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Soil, Water and Air
    Program in fiscal year 2018. The funding will help protect the water
    quality of the Colorado River that is used by approximately 40 million
    people for municipal and industrial purposes and used to irrigate
    approximately 5.5 million acres in the United States.
        CAWCD manages the Central Arizona Project (CAP), a multi-purpose
    water resource development and management project that delivers
    Colorado River water into central and southern Arizona. The largest
    supplier of renewable water in Arizona, CAP diverts an average of over
    1.5 million acre-feet of Arizona's 2.8 million acre-foot Colorado River
    entitlement each year to municipal and industrial users, agricultural
    irrigation districts, and Indian communities.
        Our goal at CAP is to provide an affordable, reliable and
    sustainable supply of Colorado River water to a service area that
    includes more than 80 percent of Arizona's population.
        These renewable water supplies are critical to Arizona's economy
    and to the economies of Native American communities throughout the
    State. Nearly 90 percent of economic activity in the State of Arizona
    occurs within CAP's service area. The canal provides an economic
    benefit of $100 billion annually, accounting for one-third of the
    entire Arizona gross State product. CAP also helps the State of Arizona
    meet its water management and regulatory objectives of reducing
    groundwater use and ensuring availability of groundwater as a
    supplemental water supply during future droughts. Achieving and
    maintaining these water management objectives is critical to the long-
    term sustainability of a State as arid as Arizona.
                     negative impacts of concentrated salts
        Natural and man-induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates
    environmental and economic damages. EPA has identified that more than
    60 percent of the salt load of the Colorado River comes from natural
    sources. The majority of land within the Colorado River Basin is
    federally owned, much of which is administered by BLM. Human activity,
    principally irrigation, adds to salt load of the Colorado River.
    Further, natural and human activities concentrate the dissolved salts
    in the River.
        The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has estimated the
    current quantifiable damages at about $382 million per year to U.S.
    users with projections that damages would increase to approximately
    $614 million per year by 2035 if the program were not to continue.
    These damages include:
      --A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
            water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
            sector;
      --Increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine
            disposal for recycling water in the municipal sector;
      --A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
            water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
            dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
            softeners in the household sector;
      --An increase in the cost of cooling operations and the cost of water
            softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
            commercial sector;
      --An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
            and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
      --A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
            utility sector; and
      --Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
            with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
            terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
            disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
            basins.

        Adequate funding for salinity control will prevent the water
    quality of the Colorado River from further degradation and avoid
    significant increases in economic damages to municipal, industrial and
    irrigation users.
        history of the blm colorado river basin salinity control program
        In implementing the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of
    1974, Congress recognized that most of the salts in the Colorado River
    originate from federally owned lands. Title I of the Salinity Control
    Act deals with the U.S. commitment to the quality of waters being
    delivered to Mexico. Title II of the Act deals with improving the
    quality of the water delivered to users in the United States. This
    testimony deals specific with Title II efforts. In 1984, Congress
    amended the Salinity Control Act and directed that the Secretary of the
    Interior develop a comprehensive program for minimizing salt
    contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by BLM.
        In 2000, Congress reiterated its directive to the Secretary and
    requested a report on the implementation of BLM's program (Public Law
    106-459). In 2003, BLM employed a Salinity Coordinator to increase BLM
    efforts in the Colorado River Basin and to pursue salinity control
    studies and to implement specific salinity control practices.
    Meaningful resources have been expended by BLM in the past few years to
    better understand salt mobilization on rangelands. With a significant
    portion of the salt load of the Colorado River coming from BLM
    administered lands, the BLM portion of the overall program is essential
    to the success of the effort. Inadequate BLM salinity control efforts
    will result in significant additional economic damages to water users
    downstream.
        The threat of salinity continues to be a concern in both the United
    States and Mexico. On November 20, 2012, a 5-year agreement, known as
    Minute 319, was signed between the U.S. and Mexico to guide future
    management of the Colorado River. Among the key issues addressed in
    Minute 319 included an agreement to maintain current salinity
    management and existing salinity standards. The CAWCD and other key
    water providers are committed to meeting these goals.
                                   conclusion
        Implementation of salinity control practices through the BLM
    Program has proven to be a very cost effective method of controlling
    the salinity of the Colorado River and is an essential component of the
    overall Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
        CAWCD urges the subcommittee to include $1.5 million for salinity
    specific projects in the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Soil, Water
    and Air Program. The continuation of funding will prevent further
    degradation of the water quality of the Colorado River and further
    degradation and economic damages experienced by municipal, industrial
    and irrigation users. A modest investment in source control pays huge
    dividends in improved drinking water quality for nearly 40 million
    Americans.

        [This statement was submitted by Theodore C. Cooke, General
    Manager.]
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority
                                   i. summary
        The Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority (CORA), on behalf of its
    five member Indian Tribes, requests $5,458,355.00 in recurring base
    funding from the Department of Interior's fiscal year 2018
    appropriation bill, to support Tribal natural resource management
    programs pursuant to two recently enacted Consent Decrees and support
    for all intertribal resource management organizations under
    ``Evaluation and Research Activities--Climate Change''.
        CORA is a coalition of five federally-recognized Michigan Tribes
    including; the Bay Mills Indian Community, the Grand Traverse Band of
    Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians,
    the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and the Sault Ste Marie
    Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
        The Tribes are parties to the historic United States v. Michigan, a
    court case concerning the exercise of treaty-reserved fishing, hunting,
    and gathering rights as they pertain to Article 13 of the 1836 Treaty
    of Washington. Article 13 States that the Tribes ``stipulate for the
    right of hunting on the lands ceded, with the other usual privileges of
    occupancy, until the land is required for settlement.''
                     ii. great lakes consent decree (2000)
        In 1979, following nearly a decade of litigation in State and
    Federal courts (United States v. Michigan), the Federal district court
    affirmed the existence of treaty-reserved fishing rights in the upper
    Great Lakes of Michigan. These court rulings also determined that the
    Tribes could regulate and manage their respective members' fishing
    activities. Accordingly, the Tribes have developed the biological,
    enforcement, and judicial programs necessary to properly protect and
    manage the Great Lakes fishery resource while continuing to exercise
    commercial and subsistence fishing activities.
        While these court decisions recognized that the Tribes' right to
    utilize the Great Lakes fishery resource was in fact reserved in the
    1836 Treaty of Washington, the allocation of fishing opportunities
    among competing user groups, and the inter-jurisdictional management
    authority was not addressed. Subsequently, the seven parties to U.S. v.
    Michigan, which included the five CORA Tribes, the State of Michigan,
    and the United States initiated negotiations in the early 1980's that
    culminated in a 15-year court-ordered settlement in 1985. In 2000, the
    parties successfully renegotiated a comprehensive agreement that will
    govern allocation and management of the Great Lakes fishery resource
    through the year 2020. This agreement was entered into Federal court as
    a Consent Decree on August 8, 2000.
        The Great Lakes Consent Decree was a complex agreement that imposed
    many new management obligations on the parties, particularly the
    Tribes. Recurring base funding levels for each Tribe were established
    prior to adoption of the 2000 Great Lakes Consent Decree; however,
    since 2001, CORA has been annually requesting a modest increase in base
    funding to help the Tribes accomplish the extensive mandates imposed by
    the Great Lakes Decree, and to offset over a decade of inflation.
                       iii. inland consent decree (2007)
        In the early 2000's, the parties to U.S. v Michigan, strongly
    desired to settle the Inland portion of the case through a joint
    agreement, rather than contentious and costly litigation, such as
    occurred during the Great Lakes phase. After some 2 years of complex
    negotiations, the parties were successful in negotiating an agreement
    that resolved the question of Inland treaty rights. This agreement was
    also entered into Federal law as a Consent Decree on November 2, 2007
    and has no expiration date. Similar to the Great Lakes Consent Decree,
    it describes the allocation, management, and enforcement processes that
    will govern the Tribes' Inland (i.e. non-Great Lakes) treaty-reserved
    hunting, gathering, and fishing rights throughout nearly 14 million
    acres in northern Michigan. As with the Great Lakes Decree the Federal
    Government is a signatory party.
        The 2007 Inland Consent Decree is a comprehensive and complex
    document that resolves the final phase of U.S. v. Michigan. In order to
    achieve an agreement of this scope and magnitude, the CORA Tribes made
    many concessions, assumptions, sub-agreements, and politically
    difficult changes in their natural resource harvesting activities and
    associated management structures, including the forfeiture of
    commercial opportunities. The Inland Consent Decree also establishes
    many new obligations and responsibilities for all parties. For the
    Tribes, these responsibilities are heavily weighted toward development
    of regulations, biological monitoring and assessment, enforcement of
    the newly enacted regulations, and numerous inter-governmental
    processes; all of which impose a substantial and permanent financial
    burden for the Tribes and of which Congress has provided initial
    dollars for the implementation of Tribal programs.
        In order to meet the obligations mandated by the Inland Consent
    Decree, while providing for long-term sustainable use of the resources
    for the next seven generations, each of the Tribes will need to
    establish a management capability in several core areas, including
    Conservation Enforcement, Biological monitoring and assessment, Tribal
    Court, and Administration. These dollars will assist with establishing
    management programs for each Tribe under the 2007 Consent Decree to
    ensure that the Tribes can meet their obligations.

          Illustration 1. Extent of 1836 treaty-ceded lands and waters
                          (including the Great Lakes).

                       iv. funding request justification
        Clearly, both the Great Lakes and Inland Consent Decrees represent
    landmark accomplishments in resolving disputes related to rights
    reserved in treaties between the United States and Indian Tribes. These
    two Decrees cover the geographic majority of the State of Michigan and
    its Great Lakes waters; however, the viability and success of both the
    Great Lakes Decree and the new Inland Consent Decree hinges on the
    ability of all parties (Tribal, State, and Federal) to deliver
    effective resource management programs--and the onus is on the Tribes.
        In order to properly meet the responsibilities and mandates
    associated with both the Great Lakes and Inland Consent Decrees, CORA
    requests funding for the following activities:

        1.  Maintain and provide the current recurring base funding for
    continued operation under the Great Lakes Consent Decree.
        2.  Maintain newly enacted recurring base funding level to support
    programs necessary for implementation of the 2007 Consent Decree.

        After making such landmark, long-term commitments, it is imperative
    that the Tribes not be placed in a position where inadequate funding
    prohibits them from meeting their obligations, responsibilities, and
    opportunities under either the Inland or Great Lakes Consent Decrees.
    Adequate funding is absolutely critical to achieving the objectives and
    responsibilities described in both Consent Decrees; agreements that
    were designed to resolve complicated and culturally significant Treaty
    Rights issues. Moreover, failure to meet mandated obligations risks a
    ``re-opening'' of these negotiated agreements or, at a minimum,
    modifying certain terms of either Decree in a manner that would
    adversely affect the Tribes' ability to exercise their treaty-reserved
    rights, or upset the delicate balance of allocation and management
    strategies among the parties, which of course, includes the Federal
    Government as a party. The CORA Member Tribes appreciate the initial
    dollars received which will assist with implementation of the 2007
    Inland Consent Decree.
     v. distribution of fiscal year-2018 funding request among cora tribes
        On behalf of CORA and its five member Tribes, I would like to thank
    you for your past financial support, and request your continued support
    in fiscal year 2018 in maintaining CORA's current base funding for
    Great Lakes activities, and maintaining the newly enacted recurring
    base funding for implementing CORA's responsibilities under the Inland
    Consent Decree.
             vi. evaluation and research activities--climate change
        The CORA Tribes respectfully request your support for fiscal year
    2018 RPI funding for all intertribal resource management organizations
    for the Climate Change line item and to provide to CORA its
    proportionate share of those funds. That amount is $681,355.00.

                Sincerely,

        [This statement was submitted by Jane A. TenEyck, Executive
    Director.]

                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
        On behalf of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, I am submitting
    written testimony for the Hearing Record on the fiscal year 2018
    budgets for the Indian Health Service (IHS) and the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA). This testimony identifies the funding priorities and
    budget issues important to the Choctaw Nation and its citizens. The
    Choctaw Nation requests that Congress exempt Tribal Government Services
    and Program Funding from Sequestrations, Unilateral Rescissions and
    Budget Cuts in all future appropriations. We also request that Congress
    fully-fund Contract Support Cost (CSC) without impacting direct program
    funding. The fiscal year 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act included
    language establishing an indefinite appropriation for contract support
    costs in both the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health
    Service (IHS). Under the new budget structure, the full CSC that Tribes
    are entitled to will be paid and other programs will not be reduced if
    payments are underestimated in the President's budget. Tribes agree
    that maintaining this structure achieves the Nation's legal obligation
    to fully pay CSC and those payments should not be achieved by reducing
    direct services to any Tribe. Choctaw settled our past contract support
    cost claims in both the IHS and BIA. These funds have been restored to
    our health services and have contributed greatly to our ability to
    continue to cultivate a healthcare system to address the needs of our
    Tribal citizens.
        We strongly urge the subcommittee to protect the Federal trust and
    treaty obligations that are funded in the Federal domestic budget.
    Federal funding that meets Federal Indian treaty and trust obligations
    also provides significant contributions to the economy. In just the
    Department of the Interior (DOI), the BIA and Bureau of Indian
    Education (BIE) contribute substantially to economic growth in Tribal
    areas through advances in infrastructure, strategic planning, improved
    practices of governance, and the development of human capital.

    TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUEST--IHS
    ``Joint Venture Construction Project Staffing--$15.5 Million''

        The Joint Venture Construction Program (JVCP) is a unique
    opportunity for the IHS to partner with Tribes and make scarce Federal
    dollars stretch much farther than in the traditional Federal
    construction programs. In 2014 the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma was
    awarded a Joint Venture Construction Project by the IHS. The project
    consisted of the Tribe building the Regional Health Care Facility in
    Durant, Oklahoma and the commitment to staff the facility from the IHS.
    Partial funding in the amount of $15 million was included in the fiscal
    year 2017 appropriations bill for the IHS Joint Venture Construction
    Project line item. In accordance with the JVCP Agreement, the Choctaw
    Nation is requesting that the remaining IHS commitment for the facility
    of $15.5 million be included in the JVCP line item in the fiscal year
    2018 appropriation bill.

    NATIONAL BUDGET REQUESTS--INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE AND BUREAU OF INDIAN
            AFFAIRS

        A.  Special Diabetes Program for Indians--Support reauthorization
    of $200 million/year for 5 years (IHS)
        B.  Contract Support Costs--Indian Health Service and Bureau of
    Indian Affairs (IHS and BIA)
             1.  Provide full CSC funding without impacting direct Indian
            program funding
             2.  Reclassify CSC funding as Mandatory for 2018-2021
        C.  Purchased and Referred Care (PRC) (Formerly Contract Health
    Services). Provide $474.4 million (IHS)
        D.  IHS Mandatory Funding (Maintaining Current Services)--Provide
    an Increase of $314.9 (IHS)
        E.  Provide Funding Increases to Support the Office of Tribal Self-
    Governance (IHS) and the Office of Self-Governance (DOI) to fully staff
    the operations to build capacity to support the increased number of
    Tribes entering Self-Governance (IHS and BIA)
    The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
        The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma is the third largest Native American
    Tribal government in the United States with over 230,000 members. The
    Choctaw Nation territory consists of all or part of 10 counties in
    Southeast Oklahoma, and we are proudly one of the State's largest
    employers. The Nation operates numerous programs and services under
    Self-Governance compacts with the United States, including but not
    limited to: a sophisticated health system serving over 60,000 patients
    with Choctaw Nation Health Care Center (Hospital) in Talihina, nine (9)
    outpatient clinics, including three Joint Venture Projects in
    partnership with the Indian Health Service, the most recent of which is
    the Choctaw Regional Medical Clinic in Durant. The Nation also
    administers referred specialty care and sanitation facilities
    construction; higher education; Johnson O'Malley program; housing
    improvement; child welfare and social services; law enforcement; and,
    many other programs and services. The Joint Venture Construction
    Program (JVCP) is one of the IHS's most successful initiatives to
    increase access to healthcare throughout Indian Country. The Choctaw
    Nation has operated under the Self-Governance authority in the DOI
    since 1994 and in the Department of Health and Human Services' IHS
    since 1995. As a Self-Governance Tribe, the Nation is able to re-design
    programs to meet Tribally-specific needs without diminishing the United
    States' trust responsibility. Self-Governance is now a permanent
    reality for many Tribes.
        The Choctaw Nation has improved the health status of our people by
    operating a high quality healthcare system that is responsive and
    designed to meet the increasing complex needs of our users. We have
    leveraged scarce resources that have enabled us to succeed in the
    challenging healthcare field. We owe much to Self-Governance which
    authorized flexibility to use Federal appropriations in an efficient,
    effective way that supports the expansion and growth of the healthcare
    system we are continuing to build for our people.

    A. INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
    (1) Special Diabetes Program for Indians--Support Permanent
            Reauthorization Beginning with $200 Million

        The Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) has been a top
    priority for the Choctaw Nation since it was initially authorized in
    1997. SDPI is currently reauthorized through September 30, 2017 at a
    flat-line rate of $150 million/year (since 2004). Congressional funding
    remains the critical factor in the battle against diabetes and we
    request that as we continue to work for permanent authorization and
    mandatory program status, that you urge your colleagues to extend the
    reauthorization to 5 years and increase funding to $200 million/year.
    Permanent reauthorization will allow the program more continuity as
    well as provide us the ability to plan more long-term interventions and
    activities. Further, permanency of SDPI would be a great asset to
    promoting stability for this important health program and for reversing
    the trend of Type 2 diabetes in Indian Country. Continuing support of
    the SDPI will maintain critical momentum in diabetes research and care
    to help bring diabetes-related costs under control.
    (2) Provide an Increase of $474.4 million for Purchased/Referred Care
        The Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) program pays for urgent and
    emergency, specialty care and other critical services that are not
    directly available through IHS and Tribally-operated health programs
    when no IHS direct care facility exists, or the direct care facility
    cannot provide the required emergency or specialty care, or the
    facility has more demand for services than it can currently meet.
    Although the Nation operates a hospital facility, the hospital is
    located in a very rural area and services are limited. Therefore, PRC
    is a significant need to provide intensive care and tertiary care, as
    well as emergency transportation.
    (3) Mandatory funding (maintaining current services. Provide an
            increase of $314.9 million.
        Current services calculate mandatory cost increases necessary to
    maintain those services at current levels. These ``mandatories'' are
    unavoidable and include medical and general inflation, pay costs,
    contract support costs, phasing in staff for recently constructed
    facilities, and population growth. If these mandatory requirements are
    not funded, Tribes have no choice but to cut health services, which
    further reduces the quantity and quality of healthcare services
    available to American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) people.
    (4) Office of Tribal Self-Governance (OTSG). Provide an increase of $6
            million to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-Governance
        OTSG develops and oversees the implementation of Tribal Self-
    Governance legislation and authorities within the IHS under Title V of
    the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA),
    Public Law 93-638, as amended. OTSG is responsible for a wide range of
    Agency functions that are critical to IHS' relationship with Tribal
    leaders, Tribal Organizations, and other American Indian and Alaska
    Native groups. In 2003, Congress reduced funding for this office by
    $4.5 million, a loss of 43 percent from the previous year. In each
    subsequent year, this budget was further reduced due to the applied
    Congressional rescissions. As of 2017, there are 361 Self-Governance
    (SG) Tribes. This represents slightly over 62 percent of all federally-
    recognized Tribes. The Self-Governance process serves as a model
    program for Federal Government outsourcing, which builds Tribal
    infrastructure and provides quality services to Indian people.

    (B) BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
    (1) Education. Support the following funding amounts:

      --Provide $2.6 billion for system-wide Bureau of Indian Education
            (BIE) school construction and repair.
      --Provide $45 million for Johnson O'Malley
      --Provide $73 million for Student Transportation in the BIE system
      --Provide $78 million for Tribal Grant Support Costs for Tribally-
            controlled schools.
      --Provide $109 million for BIE facilities operations.
      --Provide $76 million for BIE facilities maintenance.
      --Provide $431 million for the Indian School Equalization Formula.
      --Provide $41 million for Education IT.
      --Provide $5 million for BIE immersion programs.
      --Reinstate $620,000 for juvenile detention education in BIA-funded
            facilities.
    (2) Fully Fund Fixed Costs and Tribal Pay Costs
        Partially funding or failing to fund Pay Costs for Tribes has
    devastated Tribal communities by causing critical job losses. Over 900
    Tribal jobs have been lost and an estimated 300 more jobs will be
    permanently lost on an annual basis if 100%Pay Costs are not provided.
    The Tribal losses are being further exacerbated by recent projections
    of costs that have been significantly underestimated. We urge full
    funding of fixed costs and Tribal pay costs.
    (3) Increase Tribal Base Funding (instead of through grants)
        Grant funding, particularly inside the BIA, is not consistent with
    the intent of Tribal self-determination. Tribal leaders have grown
    increasingly frustrated by the increase in Indian Affairs funding offer
    through grants, which are inconsistently funded and unreliable upon
    which to build successful programs and interventions. Allocating new
    funds via grants marginalizes and impedes the Tribal Self-Determination
    and Self-Governance. We recommend providing increases to Tribal base
    funding instead of through grants to Tribal government.
    (4) Office of Self-Governance (OSG)
        Provide funding to fully staff and allow OSG to operate as intended
    to oversee the implementation of Self-Governance legislation and
    authorities within DOI--Indian Affairs (IA) under Title IV of the
    ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638, as amended. Currently, of the 567 Federal-
    recognized Tribes, 277 are participating in Self-Governance in DOI with
    a total $450 million in distributions. OSG's operating and staffing
    budget is $1.5 million but their current salaries are $1.9 million, so
    they are operating at a deficit. The BIA committed to supporting these
    positions and all that is required is an internal transfer. It needs to
    be recurring money to support current staff salary and required
    functions to implement the statute.
        The Choctaw Nation supports the National Congress of American
    Indian (NCAI), the National Indian Health Board (NIHB), and the
    National Indian Education Association (NIEA) fiscal year 2018 Tribal
    Budget Recommendations. These recommendations have been compiled in
    collaboration with Tribal leaders, Native organizations, and Tribal
    budget consultation bodies.
        Thank you for accepting our written testimony for the hearing
    record.

        [This statement was submitted by Mickey Peercy, Executive
    Director.]
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Choose Clean Water Coalition
                                                        March 23, 2017.
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Chair,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC.

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

    Dear Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:

        The undersigned members of the Choose Clean Water Coalition request
    continued support for programs that are essential to maintaining and
    restoring clean water to the rivers and streams throughout the
    Chesapeake Bay region and to the Bay itself. Two-thirds of the 18
    million people in this region get the water they drink directly from
    the rivers and streams that flow through the cities, towns and farms
    throughout our six State, 64,000 square mile watershed. Protecting and
    restoring clean water is essential for human health and for a robust
    regional economy.
        The efforts to clean the Chesapeake began under President Reagan in
    1983. In his 1984 State of the Union speech, President Reagan said,
    ``Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative
    challenge, it's common sense.''
        To follow a common sense path to maintain healthy local water and
    restore Chesapeake Bay, which is critical for our regional economy, we
    request funding for the following programs in fiscal year 2018:
                      u.s. environmental protection agency
    Chesapeake Bay Program--$73.0 million
        We support level funding of $73.0 million for the base budget of
    the Chesapeake Bay Program, which coordinates Chesapeake Bay watershed
    restoration and protection efforts. The majority of the program's funds
    are passed through to the States and local communities for on-the-
    ground restoration work through programs such as the Small Watershed
    Grants, Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Grants, State
    Implementation Grants, and the Chesapeake Bay Regulatory and
    Accountability Program grants.
        We strongly support the highly successful and popular Chesapeake
    Small Watershed Grants and the Innovative Nutrient and Sediment
    Reduction Grants--$6 million each--that Congress appropriated in fiscal
    year 2016. These are two well-run, competitive grant programs that have
    contributed significantly to water quality improvements throughout the
    Chesapeake Bay watershed. These are the Bay Program's only grants that
    go directly to on-the-ground restoration efforts by local governments
    and communities. Without specific Congressional direction, EPA has, in
    the past, reallocated this grant money for purposes other than local
    restoration. This is not the time to stop local implementation of
    restoration work. We strongly support the language in the fiscal year
    2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act, where Congress protected these
    critical local grant programs: ``The Committee recommends $73,000,000
    for the Chesapeake Bay program. From within the amount provided,
    $6,000,000 is for nutrient and sediment removal grants and $6,000,000
    is for small watershed grants to control polluted runoff from urban,
    suburban and agricultural lands.'' We urge you to retain the same
    language in the fiscal year 2018 Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Bill, for both the overall Chesapeake Bay Program and
    for the local grant programs.
    Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) --$4.047 billion
        This program is critical to any national initiative to provide a
    Federal Infrastructure Spending Plan and it provides the lifeblood for
    the 1,779 local governments throughout the Chesapeake region to secure
    their water infrastructure. The funding level for this Clean Water SRF
    has eroded over the years as the clean water needs of local communities
    have increased dramatically. The Choose Clean Water Coalition supports
    efforts in both the House and the Senate, and within the
    administration, to triple the current funding for the Clean Water SRF--
    and this is what we are requesting. This will help to close the gap
    between Federal infrastructure investment in clean water and the known
    need. This will also dramatically improve water quality and protect
    human health in our region and across the Nation.
        These low interest loans are critical for clean water and for
    ratepayers in the Chesapeake region and nationwide. We urge you to
    support the $4.047 billion funding level that would provide $891
    million in low interest loans to local governments in Delaware,
    Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the
    District of Columbia--triple the current level of funding. We also
    strongly support targeting 20 percent of the Clean Water SRF funds for
    green infrastructure and innovative projects including those to manage
    stormwater, which helps communities improve water quality while
    creating green space, mitigating flooding, and enhancing air quality.
        The Clean Water SRF allocates money to the States based on a set
    formula, which is then used for low interest loans to local governments
    for critical capital construction improvement projects to reduce
    nutrient and sediment pollution from wastewater treatment and
    stormwater facilities; nonpoint sources of pollution, such as farms and
    development; and other sources. In addition to the use of these funds
    on farms and for nonpoint source pollution, it provides assistance for
    other pollution reduction and prevention activities in rural areas,
    such as reforestation and forest protection and stream stabilization
    and restoration. The Clean Water SRF enables local governments in the
    Chesapeake watershed to take actions to keep their rivers and streams
    clean. As the list of clean water infrastructure needs in the
    Chesapeake region continues to expand, we request that Congress triple
    the funding of the Clean Water SRF from last year's fiscal year 2016
    levels.
                           department of the interior
    U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)--Chesapeake Bay Studies--$11.991 million
        We support level funding from fiscal year 2016 of $11.991 million
    for the USGS to provide the critical science necessary for restoration
    and protection efforts for fish, wildlife and the 18 million people in
    the Chesapeake Bay watershed. USGS focuses on monitoring and assessing
    fisheries, waterfowl and the quality of their habitats, which provide
    economic benefits to the States involved in the Chesapeake restoration
    effort and represent the priorities of the Department of the Interior.
        USGS activities are critical for the restoration of several
    freshwater fish species, including brook trout, an important
    recreational fishery. A related activity is identifying chemicals, and
    their sources, which lead to fish consumption advisories for humans.
    USGS also provides the expertise to restore and conserve coastal
    wetlands, critical habitat and food for the more than one million
    waterfowl that winter in the Chesapeake region. USGS helps to
    coordinate the collection and assessment of monitoring data collected
    by the States and USGS. These assessments will help the States focus on
    areas and types of practices, for more effective approaches toward
    water quality improvements.
        The USGS is leading an effort to map areas where restoration and
    conservation efforts will contribute to multiple Chesapeake goals--
    benefiting people in the watershed as well as fish and wildlife. This
    mapping will help State and Federal partners more effectively focus
    actions and utilize available resources.
    National Park Service--Chesapeake Regional Programs--$3.0261 million
        The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Office runs a number of
    small, but very important programs that focus on increasing public
    access and the use of ecological, cultural and historic resources of
    the Chesapeake region. Expanding access and public awareness fosters
    stewardship and protection efforts.
        We are requesting level funding for these key programs administered
    by the National Park Service in the Chesapeake Bay watershed: Captain
    John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail ($385,000); Star Spangled
    Banner National Historic Trail ($150,600); support for coordinating
    these programs through the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Office
    ($476,500); and the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Trails ($2.014
    million). In addition, as in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of
    2016, we urge you to extend the authorization for the Chesapeake Bay
    Gateways and Trails program for 2 more years.
           department of the interior/u.s. department of agriculture
    National Park Service/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Bureau of Land
            Management/U.S. Forest Service--Rivers of the Chesapeake
            Collaborative Landscape Planning Projects--Land and Water
            Conservation Fund--$30.519 million
        We support continuation of the strategic use of funds from the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund for the Rivers of the Chesapeake
    Collaborative Landscape Planning initiative. This effort targets
    conservation funds for priority landscapes throughout the country; the
    Rivers of the Chesapeake is one such priority area. The collaborative
    proposal focuses on the great rivers of the Chesapeake and would
    protect 8,000 acres in the Potomac, Rappahannock, James, Nanticoke and
    Susquehanna watersheds in Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and
    Virginia. The areas in the Chesapeake include nationally significant
    resources, such as migratory bird habitat, spawning areas for
    economically important fish and shellfish, significant forest resources
    and projects to enhance public access.
        Thank you for your consideration of these very important requests
    to maintain funding for these programs which are critical to clean
    water throughout the mid-Atlantic region.

                Sincerely,

    1000 Friends of Maryland
    Alice Ferguson Foundation
    Alliance for Sustainable Communities
    Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
    American Rivers
    Anacostia Watershed Society
    Audubon Naturalist Society
    Back Creek Conservancy
    Blue Water Baltimore
    Cacapon Institute
    Capital Region Land Conservancy
    Catskill Mountainkeeper
    Cecil Land Use Association
    Center for Progressive Reform
    Chapman Forest Foundation
    Chesapeake Legal Alliance
    Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage
    Chester River Association
    Clean Water Action
    Coalition for Smarter Growth
    Conservation Montgomery
    Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania
    Delaware Nature Society
    Ducks Unlimited
    Earth Force
    Earth Forum of Howard County
    E. Penn. Coalition for Abandoned Mine Rec.
    Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
    EcoLatinos
    Elizabeth River Project
    Elk Creeks Watershed Association
    Environment America
    Environment Maryland
    Environment New York
    Environment Virginia
    Environmental Working Group
    Envision Frederick County
    Friends of Accotink Creek
    Friends of Dyke Marsh
    Friends of Lower Beaverdam Creek
    Friends of Quincy Run
    Friends of Sligo Creek
    Friends of the Middle River
    Friends of the Nanticoke River
    Friends of the N. Fork of the Shenandoah River
    Friends of the Rappahannock
    Goose Creek Association
    Interfaith Partners for the Chesapeake
    Izaak Walton League of America
    James River Association
    Lackawanna River Conservation Association
    Lancaster Farmland Trust
    Little Falls Watershed Alliance
    Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper
    Lynnhaven River NOW
    Maryland Conservation Council
    Maryland League of Conservation Voters
    Mattawoman Watershed Society
    Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association
    Mid-Atlantic Council Trout Unlimited
    Middle Susquehanna Riverkeeper
    Montgomery Countryside Alliance
    National Aquarium
    National Parks Conservation Association
    National Wildlife Federation
    Nature Abounds
    New York League of Conservation Voters
    New York State Council of Trout Unlimited
    Natural Resources Defense Council
    Neighbors of the Northwest Branch
    Otsego County Conservation Association
    Otsego Land Trust
    PennEnvironment
    PennFuture
    Pennsylvania Council of Churches
    Piedmont Environmental Council
    Potomac Conservancy
    Potomac Riverkeeper
    Potomac Riverkeeper Network
    Queen Anne's Conservation Association
    Rivanna Conservation Alliance
    Rock Creek Conservancy
    St. Mary's River Watershed Association
    Sassafras River Association
    Savage River Watershed Association
    Severn River Association
    Shenandoah Riverkeeper
    Shenandoah Valley Network
    Sidney Center Improvement Group
    Sleepy Creek Watershed Association
    South River Federation
    Southern Environmental Law Center
    SouthWings
    Sparks-Glencoe Community Planning Council
    Susquehanna Heritage
    Trout Unlimited
    Upper Potomac Riverkeeper
    Upper Susquehanna Coalition
    Virginia Conservation Network
    Virginia League of Conservation Voters
    Waterkeepers Chesapeake
    West/Rhode Riverkeeper
    West Virginia Citizen Action Group
    West Virginia Environmental Council
    West Virginia Rivers Coalition
    Wetlands Watch
    Wicomico Environmental Trust

                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Chugach Regional Resources Commission
        The Chugach Regional Resources Commission (``CRRC''), located in
    Alaska, is pleased to submit written testimony reflecting our needs,
    concerns and requests regarding the proposed fiscal year 2018 Budget
    for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). We are aware of the ongoing
    concern over the Federal deficit and Federal spending. Nevertheless,
    while the Federal Government is trimming its spending, it must still
    fulfill its legal and contractual obligations to Indian Tribes. The BIA
    not only has a legal and contractual obligation to provide funding for
    the CRRC, but the CRRC is able to translate this funding into real
    economic opportunity for those living in the small Alaska Native
    villages located in Prince William Sound and Lower Cook Inlet. CRRC is
    a non-profit coalition of Alaska Native Villages, organized in 1987 by
    the seven Native Villages located in Prince William Sound and Lower
    Cook Inlet in South-central Alaska: Tatitlek Village IRA Council,
    Chenega IRA Council, Port Graham Village Council, Nanwalek IRA Council,
    Native Village of Eyak, Qutekcak Native Tribe, and Valdez Native Tribe.
        CRRC was created to address environmental and natural resources
    issues and to develop culturally-sensitive economic projects at the
    community level to support the sustainable development of the region's
    natural resources. The Native Villages' action to create a separate
    entity demonstrates the level of concern and importance they hold for
    environmental and natural resource management and protection--the
    creation of CRRC ensured that natural resource and environmental issues
    received sufficient attention and focused funding.
        Through its many important programs, CRRC provides employment for
    up to 35 Native people in the Chugach Region annually--an area that
    faces high levels of unemployment--through programs that conserve and
    restore our natural resources. The administration's proposal to cut
    more than $300 million in appropriations for BIA puts all our work at
    risk.
        An investment in CRRC has translated into real economic
    opportunities, savings and community investments that have a great
    impact on the Chugach region. Our employees are able to earn a living
    and support their families, thereby removing them from the rolls of
    people needing State and Federal support. In turn, they are able to
    reinvest in the community, supporting the employment of and
    opportunities for other families. Our programs also support future
    economic and commercial opportunities for the region--protecting and
    developing our shellfish and other natural resources.
        Programs. CRRC has leveraged its BIA funding into almost $2 million
    annually to support its several community-based programs. Specifically,
    the $410,000 in base funding provided through BIA appropriation has
    allowed CRRC to maintain core administrative operations, and seek
    specific projects funding from other sources such as the Administration
    for Native Americans, the State of Alaska, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
    U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department
    of Education, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, the North
    Pacific Research Board and various foundations. This diverse funding
    pool has enabled CRRC to develop and operate several important programs
    that provide vital services, valuable products, and necessary
    employment and commercial opportunities. These programs include:
        Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery. The Alutiiq Pride Shellfish
    Hatchery is the only shellfish hatchery in the State of Alaska. The
    20,000 square foot shellfish hatchery is located in Seward, Alaska, and
    houses shellfish seed, brood stock and algae production facilities.
    Alutiiq Pride is undertaking a hatchery nursery operation, as well as
    grow-out operation research to adapt mariculture techniques for the
    Alaskan Shellfish industry.
        The Hatchery is also conducting scientific research on blue and red
    king crab as part of a larger federally-sponsored program. Alutiiq
    Pride has already been successful in culturing geoduck, oyster,
    littleneck clam, and razor clam species and is currently working on sea
    cucumbers. This research has the potential to dramatically increase
    commercial opportunities for the region in the future. The activities
    of Alutiiq Pride are especially important for this region considering
    it is the only shellfish hatchery in the State, and therefore the only
    organization in Alaska that can carry out this research and production.
        Natural resource curriculum development. Partnering with the
    University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration, CRRC has developed and implemented a model
    curriculum in natural resource management for Alaska Native students.
    This curriculum integrates traditional knowledge with Western science.
    The goal of the program is to encourage more Native students to pursue
    careers in the sciences. In addition, we are working with the Native
    American Fish & Wildlife Society and Tribes across the country
    (including Alaska) to develop a university level textbook to accompany
    these courses.
        In addition, we have completed a K-12 Science Curriculum for Alaska
    students that integrates Indigenous knowledge with western science.
    This curriculum is being piloted in various villages in Alaska and a
    thorough evaluation process will ensure its success and mobility to
    other schools in Alaska.
        Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council. CRRC is a member of
    the Council responsible for setting regulations governing the spring
    harvest of migratory birds for Alaska Natives, as well as conducting
    harvest surveys and various research projects on migratory birds of
    conservation concern. Our participation in this State-wide body ensures
    the legal harvest of migratory birds by Indigenous subsistence hunters
    in the Chugach Region.
        Statewide Subsistence Halibut Working Group. CRRC participates in
    this working group, ensuring the halibut resources are secured for
    subsistence purposes, and to conduct harvest surveys in the Chugach
    Region.
                                   conclusion
        At a minimum, we urge Congress to sustain the current level of
    funding of $410,000 in the BIA's budget for recurring CRRC funding
    needs. Despite the Administration's request, if Congress were to
    include an increase in our funding it will permit us to leverage
    additional dollars to do more for the Alaska Native villages located in
    Prince William Sound and Lower Cook Inlet. With a nearly five-to-one
    return on every Federal dollar invested in CRRC, we believe this to be
    a terrific return for the Federal Government and our communities.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
        Waters from the Colorado River are used by nearly 40 million people
    for municipal and industrial purposes and used to irrigate
    approximately 5.5 million acres in the United States. Natural and man-
    induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates environmental and
    economic damages. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has
    estimated the current quantifiable damages at about $382 million per
    year. Congress authorized the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
    Program (Program) in 1974 to offset increased damages caused by
    continued development and use of the waters of the Colorado River.
    Modeling by Reclamation indicates that the quantifiable damages would
    rise to approximately $614 million by the year 2035 without
    continuation of the Program. Congress has directed the Secretary of the
    Interior to implement a comprehensive program for minimizing salt
    contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by the
    Bureau of Land Management (BLM). BLM funds these efforts through its
    Soil, Water and Air Program. BLM's efforts are an essential part of the
    overall effort. A funding level of $1.5 million for salinity specific
    projects in 2018 is requested to prevent further degradation of the
    quality of the Colorado River and increased downstream economic
    damages.
        EPA has identified that more than 60 percent of the salt load of
    the Colorado River comes from natural sources. The majority of land
    within the Colorado River Basin is federally owned, much of which is
    administered by BLM. In implementing the Colorado River Basin Salinity
    Control Act in 1974, Congress recognized that most of the salts in the
    Colorado River originate from federally owned lands. Title I of the
    Salinity Control Act deals with the U.S. commitment to the quality of
    waters being delivered to Mexico. Title II of the Act deals with
    improving the quality of the water delivered to users in the United
    States. This testimony deals specifically with Title II efforts. In
    1984, Congress amended the Salinity Control Act and directed that the
    Secretary of the Interior develop a comprehensive program for
    minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands
    administered by BLM. In 2000, Congress reiterated its directive to the
    Secretary and requested a report on the implementation of BLM's program
    (Public Law 106-459). In 2003, BLM employed a Salinity Coordinator to
    increase BLM efforts in the Colorado River Basin and to pursue salinity
    control studies and to implement specific salinity control practices.
    BLM is now working on creating a comprehensive Colorado River Basin
    salinity control program as directed by Congress. Meaningful resources
    have been expended by BLM in the past few years to better understand
    salt mobilization on rangelands. With a significant portion of the salt
    load of the Colorado River coming from BLM administered lands, the BLM
    portion of the overall program is essential to the success of the
    effort. Inadequate BLM salinity control efforts will result in
    significant additional economic damages to water users downstream.
        Concentration of salt in the Colorado River causes approximately
    $382 million in quantified damages and significantly more in
    unquantified damages in the United States and results in poor water
    quality for United States users. Damages occur from:
      --a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
            water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
            sector,
      --increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine
            disposal for recycling water in the municipal sector,
      --a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
            water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
            dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
            softeners in the household sector,
      --an increase in the cost of cooling operations and the cost of water
            softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
            commercial sector,
      --an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
            and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector,
      --a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
            utility sector, and
      --difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
            with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
            terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
            disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
            basins.
        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed
    of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
    New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum is charged with reviewing the
    Colorado River's water quality standards for salinity every 3 years. In
    so doing, it adopts a Plan of Implementation consistent with these
    standards. The level of appropriation requested in this testimony is in
    keeping with the adopted Plan of Implementation. If adequate funds are
    not appropriated, significant damages from the higher salinity
    concentrations in the water will be more widespread in the United
    States and Mexico.
        In summary, implementation of salinity control practices through
    BLM is a cost effective method of controlling the salinity of the
    Colorado River and is an essential component to the overall Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Program. Continuation of adequate funding
    levels for salinity within the Soil, Water and Air Program will assist
    in preventing the water quality of the Colorado River from further
    degradation and significant increases in economic damages to municipal,
    industrial and irrigation users. A modest investment in source control
    pays huge dividends in improved drinking water quality to nearly 40
    million Americans.

        [This statement was submitted by Don A. Barnett, Executive
    Director.]
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
        This testimony is in support of fiscal year 2018 funding for the
    Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) associated
    activities that assist the implementation of Title II of the Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-320). This
    long-standing successful and cost-effective salinity control program in
    the Colorado River Basin is being carried out pursuant to the Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Act and the Clean Water Act (Public Law
    92-500). Congress has directed the Secretary of the Interior to
    implement a comprehensive program for minimizing salt contributions to
    the Colorado River from lands administered by the Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM). BLM funds these efforts through its Soil, Water and
    Air Program. BLM's efforts are an essential part of the overall effort.
    A funding level of $1.5 million for salinity specific projects in 2018
    is requested to prevent further degradation of the quality of Colorado
    River water supplies and increased economic damages.
        The Colorado River Board of California (Colorado River Board) is
    the State agency charged with protecting California's interests and
    rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River system.
    In this capacity, California participates along with the other six
    Colorado River Basin States through the Colorado River Basin Salinity
    Control Forum (Forum), the interstate organization responsible for
    coordinating the Basin States' salinity control efforts. In close
    cooperation with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
    pursuant to requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Forum is charged
    with reviewing the Colorado River water quality standards every 3
    years. Every 3 years the Forum adopts a Plan of Implementation
    consistent with these water quality standards. The level of
    appropriation being supported in this testimony is consistent with the
    Forum's 2014 Plan of Implementation. The Forum's 2014 Plan of
    Implementation can be found on this website: http://
    coloradoriversalinity.org/docs/2014%20Final%20REVIEW%20-
    %20complete.pdf. If adequate funds are not appropriated, significant
    damages associated with increasing salinity concentrations of Colorado
    River water will become more widespread in the United States and
    Mexican portions of the Colorado River Basin.
        The EPA has determined that more than sixty-percent of the salt
    load of the Colorado River comes from natural sources. The majority of
    land within the Colorado River Basin is federally owned, much of which
    is administered by BLM. Through passage of the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act in 1974, Congress recognized that much of the
    salts in the Colorado River originate on federally-owned lands. Title I
    of the Salinity Control Act deals with the U.S. commitment to efforts
    related to maintaining the quality of waters being delivered to Mexico
    pursuant to the 1944 Water Treaty. Title II of the Act deals with
    improving the quality of the water delivered to U.S. users. In 1984,
    Congress amended the Salinity Control Act and directed that the
    Secretary of the Interior develop a comprehensive program for
    minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands
    administered by BLM. In 2000, Congress reiterated its directive to the
    Secretary and requested a report on the implementation of BLM's program
    (Public Law 106-459). In 2003, BLM employed a Salinity Coordinator to
    coordinate BLM efforts in the Colorado River Basin States to pursue
    salinity control studies and to implement specific salinity control
    practices. BLM is now working on creating a comprehensive Colorado
    River Basin salinity control program as directed by Congress. With a
    significant portion of the salt load of the Colorado River coming from
    BLM-administered lands, the BLM portion of the overall program is
    essential to the success of the entire effort. Inadequate BLM salinity
    control efforts will result in significant additional economic damages
    to water users downstream.
        Over the 33 years since the passage of the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act, much has been learned about the impact of salts
    in the Colorado River system. Currently, the salinity concentration of
    Colorado River water causes about $382 million in quantifiable economic
    damages in the United States annually. Economic and hydrologic modeling
    by Reclamation indicates that these economic damages could rise to more
    than $614 million by the year 2035 without continued implementation of
    the Program. For example, damages can be incurred related to the
    following activities:
      --A reduction in the yield of salt-sensitive crops and increased
            water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
            sector;
      --Increases in the amount of imported water;
      --Increased cost associated with desalination and brine disposal for
            recycled water in the municipal sector;
      --A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
            water heaters, faucets, and other household appliances, and
            increased use of bottled water and water softeners in the
            municipal and industrial sectors;
      --Increased costs of cooling operations and the cost of water
            softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
            commercial sector;
      --Increases in the use of water and cost of water treatment, and an
            increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
      --Decreased life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the utility
            sector;
      --Increasing difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements
            to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
            permit terms and conditions; and
      --Increased desalination and brine disposal costs due to accumulation
            of salts in groundwater basins.
        The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
    water resource to the nearly 20 million residents of southern
    California, including municipal, industrial, and agricultural water
    users in Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San
    Diego, and Ventura Counties. The protection and improvement of Colorado
    River water quality through the continued implementation of this very
    effective salinity control program will avoid, or reduce, additional
    economic damages to water users in California and the other States that
    rely on Colorado River water resources.

        [This statement was submitted by Christopher Harris, Executive
    Director.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Columbia River
    Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) is pleased to share its view on
    the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) fiscal year
    2018 budget. We have specifically identified the following funding
    needs and one request for review:
        1.  $10.2 million for Columbia River Fisheries Management under
    Rights Protection Implementation, ($5.6 million above fiscal year
    2017), to meet the base program funding needs of the Commission and the
    fisheries programs of our member Tribes;
        2.  $4.8 million for U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty under Rights
    Protection Implementation, ($520,000 above fiscal year 2017) to
    implement obligations under the recent agreements adopted by the U.S.
    and Canada;
        3.  $8.0 million for Tribal Climate Resilience under Rights
    Protection Implementation to assist Tribes in climate change adaptation
    and planning ($2.6 million above fiscal year 2017);
        4.  $352.5 million for Public Safety and Justice, of which $943,000
    supports enforcement of Federal laws at In-Lieu and Treaty Fishing
    Access Sites on the Columbia River; and
        5.  $900k for Facilities Management, Operations and Maintenance to
    support annual Operations and Maintenance funding for the 31 In-lieu
    and Treaty Fishing Access sites.

        History and Background: CRITFC was founded in 1977 by the four
    Columbia River treaty Tribes: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
    Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation
    of Oregon, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and the
    Nez Perce Tribe. CRITFC provides coordination and technical assistance
    to these Tribes in regional, national and international efforts to
    protect and restore our shared salmon resource and the habitat upon
    which it depends. Our collective ancestral homeland covers nearly one-
    third of the entire Columbia River Basin in the United States, an area
    the size of the State of Georgia.
        In 1855, the U.S. entered into treaties with the four Tribes \1\
    whereupon we ceded millions of acres of our homelands. In return, the
    U.S. pledged to honor our ancestral rights, including the right to fish
    in all Usual and Accustomed locations. Unfortunately, a perilous
    history brought the salmon resource to the edge of extinction with 12
    salmon and steelhead populations in the Columbia Basin listed under the
    Endangered Species Act (ESA).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Treaty with the Yakama Nation, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 951;
    Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 12 Stat. 963;
    Treaty with the Umatilla Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 945; Treaty with
    the Nez Perce Tribe, June 11, 1855, 12 Stat. 957.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The CRITFC Tribes have arrived as globally-recognized leaders in
    fisheries restoration and management. We are principals in the region's
    efforts to halt the decline of salmon, lamprey and sturgeon populations
    and rebuild them to levels that support ceremonial, subsistence and
    commercial harvests. To achieve these objectives, our actions emphasize
    `gravel-to-gravel' management including supplementation of natural
    stocks, healthy watersheds and collaboration with State, Federal and
    private entities.
        The programs in this testimony are carried out pursuant to the
    Indian Self-Determination and Assistance Act. Our programs are
    integrated with State and Federal salmon management and restoration
    efforts.
        Columbia River Fisheries Management within Rights Protection
    Implementation: The salmon, returning in the greatest numbers since
    Federal dam construction, tell us we're succeeding. But along with
    success, management increases in complexity, requiring greater data
    collection and enforcement. Funding shortfalls prohibit the achievement
    of Tribal self-determination goals for fisheries management, ESA
    recovery effort, protecting non-listed species, conservation
    enforcement and treaty fishing access site maintenance. We request an
    increase of $5.5 million over fiscal year 2017 for a new program base
    of $10.2 million for Columbia River Fisheries Management.
        The BIA's Columbia River Fisheries Management line item is the base
    funding that supports the fishery program efforts of CRITFC and the
    four member Tribes. Unlike State fish and game agencies, the Tribes do
    not have access to Dingell-Johnson/Pittman-Robertson or Wallop-Breaux
    funding. The increase will be directed to support the core functions of
    the fisheries management programs of the Commission's member Tribes,
    namely enforcement, harvest monitoring and renegotiation support for
    four primary agreements including Columbia River Treaty modernization.
        In 2008, CRITFC and its member Tribes struck three landmark
    agreements: (1) the Columbia Basin Fish Accords with Federal action
    agencies overseeing the Federal hydro system in the Columbia Basin,\2\
    (2) a 10-Year Fisheries Management Plan with Federal, Tribal and State
    parties under U.S. v OR, and (3) a new Chinook Chapter of the Pacific
    Salmon Treaty.\3\ These agreements establish regional and international
    commitments on harvest and fish production efforts, commitments to
    critical investments in habitat restoration, and resolving contentious
    issues by seeking balance of the many demands within the Columbia River
    basin. While through these agreements the Tribes have committed to
    substantial on-the-ground projects with some additional resources from
    the Bonneville Power Administration, the overall management
    responsibilities of the Tribal programs have grown exponentially
    without commensurate increases in BIA base funding capacity. For
    example, the Tribes' leadership in addressing Pacific Lamprey declines
    is this species' best hope for survival and recovery. The Tribes' are
    also addressing unmet mitigation obligations, such as fish losses
    associated with the John Day and The Dalles dams.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The Nez Perce Tribe is not a Columbia Basin Fish Accord
    signatory.
        \3\ See Salmon Win A Triple Crown'' at http://www.critfc.org/text/
    wana_109.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The funding provided through the BIA to support Tribal co-
    management is crucial to the Tribes and CRITFC's ability to
    successfully carry out Tribal rights protection, including these
    agreements. These funds support delivery of sound technical, scientific
    and policy products to diverse legal, public and private forums. Rights
    Protection Implementation funding takes on even greater importance as
    funding for State co-management agencies has become inconsistent or
    decreased. Below are priority need areas for CRITFC and our member
    Tribes.
        Workforce Development: CRITFC's Workforce Development Program helps
    prepare Tribal members of all ages for jobs and careers in Natural
    Resources Management by providing hands-on, culturally relevant
    experiences in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM)
    subjects. Since 2010, CRITFC has held a five-day long Salmon Camp for
    20 middle school students in collaboration with its member Tribes.
    Beginning in 2014, CRITFC has offered paid internship and research
    experiences for college students interested in fisheries and natural
    resources. Through mentorship, internship and externship opportunities,
    CRITFC aims to establish and sustain a Tribal workforce pool of
    respected and skilled Native American scientists, policy analysts,
    technicians and managers that serve the Tribes' fisheries and natural
    resource management program needs.
        Columbia River Treaty Modernization: The CRITFC's member Tribes are
    part of a coalition of fifteen (15) Columbia Basin Tribes whose rights,
    as well as management authorities and responsibilities, are
    substantially affected by the implementation of the Columbia River
    Treaty. While the Columbia River Treaty is evergreen and continues to
    provide benefits to both the U.S. Canada through coordinated flood risk
    management and hydropower production, the provisions regarding
    coordinated flood risk management change substantially after 2024
    unless the Treaty is amended. The need for this necessary amendment
    also creates an opportunity to modernize the Columbia River Treaty to
    integrate ecosystem-based function as a third purpose of this
    beneficial partnership. By integrating ecosystem-based function into
    this bilateral Treaty we will have an opportunity to address shared
    natural resource issues in a pro-active, comprehensive approach rather
    than reacting in a piece meal approach to individual salmon listings
    under the Endangered Species Act. Rights Protection Funds can allow the
    Columbia Basin Tribes to continue collaborating with the States,
    Federal agencies and regional stakeholders to conduct technical
    analyses in support of the negotiations with Canada being prepared by
    the State Department.
        U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty under Rights Protection
    Implementation: The U.S. and Canada entered into the Pacific Salmon
    Treaty in 1985 to conserve and rebuild salmon stocks, provide for
    optimum production, and control salmon interceptions. The treaty
    established the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) as a forum to
    collaborate on intermingled salmon stocks. The U.S. Section of the PSC
    annually develops a coordinated budget for Tribal, State and Federal
    programs to ensure cost and program efficiencies. In 2008, the U.S. and
    Canada adopted a new long term Treaty agreement after nearly 3 years of
    negotiations. Both parties agreed to significant new management
    research and monitoring activities to ensure the conservation and
    rebuilding of the shared salmon resource. The 2008 agreement expires at
    the end of 2018. The Parties are in the process of negotiating a
    revised agreement, which will identify implementation funding.
        For Tribal participants in the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the U.S.
    Section has identified a program need of $4.8 million for the twenty-
    five participating Tribes. These funds provide for direct Tribal
    participation with the Commission, panels and technical committees.
    This funding maintains Tribal resource assessment and research programs
    structured to fulfill required Treaty implementation activities, which
    protect trust resources. Our fiscal year 2018 recommended level for
    this program is an increase of $520,000 above the fiscal year 2017
    continuing resolution level and correlates to the U.S. Section's
    recommendation.
        Tribal Climate Resilience under Rights Protection Implementation:
    The Columbia River Treaty Tribes are feeling the effects of Climate
    Change. Shifts are occurring in salmon run timing, and berry and root
    ripening cycles. In 2015, climate-related stress in the form of
    historic forest fires and the loss of up to 400,000 sockeye salmon due
    to elevated water temperatures illustrate our climate crisis.
        Public Safety and Justice, Criminal Investigations and Police
    Services: Public safety continues to be a high priority for CRITFC and
    our Tribes. Our conservation and criminal enforcement officers are the
    cornerstone of public safety in the popular and heavily used Columbia
    Gorge area patrolling 150 miles of the Columbia River, including its
    shorelines in Oregon and Washington. In this area we are the primary
    provider of enforcement services at 31 fishing access sites developed
    pursuant to Public Law 87-14 and Public Law 100-581 for use by treaty
    fishers. CRITFC's officers possess BIA Special Law Enforcement
    Commissions to enhance protection and service to Tribal members and
    Federal trust properties along the Columbia River. We are pleased that
    the BIA has created OJS District 8 and housed it in Portland. CRITFC
    entered into a Public Law 93-638 contract with BIA in February 2011 for
    enforcement services along the Columbia River. That contract currently
    provides funding for two enforcement positions.
        Our immediate priority is to add two Patrol officers, one Sergeant,
    one Investigator and one Dispatcher. Full funding for this Enforcement
    need is $943,000 which would support a total of four officers, one
    sergeant, an investigator and a dispatcher.
        Facilities Management, Operations and Maintenance: Long term
    reliability of Operations and Maintenance funding for the 31 In-lieu
    and Treaty Fishing Access sites is in jeopardy. Under the current
    annual O&M service rate and under current financial market conditions
    the existing O&M funds will exhaust in 2022, a full twenty-three years
    short of the projected life of the originally structured O&M account.
    There are some immediate actions the Administration can and should take
    to provide stability for the sites. First, the 26 Treaty Fishing Access
    Sites should be added to the Federal property management inventory
    system and in doing will require additional annual operations and
    maintenance funding currently provided under contract by the Columbia
    River Inter-Tribal fish Commission. Second, the Administration should
    allocate $900,000 annually for O&M. These additional funds will ensure
    sufficient O&M at the newly added sites.
        A Request for Review of Salmon Mass-Marking Programs: CRITFC
    aspires to a unified hatchery strategy among Tribal, Federal and State
    co-managers. To that end, we structure hatchery programs using the best
    available science, regional expertise. A Congressional requirement,
    delivered through prior appropriations language, to visibly mark all
    salmon produced in federally funded hatcheries circumvents local
    decisionmaking and should be reconsidered. We have requested that
    Federal mass-marking requirements, and correlated funding, be reviewed
    for compatibility with our overall objective of ESA delisting and with
    prevailing laws and agreements: U.S. v Oregon, Pacific Salmon Treaty
    and the Columbia Basin Fish Accords. Salmon managers should be provided
    the latitude to make localized, case-by-case decisions whether to mark
    fish and, if so, in the appropriate percentages.
        In summary, through the combined efforts of the four Columbia River
    Treaty Tribes, supported by a staff of experts, we are proven natural
    resource managers. Our activities benefit the region while also
    essential to the U.S. obligation under treaties, Federal trust
    responsibility, Federal statutes, and court orders. We ask for your
    continued support of our efforts. We are prepared to provide additional
    information you may require on the Department of Interior's BIA budget.

        [This statement was submitted by the Honorable Leland Bill,
    Chairman.]
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, Members of the
    subcommittee:

        My name is Reynold Leno and I am the Tribal Council Chairman of the
    Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde. Thank you for providing me with the
    opportunity to raise an issue of great importance to Grand Ronde and
    similarly situated Tribes in Indian Country--the lack of adequate law
    enforcement funding for our reservations. In particular, my remarks
    will highlight the continued impacts termination has had on Grand
    Ronde's ability to secure Federal funding for much needed law
    enforcement services.
        Grand Ronde is located in rural northwest Oregon and is comprised
    of 5,389 members. The Tribe's Reservation is located in the outlying
    areas of Polk and Yamhill Counties.
        The Tribe was terminated by the Federal Government in 1954 then
    restored in 1983. The burden of rebuilding the reservation fell on the
    shoulders of the Tribe. Grand Ronde, like other terminated Tribes, did
    not receive any of the Federal investments in services and
    infrastructure available to Indian Country in the years before
    restoration. Since restoration, the Tribe has put forth significant
    effort into rebuilding its Tribal community, including the development
    of various types of Tribal housing, government buildings, an education
    complex, a health and wellness center, fire and police stations,
    management of over 10,000 acres of timber lands, and operation of a
    successful casino. The Tribe has made substantial contributions into
    the infrastructure of the surrounding community as well, including
    roads, water systems, fire protection, and more.
        While Grand Ronde has made great strides in rebuilding its
    Reservation community, the Tribe continues to suffer the effects of the
    29 years of termination, and it continues to be disenfranchised when
    seeking funding for infrastructure needs such as law enforcement. The
    Grand Ronde community has grown significantly over the last two
    decades, and along with that population growth has come an increase in
    crime. The Grand Ronde Tribal Police Department and the Polk County
    Sheriff's Office handled nearly 900 cases in 2015 and more than 1,000
    cases in 2016 in the Grand Ronde area. Cases logged by the Grand Ronde
    Tribal Police Department alone, through early May, suggest we are on
    track to handle an estimated 1,200 cases in 2017. Drug-related crime is
    a historic and persistent concern for our Tribal community, as is the
    growth of sex crimes.
        Due to the high crime in the community and inadequate County
    resources, since 1997 the Tribe has funded or provided criminal law
    enforcement on and near its reservation and the surrounding community.
    Because of the Tribe's remote location, there is a history of
    inadequate police coverage. To address this, the Tribe entered into
    Enhanced Service Agreements with Polk County between 1997 and 2012,
    under which the Tribe paid the County hundreds of thousands of dollars
    per year to provide coverage in the Grand Ronde community. In 2012,
    following the passage of Oregon Senate Bill 412--State law which allows
    Tribal police officers to act as peace officers under Oregon law--the
    Tribe started its own police department and began enforcing criminal
    law in the Grand Ronde area. Grand Ronde now has primary responsibility
    for law enforcement in the area.
        The Grand Ronde Police Department has been slowly making strides in
    its law enforcement and community safety programs, and is beginning to
    see what we hope are positive trends in certain crime rates.
    Unfortunately, we continue to see sex crimes on the rise, especially
    those involving youth. Drugs remain a persistent concern in our
    community. Any reduction in force would result in a loss of any gains
    made, much less reduce our capacity to keep our youth safe and keep
    drugs off of our lands.
        The Tribe has never received operational funding from the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs, and its requests for funding have been denied. The
    Tribe has utilized COPS grants and State grants to fund some law
    enforcement and emergency preparedness functions, but does not have an
    identified source of funding for continuing police operations, for
    which it requires BIA funding. Due to the high crime rates in the
    remote and rural area--which also contains one of the largest tourist
    destinations in the State--it is imperative that, in the absence of
    Polk County enhanced services, there be police protection to ensure the
    safety of the community. In order for the Tribe to provide adequate law
    enforcement, it needs BIA funding.
        The Tribe has requested that the Bureau of Indian Affairs enter
    into a 638 contract with the Tribe under which the Tribe would perform
    law enforcement services. The request was denied on the grounds that
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs isn't currently providing law enforcement
    services to the Tribe and thus there is no program to transfer to the
    Tribe in a 638 contract. Had Grand Ronde not been terminated in 1954,
    we believe the Bureau of Indian Affairs would have provided law
    enforcement services on the Reservation, thus allowing the Tribe today
    to qualify for a 638 contract to fund its law enforcement.
        As a Tribe terminated in the 1950s, Grand Ronde is at a severe
    disadvantage as it is unable to secure law enforcement funding through
    the Public Law 638 program, as it was not federally recognized during
    the self-determination era when these Federal programs were
    established. Tribes that have been terminated and subsequently restored
    are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to accessing Federal
    funding for law enforcement.
        There is a lack of law enforcement funding for Indian Country.
    Grand Ronde is not alone--those Tribes who have been restored following
    the termination era face additional challenges in securing funding. BIA
    funding should be made available to those Tribes who have been
    terminated and restored and who provide criminal law enforcement in
    their respective communities.

                                     ______

                   Congressional Fire Services Institute deg.
                           Prepared Statement of the
                     Congressional Fire Services Institute
                    International Association of Fire Chiefs
                    National Association of State Foresters
                        National Volunteer Fire Council
        Our organizations request that you include $87 million for the
    State Fire Assistance (SFA) program and $16 million for the Volunteer
    Fire Assistance (VFA) grant program in the fiscal year 2018 Department
    of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. SFA provides
    financial and technical support to States to enhance firefighting
    capacity, supports community-based hazard mitigation, and expands
    outreach and education to homeowners and communities concerning fire
    prevention. VFA provides grants to volunteer fire departments
    protecting communities with 10,000 or fewer residents to purchase
    equipment and training for use in wildland fire suppression. Both
    programs are administered by the U.S. Forest Service and require a 50
    percent match from the State or local entity in order to receive
    Federal funding.
        Wildland fire is a significant and growing problem across the
    Nation. Over the past 25 years there has been a substantial increase in
    the number of acres burned by wildland fire, as well as the amount of
    money spent by the Federal government to suppress wildland fire. In the
    west, the plains and the southeast where wildland fire has long been
    present, the fire season starts earlier and ends later than it used to,
    if it ends at all. Meanwhile, wildland fire is becoming increasingly
    common in areas of the country where it has historically not been
    problematic.

        Local fire departments and State forestry agencies are the first
    line of defense against wildland fire. Eighty percent of the initial
    attack on wildland fire is performed by volunteer fire departments, and
    State foresters are responsible for wildfire protection on two thirds
    of America's forested lands. In 2015, eighty percent of the fires
    started in areas where State and local departments had primary
    jurisdiction, and almost half of the total acres burned in 2016 were on
    State and private lands.
        SFA and VFA are critical in building State and local capabilities
    to prepare for, mitigate against, and respond to wildland fire. In
    2015, SFA and VFA funding trained nearly 150,000 firefighters, provided
    over $15 million in new or upgraded equipment, and engaged more than
    15,000 communities to develop and implement community wildfire
    protection plans.
        Unfortunately, even as State foresters and local fire departments
    are grappling with the serious and growing threat posed by wildland
    fire, Federal support has stagnated. Funding for Federal grants to help
    local fire departments respond to wildland fire has decreased over the
    past decade, averaging $13 million from fiscal year 2013-2017 compared
    with $18.7 million in fiscal year 2008-2012.
        Our organizations note and appreciate that Congress increased
    funding for VFA to $15 million and for SFA to 77 million in fiscal year
    2017. We are disappointed in the Administration's proposal for
    reductions in these programs. We urge you to provide $16 million for
    VFA in fiscal year 2018, matching the level of funding provided in
    fiscal year 2010. Providing $87 million for SFA would at least
    partially track the suppression budget increase on Federal lands. These
    programs provide the bulk of America's initial attack. If we want to
    quickly suppress those fire starts which will become large devastating
    wildfires, investing in SFA and VFA makes great sense in protecting our
    Nation's forests.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Consortium of Aquatic Scientific Societies
        Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:

        The Consortium of Aquatic Scientific Societies (CASS) is comprised
    of six professional societies representing diverse knowledge of the
    aquatic sciences. CASS members include the: American Fisheries Society,
    Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography, Coastal and
    Estuarine Research Federation, Phycological Society of America, Society
    for Freshwater Science, and Society of Wetland Scientists. Our
    collective membership totals almost 20,000 individuals that span the
    private sector, academia, non-governmental organizations, and various
    Tribal, State, and Federal agencies. The CASS organizations represent
    professionals who combine deep subject-matter expertise, a commitment
    to independent objectivity, and the critical review of environmental
    information, along with a passion for the natural places and resources
    that form the foundation of American greatness. We support the
    development and use of the best available science to sustainably manage
    our freshwater, estuarine, coastal, and ocean resources to the benefit
    of the U.S. economy, environment, and public health and safety.
        CASS writes in strong support of the Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA) and EPA programs that support the research, conservation,
    restoration, and sustainable use of aquatic ecosystems required by all
    U.S. citizens, who rely on clean and abundant water for their health
    and well-being. On March 16, the Trump Administration released a budget
    blueprint that identified drastic cuts to the EPA that would eliminate
    many critical programs that support sustainable use and economic
    development of aquatic resources. The Administration's internal spend
    plan memo from David A. Bloom, Acting CFO, dated March 21, directly
    targets many programs that protect and restore water resources. Among
    the programs listed for elimination: Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, Puget
    Sound, and other geographic restoration programs; nonpoint source
    pollution grant funds; the National Estuary Program; and research grant
    programs on safe and sustainable water resources and climate change. We
    urge you to reject these recommendations and instead provide your full
    support to EPA and its aquatic science and management programs.
        CASS recognizes that the Appropriations Committees face difficult
    decisions given fiscal constraints; we support EPA and the programs
    noted above because they are vital to our Nation's economic and
    environmental well-being, and are an efficient and effective use of
    funds appropriated by the Federal Government. They support a clean and
    adequate water supply, sustainable fish populations for food and
    recreation, natural and human communities that are resilient to hazards
    and changing climates, healthy and diverse aquatic ecosystems, and
    abundant outdoor recreation opportunities that protect America's
    conservation heritage and provide enormous economic and cultural
    benefit. The Federal funding provides an enormous return on investment
    that sustains and creates jobs and protects lives and natural
    resources. We hope that the Committee will continue its support for
    these vital EPA programs.

                Respectfully,

                        Joe Margraf, President, American Fisheries Society;
                                Tim Nelson, President, Phycological Society
                                of America; Linda Duguay, President,
                                Association for the Sciences of Limnology
                                and Oceanography; Emily Bernhardt,
                                President, Society for Freshwater Science;
                                Robert R. Twilley, President, Coastal and
                                Estuarine Research Federation; and Gillian
                                Davies, President, Society of Wetland
                                Scientists.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of the Corps Network
        Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:

        I write on behalf of The Corps Network, to respectfully urge your
    strong support for continued funding for the Department of Interior
    (DOI) and US Forest Service (USFS) in fiscal year 2018, and thank you
    for your efforts to increase funding for key DOI and USFS accounts in
    fiscal year 2017. As you craft the fiscal year 2018 Interior
    Appropriations bill, we encourage you take into account the significant
    leveraging of limited Federal resources our Corps accomplish in
    partnership with land management agencies, and ensure they have
    adequate funding to expand on these cost-effective public-private
    partnerships and engage the next generation of youth and veteran
    outdoor stewards, entrepreneurs, recreationists, and sportsmen and
    women.
        Corps of The Corps Network support DOI and USFS budgets for youth,
    operation, management, maintenance, and construction which are used to
    engage Corps, and our youth and veteran Corpsmembers, on important
    projects; the Centennial Initiative; funding for Wildland Fire
    Management through both DOI and USFS; and language encouraging
    partnerships with Corps and expanding direct hire authority for USFS.
    By partnering with Corps, agencies achieve more with their budgets and
    accomplish cost-effective projects to help address the multi-billion-
    dollar maintenance backlog; remediate wildfires and invasive species;
    improve access to public lands; build and maintain multi-use trails and
    increase recreation opportunities; and ensure productive fish and
    wildlife habitat for enthusiasts, hunters, and fishers.
        These accounts also support the 21st Century Conservation Service
    Corps (21CSC) initiative, which has received bipartisan support in
    Congress from Reps. Martha McSally (R-Arizona) and Seth Moulton (D-
    Massachusetts) and Senators John McCain (R-Arizona) and Michael Bennet
    (D-Colorado), as well as Army General (Ret.) Stanley McChrystal and
    President Bush's Domestic Policy Advisor, John Bridgeland, and the past
    five Secretaries of the Interior. The 21CSC initiative has private
    sector support from Coca-Cola, the North Face, American Eagle
    Outfitters, Thule, KEEN, and REI. In addition, there are over 80
    different national and regional corporations and organizations
    supporting 21CSC like the American Recreation Coalition, Outdoor
    Industry Association, the Vet Voice Foundation, and the National Parks
    Conservation Association.
        Thank you again for your efforts to ensure these accounts were
    strong in the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2017. With additional
    support from the 2017 Act, Corps will help accomplish millions in
    critical projects while also leveraging limited Federal funds. For
    example, Corps have utilized around $150 million in project funding
    from DOI and USFS over the past 3 years and turned that into millions
    more in matched funds and service projects, with the added benefit of
    engaging youth and veterans in meaningful hands-on work experiences to
    develop in-demand skills on the path to careers while building respect
    for our country, hard work, and the outdoors. Corps bring at least 25
    percent match to these projects, making Federal funds go further than
    they otherwise would.
        Last year, our Corps around the country accomplished: 1.6 million
    acres of wildlife habitat improved and made accessible; 1.5 million
    trees planted; 365,000 acres of invasive species removed; 32,000 acres
    of fire fuel reduced; 22,000 miles of multi-use trails constructed and
    improved; 16,000 recreation facilities improved; 8,200 acres of
    erosion, landslide, and flood prevention; 2,600 miles of fish and
    waterway habitat restored; 500 wildfires and disasters responded to;
    and 190 historic structures preserved.
        The Corps Network represents America's 135 Conservation Service
    Corps. Corps provide youth and veterans the opportunity to serve their
    country, advance their education and obtain in-demand skills. Serving
    in crews and individual placements, Corpsmembers perform important
    conservation, recreation, infrastructure, wildfire, disaster response,
    and community development service projects on public lands and in rural
    and urban communities. Corps enroll over 25,000 youth and veterans
    annually in all 50 States and DC, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa.
    Corps engage an additional 100,000 volunteers, and complete thousands
    of service projects valuing hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
        Project sponsors consistently express a high degree of satisfaction
    with the quality of work and productivity of Corps. Virtually all
    Federal project partners (99.6 percent) say they would work with Corps
    again and an independent study commissioned by the National Park
    Service found a 50-80 percent cost savings in using Corps on projects.
              fiscal year 2018 interior appropriations priorities
        The Corps Network respectfully urges the committee to support these
    programs that will allow public land management agencies to engage
    Corps:
      --U.S. Forest Service--National Forest System: $1.5 billion in fiscal
            year 18;
      --U.S. Forest Service--Capital Improvement and Maintenance: $364
            million in fiscal year 18;
      --U.S. Forest Service--Wildland Fire Management: $2.8 billion in
            fiscal year 18;
      --Department of Interior--Wildland Fire Management: $943 million in
            fiscal year 18;
      --National Park Service--Operation: $2.4 billion in fiscal year 18;
      --National Park Service--National Recreation & Preservation: $62
            million in fiscal year 18;
      --National Park Service--Centennial Initiative: $20 million in fiscal
            year 18;
      --Fish and Wildlife Service--Resource Management: $1.3 billion in
            fiscal year 18;
      --Bureau of Land Management--Management of Lands and Resources: $1
            billion in fiscal year 18;
      --Bureau of Reclamation--Water & Related Resources: $1.2 billion in
            fiscal year 18;
      --Bureau of Indian Affairs--Natural Resource Management: $200 million
            in fiscal year 18;
      --Department of Interior & US Forest Service--21st Century
            Conservation Service Corps (21CSC) Report Language: ``21st
            Century Conservation Service Corps and Public Lands Corps.--The
            Department of Interior, it's subdivisions, and the Forest
            Service are directed to continue their partnerships with the
            21st Century Conservation Service Corps (also referred to as
            21CSC), and Public Lands Corps, in order to accomplish access,
            conservation, wildfire, maintenance backlog, and infrastructure
            projects and engage additional youth and veterans as detailed
            and authorized in the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993 (16 USC
            Chapter 37, Subchapter II).''
      --US Forest Service--Direct Hire Authority:
        --``(a) The Secretary of Agriculture may appoint, without regard to
                the provisions of subchapter I of chapter 33 of title 5,
                United States Code, other than fiscal year 2017 Budget
                Justification USDA Forest Service sections 3303 and 3328 of
                such title, a qualified candidate described in subsection
                (b) directly to a position with the United States
                Department of Agriculture, Forest Service for which the
                candidate meets Office of Personal Management qualification
                standards.
          -- (b) Subsection (a) applies to a former resource assistant (as
                defined in section 203 of the Public Land Corps Act (16
                U.S.C. 1722)) who--
            -- (1) completed a rigorous undergraduate or graduate summer
                internship with a land managing agency, such as the Forest
                Service Resource Assistant Program
            -- (2) successfully fulfilled the requirements of the
                internship program; and
            -- (3) subsequently earned an undergraduate or graduate degree
                from an accredited institution of higher education.
          -- (c) The direct hire authority under this section may not be
                exercised with respect to a specific qualified candidate
                after the end of the two-year period beginning on the date
                on which the candidate completed the undergraduate or
                graduate degree, as the case may be.

        All these programs help Corps leverage limited Federal dollars to
    accomplish more projects than land management agencies normally would,
    while engaging thousands of youth and veterans in improving and
    restoring our nation's lands, water, and recreation assets. The
    construction and operation accounts are important as they are the main
    source of project funding, and help the agencies address their backlog
    and needed projects. We also believe it's important that land
    management agencies have adequate operating funds so there are staff in
    place to help develop and process agreements in a timely manner with
    partners like Corps, and ensure that if land managers have needs, they
    can easily hire local youth who have experience working in resource
    management. The Centennial Initiative is an innovative approach to
    addressing the myriad of issues in the national parks and can be
    targeted toward addressing the deferred maintenance backlog.
        To expand on this work, we support inclusion of language to
    encourage continuation of public-private partnerships through DOI and
    USFS with our innovative 21st Century Conservation Service Corps
    (21CSC) Initiative. These partnerships are included as a priority for
    the Administration in the fiscal year 18 National Park Service Budget
    Justification for example: ``Under the umbrella of the 21st Century
    Conservation Corps (21st CSC) NPS engages 16-30 year old Americans,
    including low-income and disadvantaged individuals and veterans through
    compensated natural and cultural conservation work projects that assist
    the Service in maintaining its resources in an cost effective manner
    while providing the participants with developmental job skills training
    and education.''
        The USFS has been a major supporter of our 21CSC Initiative as
    well, explaining in the fiscal year 18 Budget Justification: ``Our 21st
    Century Service Corps (21CSC) partnership provides an enormous return
    on investment, allowing the Forest Service to address critical
    conservation restoration needs and simultaneously have a deep and
    lasting impact on the people who participate, thereby building the next
    generation of natural resource professionals. From fiscal year 2014
    through fiscal year 2016, the agency has employed 30,000 youth and
    veterans on more than 2,000 distinct projects; expanded YCC jobs by 58
    percent to 1,500 in fiscal year 2016; implemented a Resource Assistants
    Program for students, recent graduates and others that is building a
    diverse pool of qualified and experienced candidates for permanent
    positions; and orchestrated growth in the 21CSC organization,
    recognizing and approving 201 partner organizations.''
        Corps also partner with USFS and DOI on critical wildfire
    remediation and fighting and see firsthand the damage that is done to
    the system, and communities, by an outdated budget structure for
    wildfire needs. We support adequate funding for wildfire remediation,
    but also changes to the budgeting process as included in the Wildfire
    Disaster Funding Act--a bipartisan proposal that would fund wildfire
    suppression in a similar manner to how the government currently funds
    the response to other natural disasters. As the USFS noted in past
    budgets, ``It is subsuming the agency's budget and jeopardizing our
    ability to successfully implement our full mission.'' Sweeping funds to
    battle wildfires from other USFS accounts hurts the whole system.
        As you can see, our Corps partner with DOI and USFS in a critical
    capacity to help them better manage our natural resources while
    providing high quality service and work experience outdoors to engage
    thousands of youths and veterans. We understand the fiscal constraints
    placed upon the committee which is why ensuring more partnerships and
    opportunities for our cost-effective public private partnerships is
    more important than ever. We again respectfully urge your support for
    these programs. Thank you for your time and consideration.

        [This statement was submitted by Mary Ellen Sprenkel, President &
    CEO.]
                                     ______

                        Prepared Statement of Dance/USA
        Madam Chairman and distinguished Members of the subcommittee, I am
    grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of Dance/
    USA, its Board of Directors and its 500 members. We strongly urge the
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies in the
    Committee on Appropriations to designate a total of $155 million to the
    National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2018. This
    testimony and the funding examples described below are intended to
    highlight the importance of Federal investment in the arts, so critical
    to sustaining a vibrant cultural community throughout the country.
        The NEA makes it possible for everyone to enjoy and benefit from
    the performing arts. Before the establishment of the NEA in 1965,
    funding for the arts was limited to major cities. The NEA has helped to
    strengthen regional dance, opera, theater and other artistic
    disciplines that Americans enjoy. NEA funding provides access to the
    arts in regions with histories of inaccessibility due to economic or
    geographic limitations. The NEA envisions a ``nation in which every
    American benefits from arts engagement, and every community recognizes
    and celebrates its aspirations and achievements through the arts.'' The
    agency has helped the arts become accessible to more Americans, which
    in turn has increased public participation in the arts.
        The NEA is a great investment in the economic growth of every
    community. Despite diminished resources, including a budget that is $17
    million less than it was in 2010, the NEA awarded more than 2,400
    grants in 2016 reaching nearly 16,000 communities. These grants nurture
    the growth and artistic excellence of thousands of arts organizations
    and artists in every corner of the country, resulting in jobs and
    economic activity. NEA grants also preserve and enhance our nation's
    diverse cultural heritage. The modest public investment in the nation's
    cultural life results in both new and classic works of art, reaching
    the residents of all 50 States and in every congressional district.
        In 2016, small-sized organizations (organizations with budgets
    under $350,000 per year) received 30 percent of the NEA's direct grants
    and 40 percent of NEA supported activity took place in high poverty
    neighborhoods.
        The return of the Federal Government's small investment in the arts
    is striking. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the NEA
    developed an ``Arts and Cultural Production Satellite Account'' which
    calculated the arts and culture sector's contributions to the gross
    domestic product (GDP) at 4.2 percent (or $729.6 billion) of current-
    dollar GDP in 2014. Additionally, the nonprofit performing arts
    industry generates $135.2 billion annually in economic activity,
    supports more than 4.13 million full-time equivalent jobs in the arts,
    and returns $9.59 billion in Federal taxes (Arts and Economic
    Prosperity IV, Americans for the Arts). It is estimated that the North
    American opera industry injects over $1 billion directly into the
    economy each year.
        On average each NEA grant leverages $9 from private and public
    funds. Few other Federal investments realize such economic benefits,
    not to mention the intangible benefits that only the arts make
    possible. The NEA continues to be a beacon for arts organizations
    across the country.
        The return on investments is not only found in dollars. In 2012,
    2.2 million people volunteered 210 million hours with arts and cultural
    organizations, totaling an estimated value of $5.2 billion--a
    demonstration that citizens value the arts in their communities.
                               nea grants at work
        Past NEA funding has directly supported projects in which arts
    organizations, artists, schools and teachers collaborated to provide
    opportunities for adults and children to create, perform, and respond
    to artistic works. NEA funding has also made the art form more widely
    available in all States, including isolated rural areas and inner
    cities.
        The more than 2,400 grants awarded to nonprofit arts organizations
    and arts programs supported projects that encourage artistic creativity
    and bring the arts to millions of Americans.
        NEA grants are awarded to dance organizations through its core
    programs: Art Works; Challenge America Fast Track Grants; and Federal/
    State Partnerships. In fiscal year 2016, the NEA awarded 162 grants to
    the dance field through the Art Works category, totaling $4,238,630.
    Diavolo  Architecture in Motion
    $20,000
    Los Angeles, CA
        To support Diavolo  Architecture in Motion's education and
    outreach programs during the company's Unites States tour. The company
    will partner with venues on the tour to present Young People's
    Concerts, community workshops, master classes, and residencies. The
    Young People's Concert (YPC) is an interactive student matinee show
    that includes repertoire excerpts, teamwork discussions, fitness
    exercises, and active adult participation. YPC will be updated to
    feature the latest Diavolo works, new interactive community engagement
    techniques, revised study guides, and repairs to set pieces. The
    company will offer workshops and support training for additional
    teachers for these workshops.
    Dance Exchange
    $10,000
    Takoma Park, MD
        To support the creation and presentation of Off-site/Insight:
    Stories from the Great Smoky Mountains, an Imagine Your Parks project.
    The intergenerational dance performance will unearth stories of the
    Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the surrounding region, and the
    people who have made the park what it is today. Dance Exchange will
    work with the National Park Service Staff to learn about the local
    ecology and park history. In collaboration with the Appalachian
    Highlands Science Learning Center, Dance Exchange will lead moving
    Field Guides, a series of workshops that will engage communities in
    creating a dance that enlivens the stories of those who have walked,
    explored, and preserved the region. The project will culminate in a
    public event that features live performances that illuminate stories
    about the park.
    Island Moving Company
    $10,000
    Newport, RI
        To support the production of a new work using the Open for Dancing
    community engagement model. This distinctive model is a forum for the
    creation of a new, site-specific work, and uses the artistic process to
    weave audiences, participants, and artists together to form a unique,
    communal relationship. A new tall ship, the Oliver Hazard Perry, is in
    the final stages of outfitting in Newport, RI. Before it takes to the
    seas with its education training programs, the company will mount
    ``Second Star on the Right,'' a retelling of Peter Pan performed on the
    decks and rigging of the ship. The company will include non-dancers in
    the creative process. Free performances will be offered.
    Ballet Memphis
    $10,000
    Cordova, TN
        To support the presentation of ``Places,'' a performance of new
    dance works, which explores themes of the past, present, and future.
    Choreographer Joshua Peugh will create a new work focusing on the past
    to music by the Memphis soul group STAX. Choreographer Jennifer
    Archibald will create work focusing on the present. And choreographer
    Gabrielle Lamb will create her third work on Ballet Memphis by looking
    at the future and will explore how people respond to their surroundings
    and an ever-changing landscape. The project will include an open
    rehearsal and outreach activities with community groups. The
    performances will take place at Playhouse on the Square in the city's
    art district and will include one ``pay what you can'' community day.
                  the non-profit professional dance community
        America's dance companies perform a wide range of styles and
    genres. These include aerial, ballet, modern, culturally specific,
    jazz, and tap companies. Over two-thirds of America's professional
    dance companies are less than 45 years old; as an established art form
    with national identity and presence, dance has burst onto the scene
    almost entirely within living memory. And yet, America can boast some
    of the greatest dance companies of the world and can take credit for
    birthing two indigenous dance styles--tap and modern dance.
        One key to this spectacular achievement has been the creation of a
    national marketplace for dance. When the National Endowment for the
    Arts instituted its Dance Touring Program in the 1970s, great dance
    became accessible to every community in America. What used to be a
    handful of professional companies and a scattering of regional dance
    has become a national treasure spread across cities and through
    communities, schools and theaters in all 50 States. Based on data from
    over 1,772 tax-exempt dance groups from across the United States,
    Dance/USA estimates that dance companies:
      --Employed over 15,896 individuals (based on data from 296 reporting
            companies) in a mix of full-time and part-time positions and
            supported by almost 23,000 volunteers (based on 276 reporting
            companies);
      --Paid approximately $754.3 million in expenses (based on 745
            reporting companies);
        Dance/USA, the national service organization for the professional
    dance field, believes that dance is essential to a healthy society,
    demonstrating the infinite possibilities for human expression and
    potential, and facilitating communication within and across cultures.
    Dance/USA sustains and advances professional dance by addressing the
    needs, concerns, and interests of artists, administrators, and
    organizations. Dance/USA's membership currently consists of nearly 500
    aerial, ballet, modern, culturally specific, jazz, and tap companies,
    dance service and presenting organizations, individuals, and related
    organizations. Dance/USA's member companies range in size from
    operating budgets of under $100,000 to over $50 million.
                                   conclusion
        Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending
    Federal tax dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered
    from a 40 percent budget cut in the mid-nineties, leaving its programs
    seriously underfunded. The continued bipartisan support for the NEA has
    continued to support artists and audiences, allowing dance and the arts
    to address critical issues, making communities healthier and more
    vibrant. The ``Dear Colleague'' letter in the U.S. House of
    Representatives received a record 154 signatures in support of the NEA.
        We urge you to continue toward restoration and increase the NEA
    funding allocation to $155 million for fiscal year 2018.
        On behalf of Dance/USA, thank you for considering this request.

        [This statement was submitted by Amy Fitterer, executive director,
    Dance/USA.]
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Defenders of Wildlife
        Madam Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record.
    Founded in 1947, Defenders has nearly 1.2 million members and
    supporters and is dedicated to the conservation of wild animals and
    plants in their natural communities.
        North America is fortunate to have some of the most abundant and
    diverse wildlife on Earth, more than 200,000 known species in the U.S.
    alone. This unique and irreplaceable heritage is treasured by all
    Americans both for its aesthetic value as well as for the very tangible
    benefits it provides as a resource. For example, a third of our food is
    pollinated by birds, bats, and insects; wildlife-associated recreation
    generated $145 billion in economic benefits in 2011; \1\ bats provide
    at least $3.7 billion in pest control services to the agricultural
    industry annually; \2\ and the value of ecosystem services from habitat
    in the contiguous 48 States is estimated at $1.6 trillion annually.\3\
    Budget cuts since fiscal year 2010 to Federal programs that conserve
    wildlife and habitat have severely undermined sound management.
    Inadequate funding will likely lead to irreparable harm to vulnerable
    species and habitat. Our Nation's wildlife is a treasure and well worth
    the investment to properly care for it.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife
    Associated Recreation, USFWS, 12/12.
        \2\ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/
    41.summary?sid=853248fd-6760-4341-93d0-2aeeab9ea450.
        \3\ The Economics Associated with Outdoor Recreation, Natural
    Resources Conservation and Historic Preservation in the United States,
    Southwick Associates, 9/29/11.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Four riders that would have undermined protections for imperiled
    species and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and sound management of
    our national wildlife refuges were included in the fiscal year 2017
    Senate Interior appropriations bill. We strongly opposed these riders
    and while all should rightfully have been removed from the final
    omnibus, we appreciate that all but one were stricken.
                           fish and wildlife service
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is our Nation's premier
    wildlife conservation agency. FWS needs adequate funding if it is to
    recover threatened and endangered species and protect migratory birds
    and fish, species of global conservation concern and other trust
    species, and stop or prevent wildlife crimes.
        Cooperative Recovery.--Defenders supports continued funding for the
    Cooperative Recovery program at no less than the fiscal year 2017
    level. This initiative is supporting more efficient and strategic
    efforts across landscapes to recover threatened and endangered species
    on National Wildlife Refuges and surrounding lands and has already
    supported delisting of two species.
        Renewable Energy.--Defenders supports funding at no less than the
    fiscal year 2017 level for renewable energy related Planning and
    Consultation and Service Science programs. The Service supports
    approvals of renewable energy projects while ensuring they comply with
    relevant environmental laws, and conducts research to assess potential
    impacts of energy development on sensitive lands and wildlife and to
    identify mitigation strategies.
        Ecological Services.--Defenders supports no less than the fiscal
    year 2017 level of $240 million for Ecological Services so that high
    priority work to protect imperiled species can continue:

      --Listing: The FWS needs no less than the fiscal year 2017 level of
            $20.5 million for listing so that it can continue to make
            progress with its 7-year listing workplan that allows the
            agency to prioritize over 350 species for listing decisions.
            This workplan is supported by a wide range of stakeholders.
      --Recovery: Defenders appreciates the $2 million increase that was
            provided for recovery in the fiscal year 2017 omnibus bill and
            urges no less than the fiscal year 2017 level of $84 million
            for fiscal year 2018. Currently, more than 400 listed U.S.
            species do not have recovery plans and FWS receives less than
            25 percent of the funding needed each year to implement all
            recovery actions identified in recovery plans.
      --Planning and Consultation: Defenders appreciates the $4 million
            increase that was provided for planning and consultation in the
            fiscal year 2017 bill and urges no less than the fiscal year
            2017 level of $103.1 million for fiscal year 2018. This
            continued level of funding is needed to support crucial Section
            7 consultations under the ESA so that projects can move forward
            while minimizing harm to listed species. FWS's consultation
            program already operates on an inadequate budget. Thus, some
            nationwide consultations are already delayed (e.g., pesticide
            consultations) and resources to monitor for permit compliance
            are almost nonexistent.
      --Conservation and Restoration: Defenders urges no less than the
            fiscal year 2017 level of $32.4 million to support continued
            conservation for candidate species as they await listing as
            well as work with stakeholders on a variety of efforts that
            benefit trust resources such as coordinating with partners to
            prepare for oil spill and hazardous materials releases.
      --Defenders appreciates that the fiscal year 2017 bill maintained
            funding for the Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration Program that
            assists livestock owners co-existing with wolves, and we urge
            continued funding at no less than $1 million.

        National Wildlife Refuge System.--Our National Wildlife Refuge
    System is the largest land and water system in the world dedicated to
    wildlife conservation. Refuges provide enormous benefits to the
    American people, generating $2.4 billion each year for local economies.
    Defenders appreciates the $2.5 million increase that was provided in
    the fiscal year 2017 bill. Nevertheless, the Refuge System Operations
    and Maintenance budget is now $80 million below the level needed to
    keep pace with inflation plus salary increases relative to the fiscal
    year 2010 level of $503.2 million. The workforce has declined through
    attrition during that time by 442 positions. Funding of $586 million
    for Operations and Maintenance would put the System on track for
    adequate funding in 4 years.
        Migratory Bird Management.--U.S. bird populations have experienced
    precipitous declines in recent years. Defenders supports continued
    funding at no less than the fiscal year 2017 level of $48.1 million,
    which includes funding for needed upgrades in aviation management and
    survey and monitoring programs, and for building resilience of bird
    species and their habitats through the Joint Ventures.
        Office of Law Enforcement (OLE).--Defenders supports no less than
    the fiscal year 2017 level of $75.1 million, a level that is still far
    from adequate. Currently, the OLE employs fewer than 200 special
    agents, the expert investigators that work to stop wildlife crimes both
    domestically and internationally. Moreover, only one in five current
    ports of entry are staffed with wildlife inspectors who work to
    intercept illegal wildlife shipments.
        International Affairs.--Defenders appreciates the $1.1 million
    increase provided in the fiscal year 2017 bill and urges continued
    funding at no less than the fiscal year 2017 level of $15.8 million
    which will continue to advance the National Strategy for Combating
    Wildlife Trafficking.
        Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs).--Defenders supports
    maintaining funding at no less than the fiscal year 2017 level of $13
    million for the LCCs which have been working to address complex
    challenges such as climate change across large landscapes.
        Science Support.--Defenders supports continued funding at no less
    than the fiscal year 2017 level of $17 million to address questions
    about climate adaptation and other landscape-level ecological changes,
    conservation of monarch butterflies and other declining species,
    strategies for addressing White-Nose Syndrome that is devastating bat
    populations, and other agency management challenges.
        Other key grant programs.--Defenders supports no less than the
    fiscal year 2017 levels for the Multinational Species Conservation
    Fund, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, the Cooperative Endangered
    Species Fund, and State and Tribal Wildlife Grants.
                  forest service and bureau of land management
        The U.S. Forest Service (FS) and the Bureau of Land Management
    (BLM) are essential to the conservation of wildlife and habitat in the
    U.S., yet funding is inadequate to address significant challenges to
    sustain these resources. Development and uses on public lands must
    proceed in a manner that maintains the ecological integrity of our
    lands and waters, conserves wildlife and habitat, and contributes to
    efforts to recover our most imperiled wildlife. We urge strong
    oversight to ensure that energy development is done in an
    environmentally sensitive fashion and in low conflict areas. Given
    their large land ownerships, it is imperative that both agencies
    embrace landscape level conservation and management efforts.
        FS Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management/Integrated Resource
    Restoration (IRR).--Defenders opposes expanding the IRR program beyond
    the current pilot program and in fact recommends the termination of the
    program given concerns that wildlife program activities have been
    marginalized under IRR and that timber targets have detracted from
    integrated restoration. Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management has
    been flat-funded at $140.5 million since fiscal year 2014. We support
    funding the program at least at the fiscal year 2010 level of $143
    million to carry out critical conservation and recovery activities and
    to begin to address the loss of biologists that has occurred in recent
    years.
        FS Land Management Planning, Assessment and Monitoring.--Numerous
    out of date forest plans lack contemporary conservation strategies for
    at-risk species, and often require costly amendment. Integrating the
    assessment, planning and monitoring programs will lead to more
    efficient land management planning, reducing timelines and costs.
    Defenders supports continued funding at no less than the fiscal year
    2017 level of $182.9 million.
        FS Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program.--We support
    continued funding at the fiscal year 2017 level of $40 million for this
    cost-effective program established to restore forest and watershed
    health, improve wildlife habitat, and reduce the costs of fire
    suppression in overgrown forests and the risk of uncharacteristic
    wildfires.
        FS Forest and Rangeland Research (FS R&D).--We were disappointed
    that FS R&D was cut by $4.5 million in the final fiscal year 2017 bill
    and we urge a return to the fiscal year 2015 level of $226 million
    which included $27.1 million for Wildlife and Fish R&D. Adequate
    funding for this program is crucial in providing relevant tools and
    information to support sustainable management of National Forest System
    lands as well as non-Federal forest lands. Generally, we are concerned
    that the FS may lack adequate applied scientific capacity both in R&D
    and the National Forest System to implement critical conservation and
    management actions.
        BLM Wildlife and Fisheries Management.--Defenders appreciates the
    increase of $13.9 million for Wildlife and Fisheries in the fiscal year
    2017 bill, which includes an increase of $8.9 million for
    implementation of management prescriptions to conserve the greater
    sage-grouse. Defenders supports no less than the fiscal year 2017 level
    of $115.8 million.
        BLM Threatened and Endangered Species Management.--Funding for this
    program is far below the level needed to fund work the agency is
    required to do to recover ESA listed species on BLM lands. Defenders
    supports $22.6 million for the program, an increase of $1 million over
    fiscal year 2017, which simply restores the budget to the fiscal year
    2010 level and will better help recover listed species.
        BLM Renewable Energy.--Defenders supports funding at no less than
    the fiscal year 2017 level of $29.1 million to allow BLM to continue
    facilitating renewable energy development on public lands, while
    avoiding areas with natural resource conflicts, including sensitive
    wildlife species.
        BLM Resource Management Planning, Assessment and Monitoring.--
    Defenders appreciates the increase of $4 million that was provided in
    the fiscal year 2017 bill for a total of $52.1 million. We urge
    continued funding at no less than that level to support new high
    priority planning efforts, data collection and monitoring crucial to
    the sage-grouse conservation strategy and other key initiatives, and
    continued development of a new geospatial initiative to better monitor
    ecological conditions and trends on the landscape.
                             u.s. geological survey
        The U.S. Geological Survey provides the basic science for
    conservation of wildlife and habitat.
        National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center/Climate Science
    Centers.--Defenders was disappointed in the $1.1 million cut included
    in the final fiscal year 2017 bill. We urge funding at no less than the
    fiscal year 2016 level of $26.4 million to support scientific needs in
    planning for climate change adaptation and building resiliency of
    ecosystems.
        Ecosystems.--Defenders urges continued funding at no less than the
    fiscal year 2017 level of $159.7 million to help to support development
    of crucial scientific information for sound management of our Nation's
    biological resources.
                    land and water conservation fund (lwcf)
        Defenders was disappointed in the $50 million cut to LWCF in the
    final fiscal year 2017 bill. We support funding at no less than the
    fiscal year 2016 level of $450 million to help to save some of the
    6,000 acres of open space, including wildlife habitat, that are lost
    each day in the U.S.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ http://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/coop_across_boudaries.html.

        [This statement was submitted by Mary Beth Beetham, Director of
    Legislative Affairs.]
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Dine Grant Schools Association
        The Dine Grant Schools Association (DGSA) is comprised of the
    school boards of six Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)-funded schools
    which are operated pursuant to the Tribally Controlled Schools Act
    (Public Law 100-297) and located on the Navajo Nation in Arizona and
    New Mexico. These schools are: Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant
    School; Kinteel Residential Campus, Inc.; To'hajiilee Day School; Na'
    Neelzhiin Ji'Olta (Torreon Day School); Hunters Point Boarding School;
    and Chilchinbeto Community School.
        As Tribal school boards, we have both the greater freedom and the
    tremendous responsibility to ensure that our students receive the kind
    of world-class, culturally relevant education that will help them reach
    their fullest potential. We take this responsibility seriously and we
    would like to thank this Subcommittee for playing an important role in
    our students' success. Further, as the BIE seeks to transition from
    running schools to supporting the Tribal school boards who take on this
    critical responsibility, the perspective of school boards who are
    already doing this successfully is more important than ever. This
    testimony highlights the needs and the best practices of Dine Grant
    Schools Association member school boards. Our highest funding
    priorities are: Tribal Grant Support Costs; Facilities Operations and
    Maintenance; and ISEP formula funds in the BIE budget as well as
    Education Construction and Repair in the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    budget.
        Success through language, culture, community involvement, and high
    standards. Successful students know who they are, that they are valued,
    and that great things are expected of them. Our schools incorporate
    Navajo language and culture into our curricula. We set rigorous
    standards that our students must strive to meet and that give them a
    sense of accomplishment at their achievements.
        Why Federal funding matters. It is difficult to concentrate on
    lessons if you are too cold or the roof is leaking or the water pipes
    don't work. It is difficult to take Partnership for Assessment of
    Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) online practice tests or take
    distance learning Advanced Placement classes on dial up speed Internet
    connections. It is difficult to ride the bus, sometimes on unimproved
    roads, to a crumbling school whose replacement has been identified as a
    priority, yet no improvements are made because the extensive waiting
    list for construction puts it on hold for years. These challenges to
    learning are prevalent throughout Indian Country. What has been
    different these past several years is Congress's sea change in
    understanding the extent of these challenges and bipartisan resolve to
    address them. For this, we are deeply grateful. As we work to provide a
    world-class education and bright future for our students, we consider
    Members of Congress to be our partners in this endeavor. Below is a
    description of the programs that make the greatest difference in our
    ability to educate our students.
                           tribal grant support costs
        Since the 1988 Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    reauthorization, tribally-operated elementary and secondary schools
    have received funding for the administrative expenses incurred for the
    operation of BIE-funded schools through an Administrative Cost Grant,
    now called Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC). Tribal Grant Support
    Costs are the Contract Support Costs for tribally controlled schools.
    These funds are used for essential services such as contract/grant
    administration; program planning and development; human resources;
    insurance; fiscal, procurement, and property management; required
    annual audits; recordkeeping; and legal, security and other overhead
    services.
        Impact. In fiscal year 2016, Tribal Grant Support Costs were fully
    funded for the first time and in fiscal year 2017, Congress increased
    this amount at the BIE's recommendation to $80 million. In previous
    fiscal years when TGSC appropriations had been insufficient to meet the
    level of need without other sources of funding, we had been forced to
    re-direct more and more funds from our education program budgets to
    cover essential administrative costs. Our schools were forced to make
    difficult decisions--such as delaying purchase of new textbooks and
    other materials, paying non-competitive teacher salaries, reducing the
    number school days--to fit within these reduced budgets. Even with
    these cost-saving measures, some schools were still struggling with
    further reductions in management and business-office personnel at the
    risk of prudent internal controls and meeting the federally-mandated
    requirements for fiscal processes and operation of education grants/
    programs.
        Request. Consistent, full funding of Tribal Grant Support Costs is
    a primary prerequisite for Tribes to continue to operate schools and
    for more Tribes to decide to take on this responsibility. As proponents
    of this model, we hope to be joined by even more schools in the coming
    years. We are grateful for Congress's commitment to full funding and
    willingness to work with Tribal school boards and the BIE to arrive at
    an amount that fulfills this obligation, particularly as more schools
    convert from BIE-operated to tribally-controlled schools.
                     facilities operations and maintenance
        Facilities Operations funding is for the ongoing operational
    necessities such as electricity, heating fuels, custodial services,
    communications, refuse collection and water and sewer service. This
    budget category saw a $7 million increase in fiscal year 2016 followed
    by a $3 million increase in fiscal year 2017.
        Facilities Maintenance funds are intended to provide for the
    preventative, routine, and unscheduled maintenance for all school
    buildings, equipment, utility systems, and ground structures. This
    budget category saw a $7 million increase in fiscal year 2016 followed
    by a $3 million increase in fiscal year 2017.
        There are numerous studies which attest to the fact that there is a
    close correlation between poor or inadequate facility conditions and
    poor student and staff performance. According to the fiscal year 2017
    budget justification, 55 of the 183 BIE-funded schools and dormitories
    (one-third) are still rated in ``poor'' condition in the Bureau's
    Education Facility Condition Index (FCI). Further, the fiscal year 2017
    budget justification elaborates that there is $388.9 million in
    deferred maintenance backlogs! It is clear that there is a long way to
    go with regard to upkeep of our schools. Part of the maintenance
    problem will be solved by replacing aging, deteriorated schools, but
    Federal resources for maintenance are needed to preserve that
    investment and to ensure our schools' facilities remain fully
    functional learning environments throughout the length of their design
    life.
        Impact. Our schools are making every effort to make do with very
    modest facilities funding. Since we cannot delay paying our utilities
    or avoid taking actions that would impact student safety, we often have
    to resort to using our other education or academic program monies--just
    like what happened when Tribal Grant Support Costs were not fully
    funded. We caution that insufficient funding to for Facilities
    Operations and Maintenance means delaying routine, as well as
    unscheduled, maintenance of buildings, equipment, utility systems and
    grounds--thereby jeopardizing student and staff safety. Attempts to
    moderate electrical and/or heating costs, or reduce custodial and
    refuse services and similar cost-cutting measures would only make our
    already compromised learning conditions more uncomfortable and
    unhealthy for students and staff. If we cannot provide a decent
    learning environment, how can we expect our students to focus on
    achieving academic success?
        Request. The recent increases for these two budget categories are
    important improvements; however, the fiscal year 2017 budget
    justification States that the $66.2 million requested (and provided in
    the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus appropriations) for Facilities Operations
    and the $59 million requested (and provided in the fiscal year 2017
    Omnibus appropriations) for Facilities Maintenance would fund 78
    percent of calculated Facilities Operations and Maintenance need across
    BIE-funded schools. We respectfully ask that the Subcommittee consider
    providing full funding.
            indian school equalization program (isep) formula funds
        The Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) Formula is the core
    budget account for Educational and Residential programs of the BIE
    elementary and secondary schools and dormitories. These funds are used
    for instructional programs at BIE-funded schools and include salaries
    of teachers, educational technicians, and principals. The amount
    provided to each school is determined by a statutorily-mandated formula
    established by regulation.
        During the eight-year period of fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year
    2010, the ISEP Formula account increased by almost $45.5 million; but
    in only two of those years--fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010--was
    the increase actually an increase in program funding. For the other
    years, the requested increases were limited to amounts needed for fixed
    costs and related changes, as opposed to actual program increases.
    Funding for ISEP began to fall in fiscal year 2011, and the fiscal year
    2015 level was actually $5 million less than in fiscal year 2010. In
    fiscal year 2016, Congress provided an increase for fixed costs
    followed by a $ 6.5 million program increase in fiscal year 2017.
        Impact. For most BIE-funded schools, the chronic shortfall in the
    other key school accounts has a negative impact on ISEP Formula
    funding, because ISEP Formula funds are often diverted to make up the
    shortfalls in other accounts, such as Tribal Grant Support Costs and
    Facilities Operations and Maintenance, when a Tribe or Tribal school
    board has no other source of funding to satisfy those shortfalls. This
    means fewer funds are available for instructional activities. We are
    tremendously grateful that Congress has increased funding for these
    critical accounts so ISEP Formula funds can be used for their intended
    purpose.
        Request. The $6.5 million program increase for a total of $400.2
    million that Congress provided in fiscal year 2017 will be very
    helpful; however, it still does not acknowledge the shortfalls that
    have been building for years. We respectfully request a total of $431
    million for this critical budget category.
                       education construction and repair
        This funding category within the BIA Construction budget includes
    Replacement School Construction; Facilities Component Replacement;
    Facilities Improvement and Repair; and Employee Housing Repair.
    According to the Department of the Interior, the current backlog of
    construction projects is estimated to be as high as $1.3 billion. The
    BIE has stated that its ``next-step'' is to ``develop a long-term
    school construction funding plan that will address the needs of all BIE
    funded schools determined to be in poor condition.'' We were encouraged
    by the substantial increase that this Subcommittee provided for
    Education Construction in fiscal year 2016 and then maintained in
    fiscal year 2017. We were encouraged to see the language in the fiscal
    year 2017 Omnibus joint explanatory statement directing the BIE to
    ``submit an allocation plan to the Committees for campus-wide
    replacement and facilities replacement within 30 days'' of the
    Omnibus's enactment. Finally, we were overjoyed to see that the
    National Review Committee identified one of our member schools, Dzilth-
    Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant School, for school replacement planning,
    design and construction funding.
        Impact. Facilities within the BIE system are woefully outdated and,
    in some cases, dangerous for students and staff. The lack of an
    appropriate learning environment in many BIE system schools puts Native
    students at an unfair disadvantage.
        Request. We ask that Congress and the BIE consult with Tribes and
    Tribal school boards when developing this long-term school replacement
    and repair plan. Further, we ask that once developed, Congress
    implement this plan by providing consistent funding for Education
    Construction and Repair each fiscal year. Adequate and predictable
    funding will mean that aging schools can finally be replaced in an
    orderly, scheduled fashion and our students can focus on their most
    important job: learning.
                                   conclusion
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on these
    critical matters. As we work to provide a world-class education and
    bright future for our students, we greatly appreciate that the Members
    of this subcommittee and your colleagues in the Congress have joined as
    our partners in this endeavor.
        Questions regarding this document may be directed to: Jerry Chavez,
    President, Dine Grant Schools Association: chavez.jerry45@yahoo.com.

        [This statement was submitted by Jerry Chavez, President.]
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe
        The requests of the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe (hereinafter
    ``Tribe'') for the fiscal year 2018 Indian Health Service (IHS) and
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) appropriations are as follows:
      --Fully Fund Contract Support Costs for the IHS and BIA.
      --Protect the IHS budget from sequestration.
      --Permanently reauthorize the Special Diabetes Program For Indians.
      --Appropriate additional funding to the IHS Hospitals and Clinics
            line item, and direct the IHS to allocate such additional
            funding specifically for pharmacy programs and physician
            services.
      --Increase funding for Road Maintenance in the BIA budget.
      --Increase funding for the Office of Indian Energy and Economic
            Development (funded by the Community and Economic Development
            activity in the Indian Affairs budget).
      --Increase funding for Welfare Assistance in the BIA budget.
        The Duckwater Shoshone Tribe is a federally recognized Indian Tribe
    located in a remote, high desert valley in the State of Nevada, in the
    very northern tip of Nye County. We are approximately 72 miles
    southwest of Ely and 40 miles southwest of Eureka. The Tribe is
    governed by a democratically elected, five-member Tribal council and is
    primarily an agricultural community. We offer a range of services to
    our Tribal members, including healthcare and natural resources and
    environmental health programs. The Tribe operates a Tribal health
    clinic under a self-governance agreement with the Indian Health Service
    (IHS) under Title V of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act.
                    fully fund contract support costs (csc)
        The Tribe wishes to thank the subcommittee for their leadership in
    making funding of IHS and BIA contract support costs for fiscal year
    2016, and now fiscal year 2017, an indefinite amount and also making it
    a separate account in the IHS and BIA budgets. This shift makes an
    enormous difference in helping ensure that the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) is fully funded and
    implemented as Congress intended. It also significantly enhances the
    Federal-Tribal government-to-government relationship. The Tribe is also
    thankful that the subcommittees listened to Tribal comments about how
    the bill proviso in the fiscal year 2016 enacted bill effectively
    denied the CSC carryover authority authorized by the ISDEAA, and
    appreciates that the proviso was absent from the Consolidated
    Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2017.
        The Tribe nevertheless believes it is important that the indefinite
    appropriation of CSC funding be mandatory and permanent. Under the
    ISDEAA, the full payment of CSC is not discretionary, but is a legal
    obligation of the Federal Government which has been affirmed by the
    U.S. Supreme Court. Funding of CSC on a discretionary basis has in the
    very recent past placed the House and Senate Appropriations Committees,
    in their own words, in the ``untenable position of appropriating
    discretionary funds for the payment of any legally obligated contract
    support costs.'' The Tribe is determined to work together with the
    appropriate congressional committees to find a solution for achieving
    this goal.
                         exempt ihs from sequestration
        The Tribe is asking for this subcommittee's support, and the
    support of your colleagues, for amending the Balanced Budget and
    Emergency Deficit Control Act to exempt the IHS from potential
    sequestration of funds. We are glad that Congress has seen its way fit
    to fully exempt Veterans Health Administration's programs from
    sequestration and to limit state Medicaid grants and Medicare payments
    to a 2 percent reduction. However, we do not see why Indian health, as
    a Federal trust responsibility, is not afforded this same treatment.
    Indeed, a number of Members of this subcommittee and other members of
    Congress have publicly stated that it was an oversight that IHS was not
    included in the exempt category when the Balanced Budget and Emergency
    Deficit Control act was enacted.
        The Tribe is also greatly concerned that the current fiscal year
    2018 funding cap for non-defense discretionary spending is lower than
    the fiscal year 2017 spending cap. When put into the context of the
    President's ``skinny'' fiscal year 2018 budget outline proposal, which
    raises defense spending by $54 billion and lowers non-defense
    discretionary spending by a like amount, the Tribe fears that the stage
    is set for significant sequestration of funds. Whatever the outcome,
    Indian health should be made exempt from sequestration.
                  special diabetes program for indians (sdpi)
        The Tribe, like others throughout Indian Country, continue to
    support a permanent reauthorization and increased funding for the SDPI,
    which provides crucial support for diabetes prevention and treatment
    programs. While we understand that an SDPI reauthorization bill is not
    under purview of this subcommittee, the SDPI and the programs carried
    out with SDPI funding certain affect the scope and range of our
    healthcare efforts and our IHS programs, which this subcommittee funds.
    The Tribe would greatly appreciate any help the Interior Appropriations
    Subcommittee Members can provide with your colleagues on this matter.
        The SDPI program has been funded at $150 million for many years and
    we often come to the brink of the expiration of its short authorization
    period before it is extended. It is set to expire again on September
    30, 2017. A permanent reauthorization with annual funding of $200
    million would provide stability for our diabetes programs in terms of
    planning and recruiting and retaining personnel. The program is
    required to track outcomes, and it has shown identifiable significant
    outcomes--both in terms of access to treatment and prevention.
           increased ihs funding for pharmacy and physician services
        Pharmacy programs within the IHS, and the funding the Tribe
    receives through its Hospitals and Clinics funding for carrying out a
    pharmacy program, are woefully inadequate for serving the needs of the
    Tribe's pharmacy patients. The funding has failed to keep up with the
    skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs, even with access to
    discounted goods and services on Federal Supply Schedules (FSS) and the
    McKesson Prime Vendor contract. The Tribe previously used its buy back
    authority to procure pharmacy services from the IHS through McKesson,
    which was extremely expensive, and moreover, McKesson has been
    experiencing a limited supply of pharmaceuticals. The Tribe's current
    funding is insufficient to keep up with rising pharmacy costs. The
    Tribe has a similar concern about the funding made available through
    the IHS that the Tribe can then allocate to procuring physician
    services. The Tribe has been experiencing great difficulty over the
    past several fiscal periods in recruiting and retaining physicians for
    carrying out its primary healthcare programs.
        While the Tribe has authority under its ISDEAA self-governance
    agreement to redesign its compacted programs and reallocate funding in
    any manner in which the Tribe deems to be in the best interests of the
    health and welfare of its own Tribal community, the reality is that
    there is just not enough funding for the Tribe to provide necessary
    services and still have adequate funding for pharmaceuticals and to pay
    physicians to locate to our remote area. We thus ask for the
    subcommittees' support for increasing the IHS appropriation for
    Hospitals and Clinics funding, and to direct the IHS to allocate
    additional funding toward pharmacy and physician services.
                          funding for road maintenance
        ``Road Maintenance,'' which is funded under the ``Tribal
    Government'' activity in the BIA budget, is critically important to our
    Tribe. We are located in a rural area with few resources, few well-
    paved state or county connecting roads, and limited Tribal
    Transportation Program formula funds. As the Indian Affairs fiscal year
    2017 Budget Justification explains, ``The amount received in the TPA
    [Tribal Priority Allocation] portion of the budget has been
    approximately $24 million per year, which is less than 9 percent of the
    deferred maintenance of $289 million for fiscal year 2015.'' As has
    been noted in any number of Congressional hearings, written testimony,
    and Federal reports, the roads in Indian Country are some of the most
    dangerous and poorly funded roads in the Nation. We consider Road
    Maintenance funding to be a matter of public safety and we respectfully
    ask the subcommittee to increase appropriations for this critical
    budget sub activity.
                              economic development
        Being a rural Tribe means that our members have less access to both
    employment and job creation opportunities. We also struggle with high
    energy prices both for individual members and for our Tribal government
    buildings. These conditions are two factors hampering our ability to
    thrive as a community and we have been exploring a number of options to
    alleviate them. Through targeted studies, we have determined that we
    have viable wind and solar resources that can be developed. Developing
    these resources would provide our Tribe with greater energy certainty,
    lower energy prices, and economic opportunities for our Tribal members.
    We ask that this subcommittee increase funding for the Office of Indian
    Energy and Economic Development which is funded through the ``Community
    and Economic Development'' activity in the Indian Affairs budget,
    particularly the ``Job Placement and Training'' sub activity, which
    funds technical and vocational training, and the ``Minerals and
    Mining'' sub activity, which promotes and provides technical assistance
    for the development of renewable energy, conventional energy, and
    mineral resources. If we in Indian Country are to build a strong
    economic future for our communities, we must pursue an all of the above
    energy strategy which for us, includes wind and solar.
                            adult welfare assistance
        Rural areas, both in Indian Country and in non-Tribal areas, often
    experience higher than average rates of unemployment due to a lack of
    opportunities. As a Tribe, we are working hard to help create
    opportunities for our Members both in terms of job placement and job
    creation. Unfortunately, there are some circumstance when welfare
    assistance is temporarily needed for some Tribal members. The ``Welfare
    Assistance'' sub activity funded under the ``Human Services'' activity
    in the BIA budget provides these critical resources for our people. We,
    like the BIA and Congress, believe that welfare assistance should be a
    temporary safety net and ultimately, a bridge to better circumstances
    and opportunities, but we believe that it must exist. We ask the
    Subcommittees to increase funding for Welfare Assistance as a way to
    strengthen and stabilize families so that they are able to pursue
    opportunities and ultimately become self-sufficient.
        Thank you for your consideration of the concerns and requests of
    the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe.

        [This statement was submitted by Rodney Mike, Tribal Chairman.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant School
                                     (DCGS)
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
    Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant School (DCGS) on the Navajo
    Reservation in Bloomfield, New Mexico. Our school, which has been in
    continuous service since 1968, operates a K-8 educational program and a
    dormitory program for students in grades 1-12, serving around 260
    students in both programs. DCGS is a tribally controlled grant school
    is located approximately 170 miles northwest of Albuquerque. DCGS is
    primarily funded through appropriations received from the Bureau of
    Indian Education (BIE), and pass-through funding from the Department of
    Education.
        Our all-Navajo Board operates the DCGS through a Grant issued by
    the BIE under the Tribally Controlled Schools Act. The DCGS goal is to
    make a difference in the educational progress of our students and we
    believe that all of our students are capable of achieving academic
    success. Yet, we suffer from underfunding of practically every one of
    our educational and related programs that affects our ability to fully
    meet our school goals and our ability to successfully operate our
    programs under the Indian Self-Determination policy.
        Locally controlled schools like DCGS educate our students to be
    contributing members of our community and to help our people. This
    focus has helped improve our students' performance. If we were able to
    operate our school without funding shortfalls and constant worries, we
    think our students would reach even more amazing heights. Funding
    increases are desperately needed and are having a significant impact.
        At the outset, we would like to associate ourselves with the
    testimony of the Dine Bi Olta School Board Association, and fully
    support their recommendations. We ask the Subcommittee to pay
    particular attention to their suggestions regarding the BIE budget
    model, and BIE program management. Thank you.

        Our recommendations can be summarized as follows:

      --Ensure local control of schools and education resources through the
            transition.
      --Fully fund school construction.
      --Provide $109 million for facilities operation and $76 million for
            facilities maintenance (full funding).
      --Fund Student Transportation at $73 million, and BIA Road
            Maintenance at $40 million.
      --Continue to fully fund Tribal Grant Support Costs.
      --Protect BIE and Indian programs from sequestration or shutdown.

    1. Ensure Local Control of Schools and Education Resources

        We have told this Subcommittee before about DCGS's concern about
    the BIE's ``Blueprint for Reform,'' which aims to reorganize the BIE's
    administrative structure. We have been concerned that reform would
    centralize decisionmaking in the Headquarters office--rather than
    looking to schools and local communities. While we do not doubt the
    BIE's commitment to a high-quality education for Indian students, we
    firmly believe that our parents and our elected school board are best-
    suited to make decisions affecting our students--a belief reflected by
    Congress in the passage of the Tribally Controlled Schools Act. We
    believe the new Administration will continue to implement the
    Blueprint, but we ask that this Subcommittee and your colleagues work
    with the BIE and Tribal schools to ensure BIE decisions are best for
    students and schools.

    2. Full Funding for School Construction

        DCGS is proud to have been a successful applicant for the current
    round of school construction funding at BIE. As our school facilities
    were outdated and insufficient for our needs, we are looking forward to
    being able to offer an improved school for our students. This funding
    will enable us to replace our buildings that 7 years ago had a backlog
    of maintenance projects that would have cost $7.7 million to complete;
    a new school is transformative for our community.
        DCGS is nearing completion of its planning phase for the new school
    and, while there is work to do still, we believe that we can be a model
    of success in planning. We have worked closely with BIA facilities on
    moving this project along, and have made great progress. We have hired
    a project manager for the construction of the school, secured an
    engineering firm for design, are in the middle of our planning with
    staff and have conducted several interviews to make sure our staff has
    input on the design needs and planning process. The assessment of
    necessary prerequisites for construction is complete, including all
    field work for the facility condition assessment. The remaining hurdle
    is that we are waiting for completion of the Historic Preservation
    Assessment by the Navajo Nation. We have requested that the BIE assist
    the Nation in completing this step, as the project is otherwise on time
    and on-budget. If necessary, we hope this Subcommittee will recognize
    that there must be flexibility in timelines for funding availability in
    these projects, and work with us and the BIE on these matters.
        According to the Department of Interior's 2013 figures, the backlog
    of construction projects for schools was estimated to be as high as
    $1.3 billion. That figure has grown with further backlog and the shift
    of more schools onto the necessary construction list. We were
    encouraged by the substantial increase that this Subcommittee provided
    for Education Construction in fiscal year 2016 and then maintained in
    fiscal year 2017. We believe BIE schools are due for a wholesale school
    replacement effort like that provided for Department of Defense schools
    where 134 of their schools were rebuilt over 5 years, beginning in
    2011. DCGS supports the call for full funding for school construction
    funds to immediately address this need. We urge the Committee and the
    BIE to engage in consultation with Tribal schools and Tribes to begin
    the effort towards modernization of all BIE schools.

    3. Full Funding for Facilities Operation and Maintenance

        To enable Tribal schools to keep their buildings in working order
    (and so they last as long as possible), we must receive adequate
    operation and maintenance funding. As we have said in years past, we
    are forced to sacrifice instruction and other funds to keep ancient
    heaters working or to keep water and sewer systems functional. We owe
    it to our students and to our communities to make sure our buildings
    are safe and sanitary, and full operations and maintenance funding
    allow us to do so. Schools still only receive partial funding for these
    purposes. DCGS requests that Congress fund BIE facilities operations at
    $109 million and BIE facilities maintenance at $76 million.

    4. Increase Funding for Indian School Equalization Programs

        The most critical stream of funding for community grant schools
    like ours is funding in the Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP).
    The ISEP funds are those that schools use for the day-to-day operation,
    whether that is paying teachers and staff, purchasing curriculum and
    supplies, or operating student programs. In years past, our ISEP funds
    were put under pressure by unfunded needs elsewhere in our schools,
    which might have involved paying utilities or repairing one of our
    school buses with ISEP funds. The National Congress of American Indians
    has recommended that Congress appropriate $431 million for ISEP
    funding, which we think should be this Subcommittee's baseline for
    funding this budget year. We have repeated this in past years, but we
    want you to know that we really do mean it: ISEP is our schools'
    lifeblood, and we are still struggling to make up for losses over time.

    5. Increase funding for Student Transportation

        As a rural school, one of our most challenging tasks is getting our
    children to school and back home--we must battle poor roads, increasing
    costs of maintenance, and high fuel costs as part of this, but we must
    keep the buses running. We request at least $73 million for student
    transportation in the BIE system. We also request that this
    Subcommittee fund BIA Road Maintenance at a sustainable level. We echo
    NCAI's recommendation that the Subcommittee appropriate at least $40
    million for road maintenance in fiscal year 2018. Such funding will
    enable us to maintain our six school buses, and will protect other
    funds that would otherwise be used for this purpose.

    6. We support full funding for Tribal Grant Support Costs.

        Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC) (formerly known as Administrative
    Cost Grants) are the BIE analogue to Contract Support Costs, and are
    necessary for schools like DCGS to operate our schools. Not only do the
    TGSC funds pay for the administration of the school, but also fund all
    indirect costs like payroll, accounting, insurance, background checks
    and other legal, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.
        TGSC has been fully funded for the last 2 years, and we are very
    grateful to this Subcommittee for that. In years past schools had only
    received, at most, two-thirds of the TGSC needed to cover overhead
    costs. DCGS welcomes this long overdue change, and applauds this
    Subcommittee's decision to treat schools' support costs the same as
    contractors with the BIA and the Indian Health Service. We are able to
    better serve our students with these funds.
        Like all our funding, TGSC is critical, and we appreciate very much
    the Subcommittee's support in full funding. This year, we request
    continued full funding of TGSC, which enables DCGS and other schools to
    realize self-determination in education. We believe last year's funding
    of $80 million must be increased to meet the need as additional BIE-
    operated schools convert to Tribal operation under the Tribally
    Controlled Schools Act.

    7. Protect BIE and other Indian Programs from Sequestration or Shutdown

        You will likely hear from several other witnesses today that
    Indian-related programs must be protected from budget fights that
    result in sequestration, rescission, or government shutdown. We join
    those in urging this Subcommittee to include language in budget and
    appropriations bills that continued funding for Native-related programs
    through these challenges. Schools receive advance year funding--and
    thus are a bit shielded from shutdowns or short term continuing
    resolutions--but our communities feel the reverberations from these
    incidents directly. Funding for our programs is scarce already--
    reductions for sequestration and stop-work orders from shutdowns hit
    reservation communities especially hard, and our students feel the same
    stress that is affecting their parents and neighbors.
        Since Tribal programs are part of treaty and trust rights--programs
    that were paid for with land and lives--we think it appropriate that
    Congress make Native-related appropriations mandatory. Upholding the
    trust responsibility is a solemn duty of the U.S., and exempting
    Native-related programs and funding from budget challenges would be a
    good step in fulfilling that charge.
        Lastly, we would like to raise our concern to this Subcommittee
    with language in the President's signing statement for the fiscal year
    2017 Omnibus Appropriations bill. In that signing statement, he singled
    out School Improvement Programs serving the BIE, Tribal technical
    assistance and contracting programs with the Department of Defense, and
    Native American and Alaska Native Housing Block Grants as an example of
    programs that ``allocate benefits on the basis of race, ethnicity, and
    gender,'' and ones that the Administration will treat ``in a manner
    consistent with the requirement to afford equal protection of the
    laws.'' This Subcommittee is well aware that Native American programs--
    like all of those at the BIE and BIA--are not provided on the basis of
    race or ethnicity. These programs grow from the political relationship
    between Tribal governments and the United States, and embody the trust
    and treaty duties we mentioned earlier. We worry that miscategorization
    of programs serving Indians and Alaska Natives as based on race or
    ethnicity undermines the responsibility shared by all branches of the
    Federal Government to live up to the United States' promises. We hope
    this Subcommittee plays an important oversight role to ensure the
    Administration fulfills its trust and treaty obligations as well.
        We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on furthering the
    important work of our school and enriching our students. Thank you for
    the opportunity to submit testimony.

        [This statement was submitted by Ervin Chavez, School Board
    President & Faye BlueEyes, Administrative Services Director.]
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Ecological Society of America
        On behalf of the Ecological Society of America (ESA), the world's
    largest society of professional ecologists representing over 10,000
    members across the country, I write to urge you to provide $1.2 billion
    for the US Geological Survey (USGS) for fiscal year 2018 and to reject
    proposed cuts to the agency's fiscal year 2017 funding. ESA is
    concerned with the administration's proposal to cut the USGS fiscal
    year 2018 budget by nearly 15 percent to $900 million, a funding
    reduction that would significantly restrict the agency's ability to
    fulfill its mission and provide important impartial scientific
    information to decision makers and American citizens. We urge you to
    preserve funding for the USGS so the agency can continue its critical
    work of maintaining our Nation's natural resources, ensuring
    environmental health, and protecting public health.
        The USGS plays a unique role within the Department of the Interior,
    conducting research across a broad array of scientific disciplines and
    providing data that informs responses to many of the Nation's greatest
    challenges. To highlight just a few examples, USGS science:
      --Reduces risks from natural hazards--including earthquakes,
            landslides, volcanic eruptions, flooding, drought, and
            wildfires--that jeopardize human lives and result in billions
            of dollars in damages annually.
      --Informs management of freshwater resources--both above and below
            the land surface--for drinking water, agriculture, and
            commercial, industrial, recreational, and ecological purposes.
      --Informs sound management of natural resources on Federal and State
            lands, including control of invasive species and wildlife
            diseases that cause billions of dollars in economic losses.
            This information is shared with other Interior bureaus and
            State agencies to allow for adequate monitoring and management.
      --Helps predict the impacts of land use and climatic conditions on
            the availability of water resources and the frequency of
            wildfires. The Landsat satellites have collected the largest
            archive of remotely sensed land data in the world, which
            informs agriculture production and our Nation's response to and
            mitigation of natural hazards.
      --Provides vital geospatial and mapping data used in economic
            development, environmental management, infrastructure projects,
            and scientific applications by States, Federal agencies, and
            the private sector.
      --Helps make decisions about the Nation's energy future by assessing
            mineral and energy resources--including rare earth elements,
            coal, oil, unconventional natural gas, and geothermal. The USGS
            is the sole Federal source of information on mineral potential,
            production, and consumption.
        Few modern problems can be addressed by a single scientific
    discipline. The USGS has a unique capacity to deploy truly
    interdisciplinary teams of experts to gather data, conduct research,
    and develop integrated decision support tools that improve ecosystem
    management, ensure accurate assessments of our water quality and
    quantity, reduce risks from natural and human-induced hazards, deliver
    timely assessments of mineral and energy resources, and provide
    emergency responders with accurate geospatial data and maps.
        The Society is appreciative of the strong bipartisan, bicameral
    support USGS has received from House and Senate appropriators over the
    years. We respectfully request that you continue this trend by
    providing $1.2 billion for the US Geological Survey for fiscal year
    2018 and rejecting proposed cuts to the agency's fiscal year 2017
    funding.

        [This statement was submitted by David M. Lodge, President.]
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Ecological Society of America
        The Ecological Society of America (ESA) appreciates the opportunity
    to provide testimony in support of fiscal year 2018 appropriations for
    the Environmental Protection Agency. ESA is the Nation's largest
    professional society of ecologists, representing over 10,000 members
    across the country. We write to urge you to support robust funding for
    the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for fiscal year 2018,
    specifically at least $715 million for Science and Technology within
    EPA.
        The EPA is vital to protecting both the environment and human
    health, and the agency's Science and Technology programs are critically
    important to its ability to successfully address environmental
    problems. Strong investments in the EPA are essential to ensuring the
    health of our Nation's citizens and environment.
     epa science and technology programs reduce environmental risks facing
                                   americans
        Since its formation in 1970, the EPA has reduced environmental risk
    to Americans, enforced laws safeguarding human health and the
    environment, and helped the Nation serve as a leader in protecting the
    environment.
        Science and Technology funding supports programs and research that
    contribute to clean air, clean water, sustainable communities, homeland
    security, and human health. Through the Office of Research and
    Development (ORD), the EPA conducts cutting-edge research programs,
    including important ecological research and monitoring, that provide
    the scientific foundation for the agency's decisionmaking and other
    programs. EPA research projects focus on issues of national
    significance and help to solve complex environmental problems--often
    with public health implications--with new scientific understanding and
    technologies. From detecting and addressing harmful algal blooms to
    helping communities rehabilitate contaminated sites, EPA research
    funded by Science and Technology appropriations delivers solution-
    oriented results with broad and significant impacts.
       proposed cuts would have consequences for human and environmental
                                     health
        ESA is very concerned with the administration's proposed cuts to
    the EPA. The President's budget proposal requests only $5.7 billion for
    the agency, a reduction of 31 percent from the fiscal year 2017 enacted
    amount of $8.1 billion. This significant cut would be achieved by
    eliminating 3,800 agency jobs and over fifty agency programs, including
    categorical grant programs and regional environmental programs, climate
    science research, and partnership programs. The administration's budget
    also proposes to reduce funding for EPA Science and Technology
    considerably to only $451 million, a 36 percent cut from net fiscal
    year 2017 funding.
        ESA is extremely troubled by these proposed changes and the
    devastating impacts they would have on the agency's ability to fulfill
    its mission and conduct the scientific research necessary to inform its
    operations and decisions. We urge you to reject cuts to EPA programs
    and research as you proceed with fiscal year 2018 appropriations.
     strong investments in the epa protect our citizens and our ecosystems
        The EPA is an essential agency that plays a key role in addressing
    ecological problems and other environmental issues that affect public
    health. We appreciate your past support for this critical agency, and
    we urge you, in the interest of ensuring the health of our Nation's
    citizens and ecosystems, to continue this support and provide robust
    funding for the EPA in fiscal year 2018, in particular $715 million for
    EPA Science and Technology.
        Thank you for your consideration of this request.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Entomological Society of America
        The Entomological Society of America (ESA) respectfully submits
    this statement for the official record in support of funding for
    entomology-related activities at the U.S. Department of Agriculture
    Forest Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For
    fiscal year 2018, ESA requests the Forest Service be funded at least at
    the fiscal year 2016 enacted level of $5.68 billion in discretionary
    funds. Within the Forest Service, ESA requests the Forest and Rangeland
    Research budget be supported at $291.982 million to preserve valuable
    invasive species research and development. The Society also supports
    continued investment in Forest Health Management programs across the
    Forest Service in fiscal year 2018. In addition, ESA recommends $8.267
    billion for EPA, including support for Pesticides Licensing Program
    Area activities within its Science & Technology and Environmental
    Program & Management budgets, and continued support for State & Tribal
    Assistance Grants for Pesticide Program Implementation. Finally, ESA
    strongly supports EPA's commitment to work with other Federal agencies
    to monitor and improve pollinator health, including involvement by EPA
    to examine the potential impact of pesticides on pollinator health.
        Advances in forestry and environmental sciences, including the
    field of entomology, help to protect our ecosystems and communities
    from threats impacting our Nation's economy, public health, and
    agricultural productivity and safety. Through improved understanding of
    invasive insect pests and the development of biological approaches to
    pest management, entomology plays a critical role in reducing and
    preventing the spread of infestation and diseases harmful to national
    forests and grasslands. The study of entomology also contributes to the
    development of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques, which use
    science-based, environmentally friendly, comprehensive methods to take
    preventative action against pests, often resulting in lower costs and a
    more targeted use of pesticides. In addition, entomology improves our
    knowledge of pollinator biology and the factors affecting pollinator
    health and populations, helping to ensure safe, reliable crop
    production that meets the needs of a growing world population.
        The U.S. Forest Service sustains the health, diversity, and
    productivity of 193 million acres of public lands in national forests
    and grasslands across 44 States and territories. Serving as the largest
    supporter of forestry research in the world, the agency employs
    approximately 35,000 scientists, administrators, and land managers. In
    addition to activities at the Federal level, the Forest Service
    provides technical expertise and financial assistance to State and
    private forestry agency partners.
        The Forest Service's Forest and Rangeland Research budget supports
    the development and delivery of scientific data and innovative
    technological tools to improve the health, use, and management of the
    Nation's forests and rangelands. Within Forest and Rangeland Research,
    the Invasive Species Strategic Program Area provides scientifically
    based approaches to reduce and prevent the introduction, spread, and
    impact of non-native invasive species, including destructive insects,
    plants, and diseases that can have serious economic and environmental
    consequences for our Nation. For example, Forest Service scientists are
    working to prevent the devastation of ash trees across North America by
    the emerald ash borer, an invasive beetle that was accidentally
    introduced from Asia. Emerald ash borer was first detected in 2002 and,
    since then, has killed countless millions of ash trees. This biological
    invasion threatens to eliminate all ash trees from North America, and
    is the costliest invasion from a forest insect to date. Emerald ash
    borer is just one of the exponentially growing list of invasive insects
    and diseases that harm our Nation's forests and our Nation's economy.
    Forest health is also affected by invasive weeds, and those weeds are
    often best controlled by beneficial insects used as biological control
    agents, resulting in permanent and often spectacular control. ESA
    respectfully requests that Forest and Rangeland Research be fully
    funded at $292 million for fiscal year 2018.
        Also under the purview of the Forest Service is the Forest Health
    Management program, which conducts mapping and surveys on public and
    private lands to monitor and assess risks from potentially harmful
    insects, diseases, and invasive plants. The program also provides
    assistance to State and local partners to help prevent and control
    outbreaks that threaten forest health. According to a 2011 study,
    invasive forest insects cost local governments alone an average of over
    $2 billion per year; direct costs to homeowners from property loss,
    tree removal, and treatment averages $1.5 billion per year.\1\
    Initiatives within the Forest Health Management program can help
    control these costly pests. The program's ``Slow the Spread''
    activities, for example, have led to a 60 percent reduction in the rate
    of the spread of an invasive species known as gypsy moth, resulting in
    an estimated benefit-to-cost ratio of 3:1. Without the program, it is
    estimated that 50 million additional acres would have been infested by
    the moth.\2\ To support these important functions, ESA requests that
    the subcommittee oppose any proposed cuts to Forest Health Management
    program in fiscal year 2018.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Aukema, J.E.; Leung, B.; Kovacs, K.; [et al.]. 2011. Economic
    impacts of non-native forest insects in the continental United States.
    PLoS ONE 6(9): e24587.
        \2\ Forest Service Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Overview: http://
    www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/FY-2017-FS%20-budget-overview.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EPA carries out its mission of protecting human health and the
    environment by developing and enforcing regulations, awarding grants
    for research and other projects, conducting studies on environmental
    issues, facilitating partnerships, and providing information through
    public outreach. Through these efforts, EPA strives to ensure that our
    Nation enjoys clean water, clean air, a safe food supply, and
    communities free from pollution and harmful chemicals.
        EPA's Pesticides Licensing Program Area, supported by EPA's Science
    & Technology and Environmental Program & Management budgets, serves to
    evaluate and regulate new pesticides to ensure safe and proper usage by
    consumers. Through the mandate of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
    and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA utilizes scientific expertise and
    data, including knowledge gained from entomological sciences, to set
    maximum tolerated residue levels and to register pesticide products as
    effective and safe. By controlling insects that act as vectors of
    diseases of humans and domesticated animals, and invasive insect
    species that endanger our environment, pesticides registered by EPA
    help protect public health and the Nation's food supply. EPA's
    activities in this area also include the development of educational
    information and outreach to encourage the use of IPM and other reduced-
    risk methods of controlling pests. For example, EPA continues to
    support work protecting children from pesticide exposure used in and
    around schools, helping to promote cost-effective strategies that
    reduce student exposure to pesticides and pests. IPM strategies used in
    schools reduce student exposure to pesticides as well as allergens from
    pests themselves. Therefore, ESA supports continuing the modest funding
    that EPA has invested in school IPM.
        Among EPA's State & Tribal Assistance Grants, categorical grants in
    the area of Pesticides Program Implementation help to facilitate the
    translation of national pesticide regulatory information into real-
    world approaches that work for local communities. For example, these
    grants fund efforts to reduce health and environmental risks associated
    with pesticide use by promoting, facilitating, and evaluating IPM
    techniques and other potentially safer alternatives to conventional
    pest control methods. ESA requests that the subcommittee support a
    modest increase for Pesticides Program Implementation grants.
        ESA is in favor of increased funding for scientifically based
    studies of pollinator populations and health. Pollinators play a vital
    role in our Nation's agriculture industry; for example, bees pollinate
    more than 90 crops in the United States and are essential for the
    production of an estimated 70 percent of all the food we eat or export.
    To ensure a healthy bee population, more research is needed to fully
    understand the complexities of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) and to
    examine the diverse factors that endanger bee health. Pesticides
    represent just one potential risk to bees, but both the risks and
    benefits must be balanced, and those risks and benefits will vary among
    different crops and different crop-producing regions of the United
    States. EPA is well-positioned to help identify methods for protecting
    bee health; the agency has previously awarded agricultural grants to
    three universities to aid in the development of IPM practices that
    lower pesticide risks to bees while protecting valuable crops from
    pests. For this reason, ESA supports EPA's participation in multi-
    agency efforts to investigate pollinator health and implementing plans
    to prevent pollinator population decline.
        ESA, headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland, is the largest
    organization in the world serving the professional and scientific needs
    of entomologists and individuals in related disciplines. Founded in
    1889, ESA has nearly 7,000 members affiliated with educational
    institutions, health agencies, private industry, and government.
    Members are researchers, teachers, extension service personnel,
    administrators, marketing representatives, research technicians,
    consultants, students, pest management professionals, and hobbyists.
        Thank you for the opportunity to offer the Entomological Society of
    America's support for Forest Service and EPA programs. For more
    information about the Entomological Society of America, please see
    http://www.entsoc.org/.

        [This statement was submitted by Susan Weller, PhD, President.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Federation of State Humanities Councils
        Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for
    this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the 56 State and
    jurisdictional humanities councils. Our request for fiscal year 2018 is
    $155 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities and $46
    million for the Federal/State Partnership, which funds the councils.
        The State humanities councils are full partners of the NEH, using
    the Federal/State Partnership funding to bring public programs to
    communities throughout the nation. Councils use these funds to leverage
    additional support from foundations, corporations, private individuals,
    and State governments. On average, councils leverage $5.00 in local
    contributions for every dollar of Federal funding awarded through their
    grants. Over the past few years, they have further extended their
    resources by forming partnerships with more than 9,000 organizations
    throughout their States. Each year, councils continue to expand their
    programming to meet growing needs in their States. Councils in many
    States help to revitalize communities, especially in rural areas,
    through programs that strengthen local institutions and increase
    tourism. Teacher institutes conducted by councils increase the quality
    of humanities education and re-inspire teachers. Family reading
    programs contribute to school readiness and long-term academic success,
    particularly for children in low-income families. Council-conducted
    community conversations help residents understand all sides of divisive
    issues.
        The preamble to the legislation that created the National Endowment
    for the Humanities and its sister agency, the National Endowment for
    the Arts, proclaims that ``Democracy demands wisdom and vision in its
    citizens.'' This lofty assertion calls for citizens to develop the
    ability to carefully evaluate and shape decisions about issues they
    confront in their personal and community lives. It requires citizens to
    understand their own and their nation's history in order to fully
    understand the forces that brought us to our present moment. It asks
    that citizens recognize and accommodate differences in viewpoint and
    experience as a necessary prelude to shaping strong communities. These
    are all values advanced through the humanities and the programs
    supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the State
    humanities councils.
        The first statement of the preamble offers another bold assertion:
    ``The arts and the humanities belong to all the people of the United
    States.'' This includes people without easy access to major educational
    and cultural institutions but whose stories are an essential part of
    our national narrative. It includes people in all income categories,
    all racial and ethnic groups, and all levels of educational
    achievement. It includes those who live in towns of 400 people as well
    as those who live in cities with populations in the millions. The State
    humanities councils play a key role in fulfilling the promise of the
    preamble's statement by extending the reach of the NEH into communities
    in all corners of every State. California Humanities, for example,
    helped tell the story of Boonville, with a population of just over a
    thousand people, through a radio documentary, while also training
    librarians to facilitate community conversations in such urban areas as
    San Diego, Sacramento, and Riverside City. In 2017-18, the Kentucky
    Humanities Council will bring the Smithsonian's ``Hometown Teams''
    exhibit to the small communities of Hazard, Carlisle, and Hodgenville,
    while preparing for the 36th Annual Kentucky Book Fair to be held at
    the Kentucky Horse Farm in November. The Rhode Island Council for the
    Humanities makes it possible for both residents and tourists to learn
    about historical sites in Rhode Island through a smartphone app that
    tells stories by and about Rhode Islanders, and through their
    ``Catalyzing Newport'' project that engages visiting scholars to help
    citizens address local and national challenges. Senior citizens
    throughout North Dakota who are interested in writing can join their
    neighbors in writing and storytelling workshops. The council's annual
    GameChanger festival brings citizens together to share ideas about a
    major event or issue that has changed or has the potential to change
    our world.
        Councils ensure that ``the humanities belong to all the people''
    through their programming for such groups as veterans, residents of
    rural communities, children and families, and teachers, as well as
    through the many programs designed to strengthen and revitalize
    communities.
        Supporting veterans. The State humanities councils and the NEH
    offer programs that not only help returning veterans find their place
    in their communities, but also help those communities understand the
    veterans' experiences. One of the most effective tools for processing
    the experience of war is reading and sharing stories, which is the
    basis of several council programs for veterans.
        The Alaska Humanities Forum's ``Duty Bound'' is a thematic
    initiative that runs through their programs, activities, and
    publications, deepening the public's understanding of the experiences
    of Alaska's veterans. In a State that is home to 73,000 veterans, the
    council uses the humanities to promote conversations that increase
    understanding of those affiliated with the armed services and to help
    tell the stories of military personnel and veterans. One of the
    programs, ``Danger Close: Alaska,'' brings together veterans and
    civilian writers to explore themes of war and military experience.
    These programs gave rise to a publication, ``Duty Bound,'' which
    featured pieces by two of the participants in its premiere issue.
        The Missouri Humanities Council also employs writing as a means of
    enabling veterans and their families to explore and understand the
    experience of war. Their Veterans Writing Workshop, conducted in
    partnership with two major libraries, a veterans' medical facility, and
    a university, are offered free and are taught by professional writers.
    Some of these writings are included in the council's annual anthology,
    Proud to Be: Writing By American Warriors, first published in 2012. The
    wife of a Vietnam veteran who took part in the program said, ``Perhaps
    after reading what others shared, he feels it is now all right for him
    to do so as well. History will always be written by professionals, but
    a personal story of what a man experienced in his lifetime is priceless
    for our future generations.''
        ``On Coming Home,'' a five-week reading and discussion program
    sponsored by Humanities Oregon, offers veterans from all eras an
    opportunity to come together around a meal to read, discuss, and share
    ideas about such themes as patriotism, family, loyalty, ethics, and
    home. Discussions, led by a veteran, are prompted by music, poems, and
    essays written by veterans from the Civil War through the recent wars
    in Iraq and Afghanistan.
        California Humanities continues to share the powerful stories
    gathered through their ``War Comes Home'' initiative, which included a
    series of video-recorded interviews with veterans from several
    different eras and varying backgrounds; five public forums that looked
    at a variety of veteran-related themes; and a package of resources for
    teachers that included access to an online instructional toolkit and
    webinars. All materials are available on the council website for
    viewing by the public and as a source of instructional materials for
    teachers.
        Telling the story of rural communities. Rural America represents a
    vital chapter of our national narrative, but it is a chapter too often
    overlooked. The State councils are a major force in helping rural
    communities define their own stories and share them with the rest of
    the country. Through the Museum on Main Street (MoMS) initiative,
    designed specifically for rural communities and made possible through a
    partnership between the councils and the Smithsonian Institution
    Traveling Exhibition Service (SITES), dozens of rural communities each
    year are able to host a Smithsonian exhibit, supplemented by an
    exhibition created by residents of the community, demonstrating how the
    themes of the exhibit play out at the local level.
        Humanities Montana pays special attention to rural communities in
    its State through its ``Hometown Humanities'' program, which selects a
    town of fewer than 20,000 people each year as a partner in a year of
    programming. The council provides the community with at least 20 free
    programs of the town's choosing, selected from the council's catalog of
    programs. The council requires the community to form a leadership team
    of eight to twelve people drawn from the local library, schools,
    museums, local government, and others to develop the slate of programs,
    enhance existing cultural programs, and assess the effectiveness of the
    project as it unfolds.
        This year councils in Alaska, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri,
    Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont,
    West Virginia, and 24 other States collaborated with the National
    Archives to educate thousands of Americans, particularly in rural
    communities, about the Bill of Rights, in recognition of its 225th
    anniversary. The councils partnered with more than 1,300 libraries,
    community centers, schools, and other local institutions, which
    displayed the kiosk exhibit and supported educational activities.
        Promoting family literacy. Many studies have shown that children
    exposed to books at an early age have a much higher chance of long-term
    academic success. Conversely, children who have had little exposure to
    the culture of reading in their homes can be at a serious educational
    disadvantage before they even enter school. Many councils help address
    this potential gap, especially for low-income families, through reading
    programs in local libraries. These programs have impact in several
    important ways--by bringing families together in a welcoming setting,
    helping to strengthen reading skills of parents, familiarizing families
    with the library, instilling a love of reading, and encouraging
    intergenerational discussion of ideas. In 1991 the Louisiana Endowment
    for the Humanities created a groundbreaking humanities-based program,
    ``Prime Time,'' currently conducted by councils in Alabama, Florida,
    Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Washington, which has
    been shown to produce long-term improvement in family engagement and
    student academic achievement. The program uses high-quality children's
    literature and storytelling to generate discussion of such themes as
    courage and determination, dreams, loyalty, and fairness. Since 2015,
    the Mississippi Humanities Council has served 198 families and 346
    children through their Prime Time program, providing both learning and
    enjoyment. One of the project's storytellers offered this description
    of the project's impact: ``It was evident to me that people in the
    community are hungry for opportunities to enrich the lives of their
    children, but there are not many opportunities to do so. Prime Time
    seemed to fill a need for a sense of community and belonging as well as
    supporting the parents' desire for their children to receive a good
    education.''
        Inspiring leaders of the future. The future of our nation depends
    on investment in our children. That means providing the best possible
    educational resources and opportunities for students in both rural and
    urban settings. Humanities Tennessee's ``Letters About Literature''
    program is a contest for students in grade 4 through 12 to write a
    letter to an author, living or dead. Students are encouraged to think
    critically about something they have read and reflect on how it has
    changed their view of the world. In West Virginia, a professor at
    Bluefield State College reported that the West Virginia Humanities
    Council had provided mini-grants for the college's Windows on the World
    presentations, which enriched not only the students at Bluefield State,
    but also high school students in the surrounding communities of
    Princeton, Montcalm, and Pikeview. ``If we did not have the support of
    the NEH and West Virginia Humanities Council, our students would be
    deprived of these learning experiences and exposure to the world's
    cultures, customs, and traditions. The Council helps us to prepare 21st
    century leaders who will be more worldly-wise.''
        Councils in New Mexico and Maryland serve as the State coordinators
    for the very successful National History Day program, through which
    middle and high school students participate in a competition that
    encourages critical thinking, development of research skills, and a
    deep understanding of history. A History Day parent in Maryland
    reported that her daughter's National History Day experience
    ``encouraged her critical thinking skills and allowed her to fine-tune
    her writing skills, among many other positives, and as a result, was a
    contributing factor in her being accepted to Columbia University. I am
    proud to share that she is now a successful practicing attorney in the
    healthcare field.''
        Since 1997, Vermont Humanities has sponsored a one-week summer
    literacy camp allowing up to 200 middle school children to read, share
    ideas, and participate in a variety of creative activities in
    communities around the State. Teachers and school administrators
    encourage students most in need of individual support to take part in
    the camp, which offers a safe and secure environment in which to engage
    with literature and ideas, develop new skills, and gain confidence. A
    director of one of these camps told the council, ``We know that the
    camp is a success because each year every camper wants to finish every
    reading, every project, and every activity.''
        The councils' profound understanding of the needs of their States
    and their extensive reach into communities large and small ensures that
    the humanities truly do belong to all the people of the United States.
    We thank you for understanding how critical that is to our democracy
    and for providing support for the NEH and the State humanities
    councils.

        [This statement was submitted by Esther Mackintosh, President.]
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe
        Thank you Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members
    of the subcommittee. It is with pleasure that the Tribe submits our
    written testimony to you regarding various funding issues relevant to
    the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe located in South Dakota. I intend to
    primarily discuss the funding issues present for our Joint Venture
    Construction Program Health Care Facility and the Flandreau Santee
    Sioux Tribal Police, but will briefly discuss issues of other critical
    programs if time permits.
        For decades, the health services provided to members of my Tribe
    have been grossly inadequate. We have utilized Public Law 93-638
    contracting to operate the Tribal health clinic to the best of our
    abilities, but due to insufficient and untimely funding, unpaid
    contract support costs, and limited facilities, we are failing our
    people. We have lack of privacy issues in our current clinic coupled
    with inadequate space to fully perform necessary program functions.
        The Joint Venture Construction Program found at Section 818(e) of
    the Indian Health Care Improvement Act authorizes the Indian Health
    Service to establish projects that allow American Indian and Alaska
    Native Tribes to construct tribally owned healthcare facilities in
    exchange for the IHS providing the post-construction funding for
    equipment, operations, and maintenance of for a minimum of 20 years.
        Left without adequate means to self-fund the construction of a
    healthcare facility, in 2007, the Tribe made application to the Indian
    Health Services to participate in the Joint Venture Construction
    Program. The Tribe was awarded a commitment in 2009, but took several
    years to organize its efforts under the program. In 2012, the Tribe
    aggressively pursued the opportunity and hired a Minnesota architect
    and a South Dakota construction manager to plan the project. These
    groups worked extensively with the Indian Health Service to design a
    state-of-the-art facility which met all Federal requirements.
        The Tribe and the Indian Health Service formalized the arrangement
    in July of 2014 by entering into a Joint Venture Agreement. There were
    new provisions to the Joint Venture Agreement itself that left the
    Tribe with fewer options to finance the construction. Construction was
    also pushed back over a year because of a miscommunication between the
    IHS Area Office in Aberdeen, and IHS Headquarters that kept us out of
    the President's budget. With financing in sight, the Tribe took the
    risk and began construction in March of 2016. Regardless of the
    obstacles faced, the Tribe was able to successfully sell bonds in June
    of 2016 and construction has continued under budget, and on time with
    an expected completion date in July of 2017.
        The Tribe now faces its largest endeavor. Article VIII of the Joint
    Venture Agreement provides, ``In exchange for the Tribe's design and
    construction of the Facility . . . , and the Tribe's purchase of the
    initial equipment for the Facility, the IHS agrees to provide the
    equipment, supplies, and staffing for the operation and maintenance of
    the Facility for an initial period of 20 years . . . subject to the
    provision of appropriations by Congress.'' The Tribe must have the
    funding promised by the IHS appropriated to assure our membership, and
    all of the non-Tribal members that we serve, that we can operate our
    new facility.
        A continuing resolution for fiscal year 2018 would not allocate the
    additional funding promised, causing a possible default on our
    financial obligations, and resulting in a grossly underfunded facility.
    The Tribe pleads with this subcommittee to fulfill the contractual
    obligations of the Indian Health Service. We are in the process of
    needing to hire around fifty new employees to fully staff our facility,
    and can simply not afford to use Tribal funds dedicated to other
    critical programs to continuously supplement our clinic.
        We further have issues with our Police Department funding that I
    would like to expound on. Public safety is of the utmost importance to
    all Tribes, especially in South Dakota where the State is becoming
    plagued by methamphetamine. We have had stagnant funding for the
    police, while all of our expenses are rising exponentially. The Tribal
    Police drive arrested individuals on the reservation 125 miles away to
    be detained, which poses serious community exposure during
    transportation due to gaps in coverage. The facility 125 miles away was
    the only detention center willing to house our arrestees.
        The Tribe has two police officers, and another who is in the police
    academy. With our current funding level, we cannot afford to provide
    the coverage that our community needs. Even a modest increase would
    have an incredible impact on our small, but equally troubled
    reservation.
        We implore this subcommittee to consider all of the programs that
    our membership depends on, and to maintain or increase funding. We are
    trying to run professional government operations, and we are doing it
    in the absence of clarity. The Tribe is relying on its funding, and
    cannot provide adequate services in gridlock. The Tribe further demands
    parity with the States in all funding matters because of the Federal
    promise of promoting Tribal sovereignty and self-sufficiency.
        Madame Chair, thank you for consideration of the Flandreau Santee
    Sioux Tribe's concerns.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
        I am Kevin R. Dupuis, Sr., Chairman of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake
    Superior Chippewa. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
    submit written testimony on fiscal year 2018 Appropriations for Indian
    programs funded through the Interior Department, Indian Health Service
    and Environmental Protection Agency. On behalf of the Band, I also want
    to express our appreciation for the work you have done over the years,
    including your recent work on fiscal year 2017 funding, to ensure that
    Federal funds are available to assist Tribes in meeting longstanding
    needs.
        Our Reservation is in northeastern Minnesota. It is a small part of
    our aboriginal homeland and was established by the Treaty of September
    30, 1854. We have approximately 4,200 members and provide health,
    education, social services, public safety and other governmental
    services to more than 7,300 Indian people who live on and near our
    Reservation. With the assistance of the Federal Government, as well as
    other public and private partners, we have been working to find
    effective solutions to end the legacy of poverty that has plagued our
    community, so that we are able to provide good jobs, grow the local
    economy, educate our children, prevent crime, and care for our elders
    and infirm. We are proud of what we have accomplished, but much still
    needs to be done and Federal funding is essential to these efforts.
    Because of this we are deeply troubled by the severe cuts that the
    President proposes be made in fiscal year 2018. Such radical cuts are
    counter-productive. The modest investment of Federal funds has allowed
    the Band to use Band resources and attract private partners to carry
    out projects that create jobs and benefit the local economy. We urge
    Congress to maintain Federal funding for these important programs.
        Bureau of Indian Education.--The Band operates the Fond du Lac
    Ojibwe School. Our school serves an average of 340 children from pre-K
    through 12th grade. Our students come from very low-income households;
    more than 90 percent of our students qualify for free or reduced rate
    lunches. We rely on Federal funds from both the Interior Department and
    Education Department to run this school. We are making progress in
    improving the outcomes for our students. For example, high school
    graduation rates for American Indians in Minnesota have improved from
    37.9 percent in 2003 to 52.6 percent in 2016, but are still well-below
    state-wide rates. We have always been handicapped by limited resources.
    Past Federal funding for education has never kept pace with need. As
    shown by data compiled by Minnesota, in 2016, there remain significant
    disparities between American Indians and the population statewide on
    education:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          3rd grade students  8th grade students      High School
                                         Living below        at 3rd grade      at 8th grade math   graduation rates
                                          poverty (%)      reading level (%)       level (%)              (%)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Statewide.......................  10.2..............  57.3..............  58  ..............  82.2
    MN Indian.......................  25.1..............  35.8..............  30.3..............  52.6
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: Minnesota Compass, http://www.mncompass.org/education/overview.

        We very much appreciate Congress's decision to increase overall
    education funding for fiscal year 2017 by $39 million above the fiscal
    year 2016 funding level. But we are deeply troubled by the President's
    budget blueprint for fiscal year 2018. This blueprint proposes a 12
    percent cut to the Interior Department budget, without saying how those
    cuts might affect Indian education. The threat to our school is
    compounded by the Blueprint's proposed 13 percent cut in Education
    Department funding (another critical source for our school) combined
    with the plan to move Federal money to school choice. The drastic cuts
    that the President proposes will only hurt our students.
        Because education is so critical to success later in life, we urge
    Congress to increase Federal funding for Indian education programs. At
    a minimum, funding for these programs should be maintained at fiscal
    year 2017 levels. The key elements of Indian education funding through
    Interior are:
      --ISEP which is the primary source of school funding provided through
            Interior. It covers salaries for teachers, teacher aides, and
            administrative personnel and is essential to our ability to
            recruit and retain qualified teachers.
      --Tribal Grant Support Costs which helps pay for accounting,
            insurance, background checks, legal and record-keeping.
      --School Facility Operations and Maintenance which keeps the building
            safe, pay for preventative maintenance, and cover insurance and
            utility costs.
      --Student Transportation which allow us maintain, repair, and replace
            buses.
      --Early Childhood Development funds (FACE), which is critical to
            providing preschoolers with skills to be school-ready.
      --Johnson O'Malley, which assists Indian children in public schools.
        BIA: Public Safety and Justice.--We appreciate Congress's decision
    to increase funding for BIA's Public Safety and Justice by $8 million
    above fiscal year 2016 levels. Although we are a small community in a
    Public Law 280 State, we are on the front lines combating major crimes.
    We face a serious drug epidemic which includes opioids, meth, heroin,
    as well as prescription drug abuse. Because of that epidemic, our law
    enforcement department is called upon to respond to a growing number of
    substance abuse relied crimes as well as drug overdoses and deaths.
    These include a troubling number of offenses involving juveniles. Our
    law enforcement also responds to many other matters, including domestic
    disputes, disturbances, disorderly conduct, property damage, theft,
    trespass, suspicious activity, unwanted persons, medical emergencies,
    fire, neglected children, missing persons, suicide threats, and
    traffic-related issues. The demand on our law enforcement has increased
    over the years. In 2016 our law enforcement responded to more than
    8,200 incidents and calls for service--an increase from past years
    where the numbers were: 8,000 in 2015; 6,000 in 2014; 5,342 in 2013;
    5,100 in 2012; and 4,900 in 2011.
        We address law enforcement by a combination of Tribal and available
    Federal funds and cooperative agreements with local law enforcement
    agencies. We now have 19 full time officers, and 3 administrative
    staff. We are hiring two more full-time officers so we will have a
    total of 21 officers. To effectively meet need, we should have 23 to 25
    full time officers, with 3 full time investigators. As present, we have
    only 1 investigator which is not enough. We need to be able to do more
    drug investigations so we can reduce the amount of drugs entering our
    community. We also have unmet need for equipment. We lack basic
    equipment for our investigation unit--from binoculars to more
    sophisticated surveillance equipment like video cameras and digital
    recorders. Our patrol cars are aging and need more-costly service
    repairs. Federal funding is essential to meet those needs. We urge
    Congress to increase funding for Tribal law enforcement.
        BIA: Trust-Natural Resources Management.--We appreciate Congress's
    decision to increase by $9 million funding for BIA Trust-Natural
    Resources in fiscal year 2017. We urge Congress to substantially
    increase funding for this program in fiscal year 2018 as funding levels
    have never met need. Natural resource management is vital in Indian
    country where the basic subsistence needs of many Indian people
    (especially those living in poverty) depend on natural resources. This
    is certainly true at Fond du Lac. By Treaties in 1837, 1842 and 1854,
    the United States acquired our aboriginal territory but, to ensure that
    we could sustain ourselves and our families, expressly promised that we
    retained rights to hunt, fish and gather natural resources within and
    outside our Reservation. Our members depend on and exercise these
    treaty-protected rights to put food on the table and for ceremonial
    practices that serve as the foundation for our culture. The stewardship
    of those natural resources--through scientific study, resource
    management, and enforcement of Band laws that regulate Tribal members
    who hunt, fish and gather those resources--are an important source of
    employment for many of our members. Funding for Trust-Natural Resources
    Management allows us to protect, enhance, and restore natural
    resources.
        The funding for these programs has also led to other successes. For
    example, with modest funding from the Interior Department (along with
    Tribal funds), we developed a solar energy facility which we are using
    for our hotel and casino. And with help from Federal funds, we have
    been developing biomass heating systems for our community buildings.
    These small Federal investments have big cost savings and go a long way
    to help us be self-sufficient.
        Forest resources are an important asset to the Fond du Lac Band.
    The Interior Department just recently highlighted the importance of
    protecting forests from wildfire. Yet fire preparedness funding is
    below the most efficient level (MEL) and while we do not yet know the
    details of the President's proposed fiscal year 2018 budget cuts,
    proposals have been made in the past to reduce fuels funding from
    Indian forestry. These funds should not be cut. Fire preparedness and
    fuels funding create (and maintain) jobs in Indian forestry and protect
    Indian and non-Indian lands.
        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.--The FWS is a valued partner in the
    Band's wildlife and fisheries research and restoration programs. We
    request that the overall budget of the FWS be increased, with a
    particular increase to the Native American Liaison and Tribal Wildlife
    Grant programs.
        Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).--We are very concerned about
    the overall reductions being made to EPA funding and urge Congress not
    to permit any more reduction. We rely on EPA grants to clean up
    brownfields and administer clean water and clean air programs. These
    programs are important to protecting the health of our community, so
    that we have safe water to drink and can continue to rely on fish, wild
    rice, and game to put food on the table. These federally-assisted
    programs are also good for the economy. The small amount of Federal
    funds that help us protect the environment boosts tourism and creates
    jobs.
      --Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI).--We appreciate
            Congress's decision to maintain funding for GRLI in fiscal year
            2017 at fiscal year 2016 levels, and urge Congress to continue
            to fund this important initiative at this level. It is
            critically important for all communities along the Great
            Lakes--States and Tribes--to be able to clean up past pollution
            and respond to damaging invasive species. The work funded by
            the initiative is also good for the economy. It protects major
            commercial fisheries as well as the recreation and tourism
            industries which depend on the lakes. Tribes and States are
            already investing their own funds to restore and protect the
            lakes, but cannot do the work without Federal help.
      --Water Quality.--We have a federally approved water quality
            standards program that has seen annual funding declines, while
            the need and Band's responsibilities have increased. Given the
            current threats to water resources in our region, we urge that
            Tribal section 106 funding be doubled so that we can do the
            work needed to protect the water we drink and which are
            critical to the fish and game that are central to our and the
            State's economy.
      --Air.--In conjunction with our water quality monitoring
            responsibilities, the Band has a long-standing air monitoring
            program that has also faced a steady decline in Federal
            funding. We request that air quality program funding for Tribes
            be increased.
      --Wetlands.--One-half of our reservation is made up of wetlands.
            Proper management and restoration of this valuable resource is
            impossible without adequate and consistent Federal funding. We
            request sustained wetland monitoring and protection program
            funding.
        Indian Health Service.--We very much appreciate Congress's decision
    to increase funding for IHS in fiscal year 2017, as this is essential
    to address the high rates of medical inflation and the substantial
    unmet need for healthcare among Indian people. Indians at Fond du Lac,
    like Indians throughout the Nation, continue to face disproportionately
    higher rates of diabetes and its associated complications, than the
    rest of the population. As reported by Minnesota, in 2015, the rate of
    diabetes among American Indians was 18.4 percent, more than double the
    rate of the population statewide. See Minnesota Compass, http://
    www.mncompass.org/health/overview. Heart disease, cancer, obesity,
    chemical dependency and mental health problems are also prevalent among
    our people. All Indian Tribes should receive 100 percent of the Level
    of Need Formula, which is absolutely critical for Tribes to address the
    serious and persistent health issues that confront our communities. The
    Band serves over 7,300 Indian people at our clinics, but the current
    funding level meets only 33 percent of our healthcare funding needs.
        To make progress in reducing the disparities in Indian health, we
    urge Congress to continue to increase funding for IHS by a minimum of
    37 percent in fiscal year 2018, including increases of: $169.1 million
    for full funding of current services; $145.8 million for binding fiscal
    obligations; and $28.5 million for Contract Support Costs. We also urge
    an increase of $1.6 billion for program expansion increases, with the
    top priorities given to Hospitals & Health Clinics; Purchased/Referred
    Care; Mental Health; Alcohol & Substance Abuse; and Dental Health.
    Expanded resources for treatment and community education capacity are
    especially needed to combat the epidemic of drug abuse. Additional
    funding for the Methamphetamine, Suicide Prevention Initiative should
    be made available to Tribes and the IHS so that this ``new sickness''
    can be addressed. Best practices in pharmacy inventory and prescription
    monitoring need to be modeled and replicated throughout Indian Country.
        Finally, we have deep concerns about any legislation that cuts or
    changes the way in which Medicaid is paid to IHS-funded healthcare
    providers. Medicaid is a key source of funding for our healthcare
    programs--funding that is not available from IHS but which is available
    to us when we serve Medicaid-eligible Indian people. Medicaid fills a
    critical gap for the Indian health system, covering needed surgeries,
    preventative care, and dental care which saves lives. If Medicaid
    dollars are cut, or block-granted to the States, or allocated per
    capita, then substantially larger increases will be needed in IHS
    funding. Miigwech. Thank you.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife
                                     Refuge
        Ms. Chairman and Honorable Members of the subcommittee: I am Bill
    Durkin, President of the Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife
    Refuge in Biddeford, Maine.
        I have been a member of the Friends of Rachel Carson NWR for the
    past 28 years. The group was founded in 1987; we are a small group
    supporting the refuge in Southern Maine. I have given numerous written
    statements over the years and we really appreciate your support in the
    past. This year, our refuge is not requesting any appropriations
    directly for Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge; this is a request
    for general funding of the National Wildlife Refuge System of $586
    million. This year we ask to appropriate $60 million in the National
    Wildlife Refuge Fund. I also urge the sub-committee to fund the Land ,
    Water and Conservation Fund at full funding at $900 million with a $150
    million of that request for the National Wildlife Refuge Systems
    purchase of easements and in holdings. I thank you all for your
    consideration.
        The Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge is named in honor of one
    of the Nation's foremost and forward-thinking biologists. After
    arriving in Maine in 1946 as an aquatic biologist for the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, Rachel Carson became entranced with Maine's coastal
    habitat, leading her to write the international best-seller The Sea
    Around Us. This landmark study, in combination with her other writings,
    The Edge of the Sea and Silent Spring, led Rachel Carson to become an
    advocate on behalf of this Nation's vast coastal habitat and the
    wildlife that depends on it. Her legacy lives on today at the refuge
    that bears her name and is dedicated to the permanent protection of the
    salt marshes and estuaries of the southern Maine coast. The refuge was
    established in 1966 to preserve migratory bird habitat and waterfowl
    migration along southern Maine's coastal estuaries. It consists of 11
    refuge divisions in 12 municipalities protecting approximately 5,600
    acres within a 14,800 acre acquisition zone.
        Consisting of meandering tidal creeks, coastal upland, sandy dunes,
    salt ponds, marsh, and productive wetlands, the Rachel Carson NWR
    provides critical nesting and feeding habitat for the threatened piping
    plover and a variety of migratory waterfowl, and serves as a nursery
    for many shellfish and finfish. Located along the Atlantic flyway, the
    refuge serves as an important stopover point for migratory birds.
    Previous years' appropriations have allowed the USFWS to conserve
    several properties within the refuge.

        1. We are requesting an overall funding level of $586 Million in
    fiscal year 2018 for the Operations and Maintenance Budget of the
    National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service. All of the refuges are in dire need of staffing and upkeep.
    The National Wildlife Refuge System is responsible for 568 million
    acres of lands and waters, but currently receives less than a $1. per
    acre for management costs. The refuges cannot fulfill its obligation to
    the American public, our wildlife and 47 million annual visitors
    without adequate funding. Refuges provide unparalleled opportunities to
    hunt, fish, watch wildlife and educate children about the environment.
    An investment in the Nation's Refuge System is an excellent investment
    in the American economy, generating $2.4 billion and creating about
    35,000 jobs in local economies. Without increased funding for refuges,
    wildlife conservation and public recreation opportunities will be
    jeopardized. We fully supported the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's request of
    $586 Million for Operation and Management for the National Wildlife
    Refuge System.

        2. Appropriate $60 million in the National Wildlife Refuge Fund in
    fiscal year 2018 which offsets losses in local government tax revenue
    because lands owned by the Refuge System are exempt from taxation. The
    Refuge Fund is an annual appropriation that supplements the Refuge
    Revenue Sharing Program. The Revenue Sharing Program offsets lost local
    tax revenue by providing payments to local governments from net income
    derived from permits and wildlife refuge activities.

        3. We request $150 million in LWCF funding for Refuge land
    acquisitions/conservation easements and we call for full funding of
    LWCF at $900 million. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is our
    Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and protect lands at
    national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks,
    trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across the country
    provide the public with substantial social and economic benefits
    including promoting healthier lifestyles through active recreation,
    protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire
    management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to
    climate change. The quality of place is greatly enhanced. As you know,
    LWCF uses no tax payer dollars. Created by Congress in 1964 and
    authorized at $900 million per year (more than $3 billion in today's
    dollars), the LWCF is our most important land and easement acquisition
    tool. In the President's budget, he has included full funding for LWCF
    programs at the $900.M level, and I support the administration's
    commitment to fully funding the program. This wise investment in the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund is one that will permanently pay
    dividends to the American people and to our great natural and
    historical heritage. The Refuge System needs $150 million in LWCF for
    fiscal year 2018, including these high priority requests:
      --$10 million for Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area
            (Florida)
      --$2 million for Clark River NWR (Kentucky)
      --$5.5 million for Silvio O. Conte NWR (Connecticut, New Hampshire,
            Vermont, Massachusetts)
      --$3 million for Cache River NWR (Arizona)
      --$2 million for Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (Wyoming,
            Idaho, Utah)
      --$2 million for Blackwater NWR (Maryland)
      --$1.4 million for Balcones Canyonlands NWR (Texas)
      --$6.2 million for Hakalau Forest NWR (Hawaii)
      --$2 million for the Northern Tallgrass Prairie (Minnesota, Iowa)
      --$750,000 for Maine Coastal Islands NWR (Maine)

        I again extend our appreciation to the subcommittee for its ongoing
    commitment to our National Wildlife Refuge System and respectfully
    request the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations
    Subcommittee allocate $586 million for the Refuge System's fiscal year
    2018 Operations & Maintenance Budget, $60 million in the National
    Wildlife Refuge Fund and $150 million in Refuge LWCF monies. We need
    Congress to standby their commitment that was made in 1964 : stabilize
    the LWCF at $900 million.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of protecting wildlife and it's habitat. Enjoy
    your next walk out on a National Wildlife Refuge.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Geological Society of America
                                    summary
        The Geological Society of America (GSA) urges Congress to provide
    $1.2 billion for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in fiscal year 2018.
    As one of our Nation's key science agencies, the USGS plays a vital
    role in understanding and documenting mineral and energy resources that
    underpin economic growth; researching and monitoring potential natural
    hazards that threaten U.S. and international security; and determining
    and assessing water quality and availability. Approximately two thirds
    of the USGS budget is allocated for research and development. In
    addition to underpinning the science activities and decisions of the
    Department of the Interior, this research is used by communities across
    the Nation to make informed decisions in land use planning, emergency
    response, natural resource management, engineering, and education.
    Despite the critical role played by the USGS, funding for the agency
    has stagnated in real dollars for more than a decade. Given the
    importance of the many activities of the Survey that protect lives and
    property, stimulate innovations that fuel the economy, provide national
    security, and enhance the quality of life, GSA believes that growth in
    Federal funding for the Survey is necessary for the future of our
    Nation and urges Congress to reject the cuts proposed in the
    Administration's fiscal year 2018 request.

        The Geological Society of America, founded in 1888, is a scientific
    society with over 26,000 members from academia, government, and
    industry in all 50 States and more than 100 countries. Through its
    meetings, publications, and programs, GSA enhances the professional
    growth of its members and promotes the geosciences in the service of
    humankind.
    u.s. geological survey contributions to national security, health, and
                                    welfare
        The USGS is one of the Nation's premier science agencies.
    Approximately two thirds of the USGS budget is allocated for research
    and development. In addition to underpinning the science activities and
    decisions of the Department of the Interior, this research is used by
    communities and businesses across the Nation to make informed decisions
    in land use planning, emergency response, natural resource management,
    engineering, and education. USGS research addresses many of society's
    greatest challenges for national security, health, and welfare. Several
    are highlighted below.
      --Natural hazards--including earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic
            eruptions, wildfires, and landslides--are a major cause of
            fatalities and economic losses. Recent natural disasters
            provide unmistakable evidence that the United States remains
            vulnerable to staggering losses. Landslides, which occur in
            every State, cause more than $3 billion in damage each year. An
            improved scientific understanding of geologic hazards will
            reduce future losses through better forecasts of their
            occurrence, which allows for effective planning and mitigation.
              Decision makers in many sectors rely upon USGS data. For
            example, USGS volcano monitoring provides key data to enable
            decisions on the safety of aviation. Data from the USGS network
            of stream gages is used by the National Weather Service to
            issue flood and drought warnings. Earth and space observations
            provide data necessary to predict severe space weather events,
            which affect the electric power grid, satellite communications
            and information, and space-based position, navigation, and
            timing systems. GSA urges Congress to support efforts for USGS
            to modernize and upgrade its natural hazards monitoring and
            warning systems to protect communities from the devastating
            personal and economic effects of natural disasters, including
            additional 3-D elevation mapping and earthquake early warning
            systems.
      --A recent report by the National Research Council, Emerging
            Workforce Trends in the Energy and Mining Industries: A Call to
            Action, found, ``Energy and mineral resources are essential for
            the Nation's fundamental functions, its economy, and its
            security.'' Recent studies have shown that rare earth elements
            are essential to the production, sustainment, and operation of
            U.S. military equipment. Reliable access to the necessary
            material is a bedrock requirement for the Department of
            Defense. In addition, many emerging energy technologies--such
            as wind turbines and solar cells--depend upon rare earth
            elements and critical minerals that currently lack diversified
            sources of supply. GSA supports increases in minerals science,
            research, information, data collection and analysis that will
            allow for more economic and environmental management and
            utilization of minerals. In addition, GSA supports increases in
            research to better understand domestic sources of energy,
            including conventional and unconventional oil and gas and
            renewables.
      --The flooding in the Western United States is a testament to our
            dependence on water. The availability and quality of surface
            water and groundwater are vital to the wellbeing of both
            societies and ecosystems. Greater scientific understanding of
            these resources through monitoring and research by the USGS is
            necessary to ensure adequate and safe water resources for the
            health and welfare of society.
      --USGS research on climate impacts is used by local policymakers and
            resource managers to make sound decisions based on the best
            possible science. The Climate Science Centers, for example,
            provide scientific information necessary to anticipate,
            monitor, and adapt to climate change's effects at regional and
            local levels, allowing communities to make smart, cost-
            effective decisions.
      --The Landsat satellites have amassed the largest archive of remotely
            sensed land data in the world, a tremendously important
            resource for natural resource exploration, land use planning,
            and assessing water resources, the impacts of natural
            disasters, and global agriculture production. GSA supports
            interagency efforts to plan a path forward for future support
            of Landsat.
        Activities from hazard monitoring to mineral forecasts are
    supported by the Core System Sciences, Facilities, and Science Support
    arenas. These programs and services, such as geologic mapping and data
    preservation, provide critical information, data, and infrastructure
    that underpin the research of the USGS. Increases are particularly
    needed in Facilities to address many deferred maintenance issues.
        Knowledge of the earth sciences is essential to scientific literacy
    and to meeting the environmental and resource challenges of the twenty-
    first century. It is also fundamental to training the next generation
    of Earth science professionals. GSA is very concerned that cuts in
    Earth science funding will cause students and young professionals to
    leave the field, potentially leading to a lost generation of
    professionals in areas that are already facing worker shortages.
    Investments in these areas could lead to job growth, as demand for
    these professionals now and in the future is assessed to be high.
        Emerging Workforce Trends in the Energy and Mining Industries: A
    Call to Action, found, ``In mining (nonfuel and coal) a personnel
    crisis for professionals and workers is pending and it already exists
    for faculty.'' Another recent study by the American Geosciences
    Institute, Status of the Geoscience Workforce Report 2016, found an
    expected deficit of approximately 90,000 geoscientists by 2024. Strong
    investments in geoscience research are needed to prepare citizens for
    these job opportunities.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony about the U.S.
    Geological Survey. For additional information or to learn more about
    the Geological Society of America--including GSA Position Statements on
    water resources, mineral and energy resources, natural hazards, and
    public investment in Earth science research--please visit
    www.geosociety.org or contact Kasey White at kwhite@geosociety.org.

        [This statement was submitted by Kasey White, Director for
    Geoscience Policy.]
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Healing Lodge of the Seven Nations
        The requests of The Healing Lodge of the Seven Nations (hereinafter
    ``HL7N'') for the fiscal year 2018 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget
    are as follows:

      --Support increased funding of $2,523,000 for the IHS facilities
            appropriation, as sufficient to help ensure HL7N can obtain and
            utilize IHS funding for the construction of a new behavioral
            health family and wellness center and a gymnasium expansion
            project, both of which are critically needed for the American
            Indian and Alaska Native youth.
      --Safeguard the IHS from sequestration.
      --Ensure full funding of contract support costs.
    HL7N Is A Youth Regional Treatment Center
        HL7N is one of the 12 Youth Regional Treatment Centers (YRTCs)
    within the Indian healthcare system, located in Spokane Valley,
    Washington. As a YRTC, HL7N is a self-determination contractor with the
    Indian Health Service (IHS) under the Indian Self-Determination and
    Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA). Our purpose is to provide
    residential substance use disorder services to American Indian and
    Alaska Native youth between the ages of thirteen and seventeen. HL7N
    was formed in 1988 by seven Indian Tribes in the Pacific Northwest
    (Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservations, Coeur d'Alene Tribe,
    Kalispel Tribes of Indians, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Nez Perce Tribe,
    Spokane Tribe of Indians and Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian
    Reservation) to create a centrally located, safe and caring healing
    center for Tribal adolescents and their families. The HL7N business
    complex is nestled in a quiet wooded area consisting of 38 acres owned
    by the IHS and thirteen acres owned by HL7N.
        HL7N operates a 45-bed adolescent residential chemical dependency
    treatment center, with programs ranging between 90-120 days that are
    designed around individual youth's needs and are grounded in Native
    American traditional, cultural and spiritual values and practices. Our
    addiction treatment programs use evidence-based treatment models to
    create a holistic approach towards healing. The success of this program
    is based on shared beliefs and daily practices that provide structure
    and consistency; on values and practices that foster respect, honesty,
    generosity, strong cultural identification; and hope for positive life
    changes. The work done by HL7N not only treats addiction, but
    strengthens families, empowers communities and ultimately saves lives.
    Increased Funding For IHS Facilities
        HL7N currently provides treatment for addictive, substance-related
    conditions within the adolescent population, which suffers from severe
    cannabis use, opioid dependence, alcohol abuse and addiction, and
    benzodiazepine dependency. Additionally, more and more youth are
    presenting with higher mental health disease, which is a serious
    concern for the future health of the adolescents if not addressed
    promptly and appropriately. In a recent study conducted by Harvard
    University, the Cambridge Institute and HL7N involving youth residing
    on regional reservations of the HL7N Tribes, the study found that 29
    percent of the youth received a diagnosis of at least one psychiatric
    disorder; 13 percent had multiple diagnoses; and 60 percent diagnosed
    with a depressive disorder also present with a substance use disorder.
    Typically, Tribal youth have multiple limitations, which include
    substance use and addictive disorders, criminal activity, psychological
    problems, impaired functioning, and disaffiliation from mainstream
    values, coupled with historical and inter-generational trauma. These
    challenges for our youth support the need for the increased
    availability of culturally relevant mental health services.
        HL7N does not currently have adequate facility space and funding to
    devote to such treatment services. The number of adolescents denied for
    admissions to HL7N--due to higher mental health issues--unfortunately
    grew from 25 percent to 31 percent in 2016, creating an increased
    concern by the regional Tribes over the lack of culturally appropriate
    inpatient substance abuse and mental health treatment access. With 29
    years of successful experience in working with American Indian and
    Alaska Native adolescents, the HL7N proposes to establish an innovative
    adolescent program focused on outpatient and inpatient treatment
    designed to address their chronic, unmet behavioral healthcare needs.
        HL7N is planning the construction of a new, ``shovel ready''
    infrastructure project to add a 4,072 square foot Behavioral Health
    Family and Wellness Center, for the provision of mental health and
    chemical dependency clinical services, primarily serving America
    Indian/Alaska Native youth. The cost of this construction project is
    estimated at $1,655,000. The facility will be built on IHS property
    permanently assigned to HL7N and consist of a single story office
    building, with office accommodations and family focused counseling
    rooms to include tele-medicine capability.
        HL7N is also planning to construct an addition to its existing YRTC
    gymnasium in order to add showers, dressing rooms, fitness room and
    restrooms for the adolescents. This project is expected to cost
    $868,000. This ``shovel ready'' infrastructure project will consist of
    the construction of a 2,366 square foot addition to the existing
    gymnasium for the purpose of improving youth's mental and physical
    health through physical exercise. This expansion will help increase
    moderate intensity physical activity as an intervention in mental
    health and substance addiction treatment. The addition of a shower
    system will also help HL7N to identify any contraband (drugs) that may
    be brought back by youth who are returning from outings. Gone
    undetected, such drugs could be used and/or distributed to other youth,
    which is extremely detrimental to their treatment process and recovery.
    Once constructed, the facility maintenance costs will be covered by the
    HL7N's existing ISDEAA annual funding agreement and other of HL7N's
    financial resources.
        HL7N thus appeals to this Subcommittee to support increased funding
    for the IHS facilities appropriation, as adequate for the IHS to be
    able to fund HL7N's new behavioral health facility and its gymnasium
    expansion. Funding these facilities will help in fulfilling the Federal
    Government's commitment and obligations to improve the health of
    American Indian and Alaska Native adolescents. Equally important, the
    youth deserve a chance to achieve recovery and learn to better manage
    their mental health issues, while striving to become contributing
    members of society.
    Fully Fund Contract Support Costs (CSC)
        We wish to thank this Subcommittee for its leadership in making
    funding of IHS contract support costs for fiscal year 2016, and now
    fiscal year 2017, an indefinite amount, and also for making it a
    separate account in the IHS budget. This shift makes an enormous
    difference in helping ensure that the ISDEAA is fully funded and
    implemented as Congress intended. It also significantly enhances the
    Federal-Tribal government-to-government relationship. For IHS, the
    fiscal year 2017 estimate for contract support costs is $800 million.
    We also wish to provide our thanks for listening to the tribes who
    explained why the proviso in the IHS fiscal year 2016 enacted funding,
    which effectively denied the CSC carryover authority granted by the
    ISDEAA, was inappropriate. We very much appreciate that this proviso
    was absent from the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year
    2017 and recommend that it not be resurrected in fiscal year 2018 or
    thereafter.
        Our long-term goal, however, remains that the indefinite
    appropriation of CSC funding be mandatory and permanent. Full payment
    of CSC under the ISDEAA is mandatory, as affirmed by the United States
    Supreme Court. HL7N is committed to working together with the
    appropriate Congressional committees to determine how best to achieve
    this goal.
    Protect IHS Funding From Sequestration
        We request that you support an amendment to the Balanced Budget and
    Emergency Deficit Control Act to exempt the IHS from potential
    sequestration of funds, as Congress has rightfully done to fully exempt
    the Veterans Health Administration's programs from sequestration. We
    believe that Indian health should be afforded the same treatment as the
    VA, and most especially so in light of the Federal Government's trust
    responsibility to tribes. We are aware that a number of members of this
    Subcommittee and other members of Congress have publicly stated that it
    was an oversight IHS was not included in the exempt category when the
    Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control act was enacted. We would
    like to correct that oversight.
        We also express our concern that the current fiscal year 2018
    funding cap for non-defense discretionary spending is lower than the
    fiscal year 2017 spending cap. When considered in light of the
    President's ``skinny'' fiscal year 2018 budget outline proposal, which
    raises defense spending by $54 billion and lowers non-defense
    discretionary spending by a similar amount, we fear a significant
    sequestration of funds in fiscal year 2018. It is thus even more
    imperative that Indian health be made exempt from sequestration.
        Thank you for your consideration of the concerns and requests of
    The Healing Lodge of the Seven Nations.

        [This statement was submitted by Sam Penney, President, Board of
    Directors.]

                                     ______

                             Hendrickson Paul deg.
                     Prepared Statement of Paul Hendrickson
    Sirs and Madams:

        The National Endowment for the Arts is a crucial American cultural
    institution. I have been a recipient of the NEA Literature Fellowship
    twice, and on each occasion the grant afforded me the opportunity to
    continue working on the nonfiction book project I was then engaged in.
    It would have been impossible otherwise. In both instances, the books
    went on to get finished, won critical acclaim, made me proud. (One
    became a bestseller.) I am proud to be an American who can apply to a
    governmental institution that supports arts and culture. Please do not
    let the current administration eliminate it.

                Yours sincerely,
                                              Paul Hendrickson,
    Senior Lecturer, Department of English, University of Pennsylvania.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Hualapai Tribe of the Grand Canyon
        The Hualapai Tribe of the Grand Canyon is deeply concerned with
    proposed funding cuts to the US Environmental Protection Agency which
    provide needed resources for protecting the environment and human
    health of our people. The Federal government has treaty and trust
    responsibilities to protect all Indian Tribes natural resources, and to
    ensure the safety and health of all human beings living in the United
    States of America and Tribal Nations. My Tribe will be adversely
    affected by budget cuts to future State and Tribal Assistance Grant
    (STAG) funding and it is of vital importance for you to hold harmless
    funding which is provided to Tribes for Tribal environmental protection
    programs.
        The Hualapai Tribe depends on funding from the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) to address their environmental priorities and
    needs. Funding is already limited for Tribal environmental programs to
    protect our natural resources and the safety and the health of our
    people. Specific programs which would cause great impact to Tribal
    environmental programs if they were not funded or had a 30 percent cut
    in funding include the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund for
    Sanitation Facilities, Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Fund for
    Drinking Water Systems, Indian Environmental General Assistance
    Program, Clean Water Act Section 106 and 319 activities and Clean Air
    Act Section 103 and 105 activities.
        The Hualapai Tribe has the same capacity as States with respect to
    the Clean Water Act's Section 106--Water Pollution Control Program. The
    1987 Clean Water Act Amendments (i.e., Section 518 of the Clean Water
    Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.,) added a new section titled ``Indian
    Tribes'' which authorizes U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
    treat federally recognized Indian Tribes as States for certain
    provisions, including financial assistance under such programs as the
    Water Pollution Control Program. Section 518 is commonly known as the
    ``Treatment as a State (TAS) section''. The Hualapai Tribe has water
    quality standards; Treatments as a State (TAS) recognition: conducts
    annual water quality assessments and every 5 years submits a 305b
    report; conducts a triennial review of our water quality standards;
    Developing and administering Non-Point Source and National Pollutant
    Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Programs; ensuring the
    protection and anti-degradation of our water resources. Unfortunately
    we are not funded at a regular and consistent rate (target) like
    States. Adequate funding to maintain our program would be $490,000 a
    year.
        The Tribe has been able to utilize EPA funding to create
    environmental laws and ordinances to preserve and protect the natural
    resources of the Hualapai Tribe. Provide access to safe drinking water
    and sanitation services to homes in our community, monitor Air quality
    and visibility at the southwestern rim of the Grand Canyon and the
    community of Peach Springs, Construction of brush barriers to reduce
    erosion and sediment deposition in the headwaters of different
    watersheds on the reservation, Initiate clean up and enforcement of
    fuel spill releases and the development of emergency response plans.
        My Tribal community relies upon healthy and safe ecosystems to
    sustain our health, traditional lifeways, treaty rights, and ceremonial
    and cultural practices. Because of our remote, marginal location, our
    Tribal lands are more vulnerable to droughts, fires, and floods.
    Moreover, my sovereign Tribal government must contend with complicated
    jurisdictional issues arising from relationships with State and local
    governments. We are responding to these complex, serious challenges
    with well-managed, cost-effective environmental programs that reinforce
    Tribal sovereignty, protect important resources, and underscore the
    value of Tribal self-determination.
        Therefore, I request that you hold harmless funding which is
    provided to Tribes for Tribal environmental protection programs
    including the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund for Sanitation
    Facilities, Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Fund for Drinking
    Water Systems, Indian Environmental General Assistance Program, Clean
    Water Act Section 106 and 319 activities and Clean Air Act Section 103
    and 105 activities. I would also like to request that you come to our
    Reservation to see the positive impact that EPA funding has provided to
    our people and our lands. As you know Tribes and their people pay
    Federal taxes like all other citizens and should be afforded Federal
    funding opportunities.
        I look forward to meeting with you in the future and sharing our
    experiences in protecting our homelands and human health.

        [This statement was submitted by Dr. Damon Clarke, Chairman,
    Hualapai Tribal Council.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Humane Society of the United States, Humane
             Society Legislative Fund, and Doris Day Animal League
        Thank you for this opportunity to offer testimony to the Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on matters of importance
    to our organizations. We urge the Subcommittee to address the following
    requests in the fiscal year 2018 Department of Interior, Environment,
    and Related Agencies budget:
      --Environmental Protection Agency, CompTox Program: increase over
            fiscal year 2017 level
      --Bureau of Land Management, Wild Horse and Burro Program: 1)
            $80,400,000, contingent on implementing National Academy of
            Science recommendations for fertility control; 2) language to
            protect wild horses and burros from slaughter; 3) replacement
            of language from General Provisions, Section 115, ``Transfer of
            Animals to Other Agencies,'' with fiscal year 2017 omnibus
            language from General Provisions, Section 116, ``Humane
            Transfer of Excess Animals''
      --Fish and Wildlife Service, Multinational Species Conservation Fund:
            $11,000,000, with no funds from conservation programs to
            promote trophy hunting, trade in animal parts, or other
            consumptive uses of wildlife
      --Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of International Affairs: support
            President's request
      --Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement: support
            President's request
        We also request that the budget exclude any language that would in
    any way impede the Fish and Wildlife Service's efforts to combat
    wildlife trafficking, or that would undermine the Endangered Species
    Act.
                environmental protection agency--comptox program
        Thousands of chemicals are currently used, and hundreds of new ones
    are introduced each year, for which EPA needs to conduct toxicity
    assessments. EPA is also tasked with evaluating and registering
    pesticides and, more recently, evaluating chemicals for possible
    endocrine activity. To address these needs, EPA established the
    National Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT) to predict hazard
    and prioritize chemicals for further screening and testing, developing
    and using high-throughput assays and predictive tools which are less
    expensive and time consuming and more predictive of relevant biological
    pathways.
        Through EPA's CompTox program, EPA has screened more than 2,000
    chemicals (industrial, food additives, pesticides, and consumer
    products) and evaluated them in more than 700 high-throughput assays.
    Additionally, EPA is using ToxCast data to prioritize chemicals for
    evaluation in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Tox21, a
    collaboration among EPA, the National Institute of Environmental Health
    Sciences, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and
    the Food and Drug Administration, is currently screening 10,000
    chemicals to improve the effectiveness of drug development. NCCT also
    works with other divisions of EPA's Office of Research and Development
    to develop predictive tools and systems biology databases. These
    projects are reducing animal use while improving the speed and accuracy
    of chemical evaluation relevant to several programs. With the passage
    in 2016 of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century
    Act, there is a marked need to ensure these tools are augmented and
    taken up by the agency.
        Congress appropriated increases for the program's budget in fiscal
    years 2016 and 2017. However, the President's budget has significantly
    slashed this progress. We support an increase over and above fiscal
    year 2017 to the CompTox program in fiscal year 2018. This will
    increase the likelihood of realizing the goals presented in the CompTox
    program, and assure a more predictable and relevant chemicals safety
    assessment.
            bureau of land management--wild horse and burro program
        The HSUS is one of the leading advocates for the protection and
    welfare of wild horses and burros in the United States, with a long
    history of working collaboratively with the BLM--the agency mandated to
    protect America's wild horses and burros--on the development of
    effective and humane management techniques.
        For years, The HSUS has strongly supported significantly reducing
    the number of wild horses and burros annually gathered and removed from
    our rangelands, noting that removing horses from the range without
    implementing any program for suppressing population growth is an
    unsustainable method for managing our Nation's wild horses. This
    approach leads BLM into a continuous cycle of roundups and removals,
    even as long-term, cost-efficient, and humane management strategies,
    such as fertility control, are readily available.
        BLM has long removed many more wild horses and burros from the
    range than it could expect to adopt. Consequently, the cost of caring
    for these animals off the range has skyrocketed. According to BLM,
    caring for one wild horse in a long-term holding facility over the
    course of its life costs approximately $46,000. Today, there are almost
    50,000 wild horses and burros in these pens, and the agency spends more
    than 63 percent of its annual Wild Horse and Burro budget on holding
    costs. While the number of animals removed from the range has declined
    in recent years, it has been roughly equivalent to the number of
    animals BLM has adopted out, preventing a reduction in the program's
    carrying cost.
        Furthermore, BLM's wild horses and burros management program has
    negative effects that go beyond a simple cost-benefit analysis. For
    instance, the recommendations in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
    2013 report ``Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro
    Program: A Way Forward'', commissioned by the BLM itself, stated that
    BLM's own practices of managing wild horses ``below food-limited
    carrying capacity'' by rounding up and removing a significant
    proportion of the herd's population every three to 4 years is
    facilitating high horse population growth rates on the range.
        To move the agency away from this failed paradigm, Appropriations
    language in the past few years has requested that BLM create a long-
    term, humane, and financially sustainable management path that
    incorporates fertility control tools. This approach is supported by the
    NAS report, which called for increased use of on-the-range management
    tools, including the fertility control vaccine Porcine Zona Pellucida
    (PZP). Further, studies have shown that incorporating fertility control
    into the management of wild horses and burros would significantly lower
    the program's carrying costs. A 2008 paper determined that on-the-range
    contraception could reduce total wild horse and burro management costs
    by 14 percent, saving $6.1 million per year. In addition, the results
    of a paper describing an economic model commissioned by The HSUS
    indicates that treating wild horses on one hypothetical Herd Management
    Area (HMA) with PZP could save BLM approximately $5 million dollars
    over 12 years, while achieving and maintaining Appropriate Management
    Levels of 874 horses. Since BLM estimates that more than 72,000 wild
    horses roam in the United States, PZP use could save tens of millions
    of dollars if applied broadly across all HMAs.
        However, instead of pursuing Congressional recommendations to
    increase the use of fertility control tools, BLM has consistently
    failed to implement any humane management plan. In fact, in 2016 the
    agency treated with fertility control only 467 horses from the
    estimated rangeland population of 72,000--less than 1 percent of the
    population.
        Now, the President's fiscal year 2018 budget calls for the agency
    to further reduce its use of fertility control and requests the ability
    for the agency to send wild horses and burros to slaughter. This will
    not solve rangeland population conflicts; rather, it will simply repeat
    the past failures of attempting to lower rangeland populations by
    removing animals. Twenty years of history has shown that this does not
    maintain stable populations. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the
    American public opposes horse slaughter, and will not accept this as a
    solution for managing our wild horses.
        For these reasons, we ask that you continue to fund the BLM Wild
    Horse and Burro Program at the fiscal year 17 level, which is
    $80,400,000, contingent on the agency's use of the funding to
    immediately begin implementing the currently available NAS-recommended
    fertility control methods.
        We also request inclusion of the same language barring wild horses
    and burros from being sent to slaughter that figured in the fiscal year
    2016 omnibus: ``Appropriations herein made shall not be available for
    the destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros that
    results in their destruction for processing into commercial products,''
    (Division G, p. 714, line 23).
        The President's fiscal year 2018 budget proposes language allowing
    the transfer of horses and burros to Federal, State, and local
    agencies. This language is contained in General Provisions, Section
    115, entitled, ``Transfer of Animals to Other Agencies.'' We request
    that you replace this language with similar language from the fiscal
    year 2017 omnibus, from General Provisions, Section 116, entitled
    ``Humane Transfer of Excess Animals.''
       fish and wildlife service--multinational species conservation fund
        The FWS Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF) supports
    conservation programs for African and Asian elephants, rhinos, tigers,
    great apes, and sea turtles. We request $11 million for this program,
    roughly the same amount as in the fiscal year 2017 omnibus, and $2
    million more than the President's request. The HSUS joins a broad
    coalition of organizations in support of the MSCF, while asking that
    the sales of semi-postal stamps benefiting this program remain
    supplementary to annually appropriated levels.
        While we wholeheartedly support continued funding for the MSCF, we
    are concerned about past incidents and oppose any future use of funds
    from these conservation programs to promote trophy hunting, trade in
    animal parts, and other consumptive uses--including live capture for
    trade, captive breeding, entertainment, or for the public display
    industry--under the guise of conservation. The use of MSCF grants must
    be consistent with the spirit of its authorizing law.
           fish and wildlife service--office of international affairs
        We support the fiscal year 2018 budget request of $14.2 million for
    the FWS Office of International Affairs. This program supports efforts
    to conserve our planet's wildlife diversity by protecting species and
    habitat, combating wildlife trafficking, and building capacity for
    landscape-level wildlife conservation. The Office's Wildlife Without
    Borders programs address grassroots conservation problems, and we
    support this work to conserve some of the world's most iconic species
    in their native habitats.
              fish and wildlife service--office of law enforcement
        The global trafficking of wildlife has reached emergency levels,
    with impacts on national security, international human rights, and the
    survival of protected wildlife species. In particular, African
    elephants face an unprecedented crisis, with one elephant killed every
    15 minutes in Africa. A host of other species, such as rhinos,
    pangolins, tigers, and sharks, is threatened by poaching and
    trafficking as well. The United States is the world's second-largest
    market, behind China, for ivory product sales. In response, FWS issued
    a rule in July 2016 to curtail the domestic trade in ivory. The rule
    also increases scrutiny of imports of African elephant trophies, and
    extends Endangered Species Act protection to live African elephants in
    captive facilities in the United States.
        It is imperative that the Nation stay firm in its effort to curtail
    the U.S. ivory trade and to combat wildlife trafficking. To that end,
    the Administration's fiscal year 2018 FWS budget includes $73 million
    for the Office of Law Enforcement; we ask the Subcommittee to fund the
    Office at this level. The request provides the Service with resources
    critical to curbing transnational wildlife crime. In addition, we ask
    that the bill not include language that would weaken the enforcement or
    implementation of the rule combating ivory trade in the United States.
                             endangered species act
        The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is fundamental to the protection
    of our planet's most imperiled animals. This law, which is supported by
    90 percent of American voters, has prevented the extinction of 99
    percent of the species under its care, including the bald eagle. Under
    the ESA, the responsibility to list and delist species lies with
    Federal agencies, which must make these listing decisions based on the
    best available science. The authority to make these science-based
    management decisions should remain with Federal agencies.
        We ask that the fiscal year 2018 budget exclude any language that
    prevents Federal agencies from making listing or delisting decisions
    based on sound science, or that otherwise undermines the ESA.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission
        My name is Gregory E. Conrad and I serve as Executive Director of
    the Interstate Mining Compact Commission. I appreciate the opportunity
    to present this statement to the Subcommittee regarding the views of
    the Interstate Mining Compact Commission's 26 member States on the
    fiscal year 2018 budget request for the Office of Surface Mining
    Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) within the U.S. Department of the
    Interior. In its proposed budget, OSMRE is requesting $60.1 million to
    fund Title V grants to States for the implementation of their
    regulatory programs, a reduction of $8.4 million below the fiscal year
    2017 enacted level.
        The Compact is comprised of 26 States that together produce some 95
    percent of the Nation's coal, as well as important noncoal minerals.
    The Compact's purposes are to advance the protection and restoration of
    land, water and other resources affected by mining through the
    encouragement of programs in each of the party States that will achieve
    comparable results in protecting, conserving and improving the
    usefulness of natural resources and to assist in achieving and
    maintaining an efficient, productive and economically viable mining
    industry.
        OSMRE has projected an amount of $60.1 million for Title V grants
    to States in fiscal year 2018, an amount which is matched by the
    States. These grants support the implementation of State regulatory
    programs under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA)
    and as such are essential to the full and effective operation of those
    programs.\1\ Pursuant to these primacy programs, the States have the
    most direct and critical responsibilities for conducting regulatory
    operations to minimize the impact of coal extraction operations on
    people and the environment. The States accomplish this through a
    combination of permitting, inspection and enforcement duties,
    designating lands as unsuitable for mining operations, and ensuring
    that timely reclamation occurs after mining.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ OSMRE recognizes the significant role played by the States in
    its budget justification document on page 50 where it notes that
    ``primacy States have the most direct and critical responsibilities for
    conducting regulatory operations to minimize the impact of coal
    extraction operations on people and the environment. The States have
    the capabilities and knowledge to regulate the lands within their
    borders.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In fiscal year 2017, Congress approved $68.5 million for State and
    Tribal Title V grants pursuant to the Omnibus Appropriations Bill. This
    continued a much-needed trend whereby the amount appropriated for these
    regulatory grants aligned with the demonstrated needs of the States.
    The States are greatly encouraged by the amount approved by Congress
    for Title V grant funding over the past several fiscal years. These
    grants had been stagnant for many years and the gap between the States'
    requests and what they received was widening. This debilitating trend
    was compounding the problems caused by inflation and uncontrollable
    costs, thus undermining State efforts to realize needed program
    improvements and enhancements and jeopardizing their efforts to
    minimize the potential adverse impacts of coal extraction operations on
    people and the environment.
        In past budget requests, OSMRE displayed a pattern of proposing
    inadequate funding for State Title V regulatory programs. Congress
    consistently rejected the proposed reductions and funded the programs
    at amounts that more closely aligned with the States' projected needs.
    OSMRE's fiscal year 2018 budget proposal once again moves the grants
    marker in the wrong direction with a cut in regulatory grants that is
    double what the previous administration had proposed in fiscal year
    2017. OSMRE indicates that this significant reduction is based on ``a
    downward trend in State grant execution and a historical return of
    unexecuted appropriated funds at the end of the grant cycle each
    year.'' We are uncertain what OSMRE is alluding to with regard to the
    ``downward trend in State grant execution''. Nothing in OSMRE's annual
    oversight evaluations of State programs has identified this as a
    problem in need of attention.
        Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that, given fiscal
    constraints on State budgets, some States have only recently been able
    to move beyond hiring and salary freezes and restrictions on equipment
    and vehicle purchases, all of which have inhibited the States' ability
    to spend the full amount of their Federal grant money in recent years.
    With many States now recovering enough to utilize their full grant
    amount, it is imperative that funding be maintained at the current
    level of $68.6 million, as fully justified by the States' estimates of
    program needs. Those estimates reflect the ongoing work associated with
    State program implementation including permit reviews, inspections and
    enforcement at all inspectable units. Even with the downturn in coal
    production, the States' workload has not decreased--and in some cases
    has increased given the tenuous condition of some coal companies. In
    the latter situation, higher levels of vigilance are the order of the
    day in order to insure contemporaneous reclamation and abatement of
    violations.
        OSMRE goes on to note that it will ``continue to support State
    regulatory grant requests by re-distributing the available prior year
    funds as needed.'' We believe this plan to be shortsighted in that it
    fails to consider the improving fiscal conditions in many States and
    the damaging precedent set by appropriating suboptimal grant amounts.
    Furthermore, there is no guarantee that these carryover funds will be
    available into the future or that they would not be reprogrammed for
    other purposes.
        Clear indications from Congress that reliable, consistent funding
    will continue into the future has done much to stimulate support for
    these programs by State legislatures and budget officers who, in the
    face of difficult fiscal climates and constraints, have had to deal
    with the challenge of matching Federal grant dollars with State funds.
    This is particularly true for those States whose match is partially
    based on permit fees from the mining industry, where significant
    reductions in permitting activity translate to fewer permit fees (but
    not in the amount of regulatory work for State regulatory agencies).
    Recall that any cut in Federal funding generally translates to an
    additional cut of an equal amount for overall program funding for many
    States, especially those without Federal lands, since these States can
    generally only match what they receive in Federal money.
        We are encouraged with language in OSMRE's budget justification
    document that indicates OSMRE ``will continue to practice cooperative
    conservation through working in partnership with States and Tribes to
    carry out the mission of the SMCRA'' and that the agency is ``shifting
    its role from direct enforcement to oversight'', thereby ``refocusing
    actions on mission accomplishment while fostering a better working
    relationship with the States.'' However, the proof is in actual
    implementation of these laudable goals. The States' tendency to be
    rather circumspect about OSMRE's approach to oversight is based on the
    agency's aggressive treatment of the States over the past 8 years,
    particularly with regard to the reflexive use of Ten-Day Notices as an
    oversight tool and the failure to engage the States in a meaningful way
    regarding crucial programmatic areas such as policies on Clean Water
    Act implementation and stream protection. Based on our experience with
    program operations, some of the very areas OSMRE identifies as reasons
    for its oversight activity are either dependent on State involvement
    (training) or have seen little in the way of progress over the years
    (State program amendment review and approval). Specific program areas
    where OSMRE intends to provide its expertise and assistance are often
    also reliant upon or must defer to State experience including blasting
    and bonding.
        The overall performance of the States as detailed in OSMRE's annual
    State program evaluation reports, together with the fact that
    nationwide, 90 percent of the sites inspected did not have off-site
    impacts, demonstrates that the States are implementing their programs
    effectively and in accordance with the purposes and objectives of
    SMCRA.\2\ In our view, this suggests that OSMRE is adequately
    accomplishing its statutory oversight obligations with current Federal
    program funding and that any increased workloads are likely to fall
    upon the States, which have primary responsibility for implementing
    appropriate adjustments to their programs identified during Federal
    oversight.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The Congress agreed with this assessment when it commented as
    follows on OSM's proposed increase in fiscal year 2017: ``The Committee
    continues to reject the proposal to increase inspection and enhanced
    Federal oversight of State regulatory programs. Delegation of the
    authority to the States is the cornerstone of the surface mining
    regulatory program, and State regulatory programs do not require
    enhanced Federal oversight to ensure continued implementation of a
    protective regulatory framework.'' (H. Report 114-632 at pages 38-39).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To the extent that OSMRE seeks to enhance State primacy, we would
    support a renewed focus on processing State program amendments.
    Additionally, if OSMRE is looking for ways to improve and enhance the
    overall implementation of SMCRA at both the State and Federal level, we
    would urge the agency to move forward with the findings and
    recommendations that IMCC has presented to OSMRE to address the
    continuing fiscal impacts on program implementation, particularly with
    respect to duplicative inspection and enforcement requirements.
        For all the above reasons, we urge Congress to approve not less
    than $68.6 million for State and Tribal Title V regulatory grants, the
    same amount enacted by Congress over the past few fiscal years. In
    doing so, Congress will continue its commitment to ensuring the States
    have the resources they need to continue their work on the forefront of
    environmental protection and preservation of public health and safety.
        OSMRE's proposed budget reduces expenditures for the National
    Technical Training Program (NTTP) and the Technical Information and
    Professional Service (TIPS) by 15 percent. While there may be room for
    some adjustments to these two programs, we caution against cuts that
    would impact the effectiveness of these worthwhile programs. The States
    rely heavily on the NTTP and TIPS training classes for their new
    employees and for refresher courses for more seasoned employees. Any
    adjustments to these two programs should involve the States working
    through the NTTP/TIPS Steering Committee.
        With regard to funding for State Title IV Abandoned Mine Land (AML)
    program grants, the States and Tribes should receive a mandatory
    appropriation of $321.5 million in fiscal year 2018. In its proposed
    fiscal year 2018 budget, OSMRE seeks to eliminate $90 million for the
    AML economic development pilot projects due to the fact that this
    funding ``overlaps with existing mandatory AML grants''. We believe
    that funding for pilot projects is separate and distinct from other AML
    funding sources. As the Subcommittee noted with regard to the fiscal
    year 2017 Omnibus Appropriations bill, this funding is targeted for
    economic and community development and reuse goals. We strongly support
    continued funding (from the General Fund) for these pilot projects,
    along with expansion of the program to include three additional States
    (Virginia, Ohio and Alabama). We also recommend concerted action to
    reauthorize fee collection under Title IV of SMCRA. A resolution
    concerning reauthorization, along with proposed legislative
    adjustments, is attached.
        IMCC also supports a continuation of funding for the watershed
    cooperative agreements at $1.5 million. Much valuable work has been
    accomplished through this program, especially given the matching funds
    that come from other sources besides OSMRE's share for these worthwhile
    projects. We also support funding for the Applied Science program,
    which has supported a range of beneficial research projects addressing
    advanced technologies and practices specific to coal mined sites.
        We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement on the
    Office of Surface Mining's proposed budget for fiscal year 2018. We
    also endorse the statement of the National Association of Abandoned
    Mine Land Programs (NAAMLP), which goes into greater detail regarding
    the implications of OSMRE's funding for the States and Tribes related
    to the AML program. We would be happy to answer any questions.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Intertribal Timber Council
                            introduction and summary
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the subcommittee, I am Phil Rigdon,
    President of the Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) and Deputy Director
    of Natural Resources for the Yakama Nation. The ITC offers the
    following recommendations for fiscal year 2018 Indian forestry-related
    activities in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Department of
    Interior (DoI) Office of Wildland Fire Management (OWFM), and the USDA
    Forest Service (USFS):
        NOTE: Comments are based on funding levels presented in the fiscal
    year 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law 115-31.
    BIA
        1.  Increase BIA Forestry (TPA) by $5 million for the hiring of 67
    additional foresters to increase Tribal trust timber harvest pursuant
    to tribally approved forest plans, improving Tribal employment,
    economies, and forest management;
        2.  Increase BIA Forestry Projects Forest Development by $5 million
    ($2 for thinning, $3 million for replanting) to reduce BIA backlogs,
    provide hundreds of immediate jobs, and strengthen long-term Tribal
    economies;
    OWFM
        3.  Provide $49.5 million in OWFM Burned Area Rehabilitation for
    Indian trust forests burned in 2015.
        4.  Direct a reassessment of wildfire suppression priorities to
    include Indian trust forests as a second priority behind only
    protection of life as a suppression priority.
        5.  Increase Fuels Management funding to $206 million; allow RTRL
    funds on Tribal lands.
    USFS
        6.  Encourage expanded support for the ITC Anchor Forest
    initiative, and direct USFS to initiate implementation of the ``Anchor
    Forest Final Report'', including harvest.
        7.  Continue encouraging the USFS to improve implementation of the
    TFPA.
                                      bia
    1. Increase BIA Forestry (TPA) by $5 million for the hiring of 67
            additional foresters to increase Tribal trust timber harvest
            within tribally approved forest plans, improving Tribal
            employment, economies, and forest and woodland management.
        Indian forests and woodlands comprise 18.6 million acres, or one
    third, of the total 57 million acres of Indian land held and managed in
    trust by the U.S. Department of the Interior's BIA. Forests are a
    principal Tribal renewable resource, and more than 300 Indian Tribes
    have forest resources. Across the country, Indian forests provide more
    than $40 million in annual Tribal governmental revenues, 19,000 jobs in
    and around Tribal communities, and wildlife habitat, clean water and
    air, and sources of food and medicine for Indian people.
        Six million acres of Tribal trust forests support commercial use.
    Sustainable annual harvest targets set by Tribal governments total
    approximately 750 million board feet. But lack of BIA trust management
    capacity, combined with increasingly complex Federal regulation, has
    caused actual annual harvest levels to fall steadily over the past
    forty years, to a current level only about half that amount. Since
    1991, this decline has cost Tribes $700 million in foregone stumpage
    revenue and tens of thousands of forestry-related jobs. For fiscal year
    2015, BIA could only process 46 percent of the tribally approved annual
    allowable cut, costing Tribes more than $60 million in foregone
    revenue.
        The 2013 Indian Forest Management Assessment Team Report, the third
    statutorily required (Public Law 101-630, Section 312) decadal
    independent review on Tribal forests and forestry (IFMAT III), finds
    that Federal funding for BIA forestry is only one third of that per-
    acre for the U.S. Forest Service, that BIA technical forestry staffing
    is chronically insufficient, that each BIA forester administers more
    acres than any other Federal forester, and that BIA professional
    forester staffing should be increased by 65 percent.
        Over the past 2 years I cited an example on my reservation--the
    Yakama Nation--where 33 of the 55 BIA Forestry positions had not been
    filled for a long time. Today, it is basically unchanged, despite
    repeated Tribal pleas. Our harvest targets are not being met, our
    forest health is suffering, and economic opportunities are being lost.
        Data from IFMAT III indicates $5 million added to BIA funding for
    67 foresters (@ $75,000 each) could increase Tribal harvest by up to
    295 million board feet, generate $3 in stumpage revenue for every $1
    invested, and create more than 15,000 rural jobs.
        Please note that additional BIA funding for foresters is essential
    to increasing the Tribal harvest. Even in this era of Tribal assumption
    of forest management functions pursuant to the Indian Self-
    Determination Act, the BIA remains responsible for a wide range of
    critical forestry functions in its capacity as trustee. These functions
    include environmental clearances and approval and oversight for timber
    sales, and the lack of forestry staff to perform these and other trust
    functions directly constrains harvest levels.
        In addition to significantly increasing harvest, jobs and revenue,
    increased BIA funding for forestry staff would improve compliance with
    approved Tribal forest management plans, bringing the forest into a
    better managed State, improving forest health and reducing fire, insect
    and disease threats and their associated Federal costs.
    2. Increase BIA Forestry Projects Forest Development by $5 million ($2
            for thinning, $3 million for replanting) to reduce BIA
            backlogs, provide immediate jobs, and strengthen long-term
            Tribal economies.
        For decades, insufficient BIA support has allowed significant
    thinning and replanting backlogs to accrue on Tribal trust forest land.
    In recent years, the thinning backlog has remained around 10 percent of
    Tribal trust forest acreage, and the replanting backlog has stayed
    around 4 percent. With these backlogs, parts of our forests are either
    underproductive or out of production altogether, depriving our
    communities of vitally needed jobs and income. The backlogs also
    contribute to poor forest health, particularly for thinning, where
    dense stands grow slowly and are especially susceptible to fire,
    disease and insects.
        In fiscal year 2016, Congress initiated an effort to significantly
    reduce the BIA's thinning backlog. The Committee has maintained this
    effort with $2 million in fiscal year 2017, which is greatly
    appreciated. For fiscal year 2018, we request its continuation with a
    $2 million increase, and that this forest development initiative be
    extended to replanting with a $3 million increase. Both will
    immediately provide hundreds of reservation jobs, with replanting
    offering needed entry-level opportunities. Increased thinning can also
    produce immediate increases in forest product values and Tribal
    revenues, and over the long term, thinning and replanting both
    strengthen our forest economies and improve forest resiliency, in
    keeping with the Federal Government's trust obligation.
                     doi office of wildland fire management
    3. Provide $49.5 million in OWFM Burned Area Rehabilitation for Indian
            trust forests burned in 2015.
        The Interior Department's Office of Wildland Fire Management has
    done next to nothing to rehabilitate the nearly 500,000 acres of Tribal
    trust timber burned during the catastrophic 2015 wildfire season.
    Approximately 1.5 billion board feet of timber was killed, worth more
    than $200 million in Tribal revenue. Nearly 100,000 acres need
    reforestation. Tribal losses of their forest resource, revenue and jobs
    are severe and will extend decades into the future. BIA has estimated
    recovery costs of $55 million over 5 years, including $9 million for
    fiscal year 2016 and $12.6 million for fiscal year 2017. To date, the
    Interior Department has only provided $5.5 million toward the recovery
    of our trust forests burned in 2015, and that includes $2 million
    provided by Congress in fiscal year 2016 to BIA Forestry Projects--not
    OWFM.
        It is outrageous that Federal wildland fire policy essentially
    sacrifices our trust forest assets to protect private property (see
    next item), and now, having allowed this important trust asset to be
    significantly damaged, the Federal Government is giving only lip
    service to its rehabilitation. For fiscal year 2018, to try to get us
    back on track and assure the recovery of this trust asset, we ask that
    the full balance of the BIA's rehabilitation budget for these 2015
    burned lands be provided in the OWFM BAR appropriation, specifically
    designated for recovery of Tribal forests burned in 2015.
    4. Direct a reassessment of wildfire suppression priorities to include
            Indian trust forests as a second priority behind only
            protection of life as a suppression priority.
        In late summer 2015, when a wave of lightning-caused wildfires
    swept across the Northwest, including on Indian reservations, fire
    crews attacking reservation fires were diverted to fight off-
    reservation fires threatening private property, and the fires on our
    trust forests exploded. Despite the Federal trust obligation and
    liability for the management and protection of Tribal trust forests,
    despite the Tribal communities' reliance on our trust forests for jobs,
    revenue, water, and a broad array of other economic, ecological and
    cultural benefits, Federal wildfire policy basically sacrifices Indian
    trust property to save private property. That should not be the case.
    We understand the protection of life needs to be a first priority in
    wildfire suppression, but we believe our forest property, which the
    U.S. has a trust obligation to protect, should be considered a priority
    over private property in Federal wildfire suppression priorities. While
    burned Tribal forests and our dependant economies will take decades to
    recover, burned private structures, often insured, can be rebuilt in
    months. As the ITC requested last year, we again request the Committee
    to direct the reevaluation of Federal fire suppression priorities to
    consider the protection of Indian trust resources as second only to
    protection of life.
    5. Increase Fuels Management funding to $206 million; allow RTRL funds
            on Tribal lands.
        For fiscal year 2018, ITC urges, as it has for many recent years,
    that DOI Fuels Management funding be restored to its fiscal year 2010
    $206 million level. Proactive reduction of fuels is a proven method to
    reduce risk to our Nation's forests and is a sound investment to reduce
    the expense of future suppression. Within the fiscal year 2018 Fuels
    Management budget, ITC also strongly supports the continuation of $10
    million for Reserved Treaty Rights Lands (RTRL) landscape restoration.
    Currently, Tribes can use these funds for proactive fuels and forest
    health projects on neighboring Federal forests to protect Tribal treaty
    assets. To make these RTRL funds more flexible and efficient, we ask
    that they be authorized for use on both Tribal lands and off-
    reservation lands.
                                      usfs
    6. Encourage expanded support for the ITC Anchor Forest initiative, and
            direct USFS to initiate implementation of the ``Anchor Forest
            Final Report'', including harvest.
        ITC requests that the Committee include report language to
    encourage and expand the Forest Service's continued support of the
    ITC's Anchor Forest initiative, in which Tribes and other forest
    stakeholders pursue long-term collaboration to maintain ecological
    functions and sustain economically viable infrastructure for
    management, harvesting, transportation, and processing of forest
    products as a cost effective management strategy. The final report of
    the ITC's Anchor Forest pilot study of forest lands in central and
    eastern Washington State, published in March 2016 and available on line
    at the ITC website, was developed with the participation of Tribal,
    Federal and State governments, the conservation community, and local
    forestland owners and businesses. Tribes in the Lakes States, the
    Plains States, Alaska, and the Southwest are expressing interest in the
    Anchor Forest concept, and we urge Committee report language supporting
    expanded application of the Anchor Forest concept.
        ITC also asks that the Committee direct the USFS to actively
    initiate implementation of the ``Anchor Forest Final Report'',
    including harvest. The USFS contributed to and actively participated in
    that Anchor Forest study. The study is now complete and published, but
    USFS has not thus far undertaken any activities to implement its
    findings and recommendations. To help bring life to the Anchor Forest
    concept and sustain local forest jobs and infrastructure, please direct
    USFS to begin implementing its portion of the ``Anchor Forest Final
    Report'', including harvest.
    7. Continue encouraging the USFS to improve implementation of the TFPA.
        Finally, ITC requests the subcommittee express continued support
    for implementation of the Tribal Forest Protection Act, as it did in
    fiscal year 2015. The Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA, PL 108-278)
    authorizes Tribes to conduct fuels and health projects on USFS and BLM
    lands to protect Tribal trust and cultural resources. The Committee's
    support helped prompt a series of successful regional TFPA workshops
    and the initiating of a good number of TFPA agreements. There is strong
    continuing interest in additional workshops and TFPA projects, and the
    ITC urges the Committee to express continued support for the TFPA
    program.
                     intertribal timber council background.
        The ITC is a 41 year old association of forest owning Tribes and
    Alaska Native organizations dedicated to improving the sustainable
    ecological and economic management of our 18.6 million acres of
    timberland and woodland held in BIA trust. We invite you to come visit.
        That concludes my statement. Thank you.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
        On behalf of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, I am pleased to submit
    this written testimony on our funding priorities and requests for the
    fiscal year 2018 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Indian Health Service
    (IHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) budgets. A
    fundamental goal for our Tribe is achieving economic self-sufficiency/
    self-reliance through opportunities that enable us to generate our own
    unrestricted revenues to address the unfulfilled Federal obligation and
    unmet needs of our community. When Tribes are allowed to conduct
    activities on their own land subject to their own taxes and regulations
    that are not impeded by State and local tax infringement, Indian
    reservation economies flourish. We have shown time and again that the
    Federal investment in our communities is a good investment and
    continued program and financial support is invaluable to protecting our
    resources and bolstering Tribal local and State economies.
        Decades of unfulfilled Federal obligations has devastated Tribal
    communities who continue to face persistent shortfalls and overwhelming
    unmet needs. Unless Congress acts, sequestration cuts will return in
    fiscal year 2018. These budgetary rescissions are permanent,
    unsupportable reductions to Tribal base programs and the cumulative
    effect over the years has devastated Tribal communities and stifled
    Tribal self-sufficiency. Until Tribes attain exclusive taxing
    jurisdiction within their Tribal lands, Federal support at sustainable
    levels remains critical to ensure the delivery of essential
    governmental services to our Tribal citizens. The Federal trust
    obligation must be honored and vital programs and services for Tribes
    must be sustained and held harmless in any budgetary deals enacted to
    reduce the national deficit.

    TRIBAL SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION PRIORITIES

        1.  $8.3 million for Tribal/City of Sequim Wastewater Connection
        2.  $127,994 Tribal increase for the Indian General Assistance
    Program (GAP) EPA
        3.  $150,000 to restore funding for the Dungeness Floodplain
    Restoration & Ecosystem Restoration Puget Sound Geographic and National
    Estuarine Program (NEP) EPA

        $8.3 million--Waste Water System.--Basic sanitation facilities in
    our community is an essential prerequisite to ensuring public health
    and community wellness, as well as, economic viability. Specifically,
    in order to engage in economic development and expand our Tribal
    business portfolio, the Tribe needs to invest in a waste water system.
    Our Tribal government cannot operate without adequate infrastructure
    for sanitation facilities and clean water. After years of careful
    planning and research, we have entered into a partnership with the City
    of Sequim to connect Tribal businesses and governmental facilities in
    Blyn to the City of Sequim Wastewater Treatment Plant. The installation
    of the project pipeline is approximately $8.3 million but this
    investment will not only address environmental/public health concerns,
    it will accrue sustainable long term economic benefits.
        $127,994 million increase--Indian General Assistance Program
    (GAP)--EPA.--Our Treaty, Point No Point, guarantees our Tribe and its
    citizens the right to hunt, fish, and gather shellfish in our usual and
    accustomed areas but that right is meaningless if there are no elk to
    hunt, fish to catch, or clams and berries to harvest. Our Tribe has
    been recognized on numerous occasions for our leadership, stewardship,
    and management practices in the area of Natural Resources protection
    and development. We have made tremendous strides in advancing
    techniques that identify and reduce pollution, improve water quality,
    assess the status of public health needs, restore habitat, and
    replenish depleted fish and shellfish stocks, that are on the brink of
    extinction, including, ESA listed summer chum. Preservation of Tribal
    Treaty Rights begins with Tribal capacity building which is critical to
    sustain the positive environmental and economic achievements,
    including, the generation of employment opportunities, the building and
    upgrading of ecological infrastructure, the establishment of domestic
    and international trade relationships, and the bolstering of Tribal,
    local and State economies.
        $150,000--Geographic/Ecosystems Program (Dungeness Floodplain
    Restoration & Ecosystem Restoration Puget Sound).--The Dungeness River
    is the Tribe's ancestral river. In 1855, a dike was built on the
    Dungeness estuary marshlands and, this act, coupled with a plethora of
    other man-made impacts, has caused serious degradation to the Dungeness
    River Salmon habitat. These environmental impacts have been devastating
    and have led to declines in the Salmon populations because of the loss
    of habitat. The Geographic/Ecosystems program provides funding for our
    Tribe to protect and restore the Puget Sound ecosystem. The success of
    this program is evidenced in the many achievements our Tribe has seen
    to date, including, commercial shellfish bed upgrades, construction of
    storm water infrastructure across Puget Sound, salmon recovery and
    water quality improvement, successful research projects, such as,
    biotoxin research results on shellfish, successful levee and log jam
    design projects, and, many education and engagement campaigns. This
    program is also multi-jurisdictional in that Federal and State
    agencies, Tribes, regional fishery organizations and other partners
    take a synergistic and economically sustainable approach to addressing
    environmental issues. The benefits of this program extend well beyond
    the reservation boundaries and into the local surrounding communities.

    NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE BIA AND IHS

        1.  Contract Support Costs Mandatory Funding
        2.  Increase Funding for Tribal Base Budgets/Recurring Programs

        Contract Support Costs Mandatory Funding.--The Tribe appreciates
    the continued bipartisan support of the Interior Appropriations
    Subcommittee for full funding of Contract Support Costs (CSC) for both
    the IHS and BIA. The Consolidated Appropriations Act provided full
    funding of CSC in fiscal year 2016 at an indefinite amount, and ensured
    that funding for CSC was not at the expense of amounts appropriated for
    critical programmatic services. Our Tribe maintains, however, that the
    indefinite appropriation of CSC funding must be made mandatory and
    permanent to ensure that these legally mandated obligations are
    properly executed.
        Increase Funding for Tribal Base Budgets/Recurring Programs.--
    Recently, agencies are opting to fund Tribal programs and services with
    grant dollars as opposed to providing base recurring funding. Grant
    funding undermines core Self-Governance tenets and hinders the ability
    of Tribes to redesign programs and services to better address their
    community's needs. Grant funding does not work well as the main funding
    source because it is a short term investment that is used to support
    ongoing and critical needs. Grants create uncertainty in planning, make
    Tribes compete for limited funding, require extensive regulation,
    impose overly burdensome reporting requirements and restrict the use of
    indirect costs. We would urge Congress to increase funding for Tribal
    base budgets by funding Tribal Priority Allocations and other Recurring
    Programs because it will benefit all Tribes as opposed to creating more
    grants that only benefit a few.

    NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE BIA

        1.  Economic Development TPA $25 million
        2.  Natural Resources TPA $10 million
        3.  Indian Guaranteed Loan Program $12.6 million

        $25 million--Economic Development (TPA).--Increased funding for
    Economic Development will allow us to continue to diversify our
    successful business portfolio and expand our revenue generating
    opportunities. Chronic underfunding and the severe lack of private
    investment have left the economic potential of our Tribe unrealized.
    Tribes are forced to rely on their own economic ventures to generate
    revenue to support programs and services for Tribal citizens. Yet,
    Tribes are expected to meet these economic challenges with fewer
    resources and greater restrictions placed on vital economic financing
    tools and incentives that are easily accessible and lucrative to other
    governments.
        $10 million--Natural Resources (TPA).--The Federal investment in
    Tribal Natural Resources will foster Tribal self-sufficiency and
    support Tribal economies by cultivating cross jurisdictional
    partnerships with State and local governments that create jobs and
    promote and advance trade. This investment also advances a number of
    ancillary but equally important cultural and religious practices,
    creates community cohesiveness and improves the environmental
    conditions on our Tribal homelands and in surrounding communities.
        $15 million--Indian Guaranteed Loan Program/Surety Bonds.--Loan
    guarantees are an attractive financial tool because Tribes are able to
    leverage limited Federal funding and promote economic growth by
    investing in projects that are capable of generating their own revenue
    streams. The program, however, has been consistently targeted for cuts
    despite its positive return on the Federal investment. If not for the
    Loan Guarantee Program, many Tribes would not be unable to secure loans
    from typical sources that are available to other entities and
    businesses. Federal credit programs should facilitate Tribal access to
    private capital markets where Tribes frequently encounter market
    resistance to conventional lending.
        Office of Self-Governance (OSG).--OSG provides administrative
    support to half of all Tribes nationwide. However, a current funding
    shortfall of .4 million will result in the loss of critical staff
    unless this Subcommittee provides a budget line item increase for OSG
    or the Bureau is directed to transfer recurring funding internally.

    NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE IHS

        1.  Support Mandatory Appropriations for IHS
        2.  Fully Fund the Indian Healthcare Improvement Act Provisions in
    the ACA
        3.  Increase Funding for Purchased and Referred Care $562.2 million

        Support Mandatory Appropriations for IHS.--Tribal healthcare
    programs should be funded similarly to every other government health
    programs in this country through mandatory funding. The Interior,
    Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, which includes
    funding for IHS, has not been enacted in a timely manner for the past
    twenty years, creating significant challenges to Tribes' ability to
    provide critical healthcare services to their Tribal citizens. When it
    comes to IHS funding, delays could mean the loss of life. Late funding
    not only affects quality of care, it constrains Tribal healthcare
    providers' ability to plan, budget, recruit and retain staff, and
    construct and maintain facilities. Providing predictable, timely and
    sufficient funding will ensure the Federal Government is upholding its
    trust responsibility to American Indians and Alaska Natives.
        Fully Fund the IHCIA Provisions in the ACA.--Although the IHCIA
    provides the authority and, with it, the opportunity to provide
    essential healthcare to Tribal citizens, it did not provide the
    necessary funds to the IHS to carry out these new statutory
    obligations. There are twenty three unfunded provisions in the Indian
    Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA). Many of the provisions that remain
    unfunded would strengthen the Tribal healthcare workforce, provide
    greater access to behavioral health and support innovative initiatives
    for healthcare delivery to Tribal citizens. Funding these provisions is
    a necessary precursor to increase Tribal capacity, infrastructure and
    most importantly access to healthcare services. A significant Federal
    investment is needed to achieve a fully funded Indian Health Service
    and now is the time to act on opportunities made possible in the newly
    expanded authorities granted under the IHCIA.
        $562.2 million--Purchased and Referred Care (PRC).--Most IHS and
    Tribally-operated direct care facilities do not provide the required
    emergency and specialty care services so Tribes are forced to turn to
    the private sector to fulfill this need. PRC funds are used to purchase
    essential healthcare services, including inpatient and outpatient care,
    routine emergency ambulatory care, transportation and medical support
    services, such as diagnostic imaging, physical therapy, laboratory,
    nutrition and pharmacy services.

    NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

        The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe continues to support the requests and
    recommendations of the Self-Governance Communication and Education
    Tribal Consortium, the National Congress of American Indians and the
    National Indian Health Board.

    REGIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

        The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe support the requests and
    recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians,
    Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and the Northwest Indian
    Fisheries Commission.

        [This statement was submitted by W. Ron Allen, Tribal Chairman/
    CEO.]
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Kenai Peninsula Borough (Alaska)
                                                          May 25, 2017.
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
    Hon. Tom Udall,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
    Committee on Appropriations.

    Dear Senators Murkowski and Udall,

        Since 1977, Congress has appropriated and the U.S. Treasury has
    distributed payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) on Federal lands
    nationwide. The Federal Government owns about 65 percent of the lands
    in the Kenai Peninsula Borough, with the borough budgeted to receive
    $2.6 million in Federal PILT funds in fiscal year 2017 and estimating
    the same amount in fiscal year 2018. This letter is to state our
    support for full finding of the PILT program in the Federal fiscal year
    2018 budget, and to provide you with an example of how important those
    dollars are to the borough, in particular to help fund a new effort to
    provide emergency response services for traffic accidents along the
    Seward, Sterling and Hope highways on the peninsula.
        The Kenai Peninsula Borough lacks the authority to provide borough-
    wide emergency services (fire and ambulance services). Rather, such
    services are provided through local service areas, such as the Nikiski
    Fire Service Area and the Central Emergency Service (CES) Area, and
    through volunteer squads, such as in the small communities of Cooper
    Landing, Hope and Moose Pass. That mix of service areas and volunteer
    organizations leaves more than 90 miles of State highway through the
    peninsula with uncertain coverage and emergency response authority.
    Volunteers respond to accidents as best they can, assisted by personnel
    from CES stations (Sterling and Soldotna) who respond as they are
    able--under the authority of mutual-aid agreements--while still
    managing their primary responsibilities at home, all the while as
    people injured in traffic accidents wait for help to arrive.
        The borough's solution was to create an emergency services area
    that stretches literally--and only--along the State highway right of
    way. There are no residents in the right of way, and no private
    property. As such, there was no way under existing State statute to
    create a traditional service area. But the legislature this session
    looked favorably upon our proposal to amend statute to allow creation
    of such a service area along a State highway. A unique solution, but I
    believe it will work.
        As we wait for the governor to sign the measure into law, I have
    proposed to the borough assembly the use of Federal PILT funds to pay
    for the emergency response services. As a significant portion of the
    State highway is on or adjacent to Federal lands, there is no property
    to tax as normally would be the case in a municipal service area. Yet
    the need for the services clearly exists--almost 200 people were
    injured in more than 100 traffic accidents along the affected stretches
    of the Seward, Sterling and Hope highways the past 2 years. It is the
    only road connection between the Kenai Peninsula and the rest of
    Alaska, a heavily traveled corridor with more than 8,000 vehicles a day
    during the peak season. This seems to me to be a perfect use of Federal
    PILT dollars, since many of the travelers are utilizing this corridor
    to access Federal public lands.
        I write to share with you our plans for the Federal funds, should
    you or any of your colleagues ever wonder what Alaska municipalities do
    with the money, separate from depositing the check into the general
    fund.
        The Kenai Peninsula Borough appreciates the longstanding program's
    contribution toward public services for our residents and visitors
    alike.

                Sincerely,
                                       Mike Navarre,
                                               Mayor.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
                                Chippewa Indians
        The Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians
    appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony concerning
    IHS, BIA and EPA funding for fiscal year 2018. The Band is located in
    Vilas, Oneida and Iron Counties Wisconsin. Our Tribe of 3,400 members
    is the largest employer in Vilas County. Together with Tribal
    enterprises, the Tribe employs 800 individuals, with nearly 25 percent
    or 190 employees paid in full or in part with appropriations made under
    this subcommittee's jurisdiction. Within our 86,600-acre reservation,
    there are 260 lakes, 71 miles of streams and rivers, approximately
    42,000 acres of forested land and roughly 42,000 acres of water and
    wetlands. Our reservation has one of the densest concentrations of
    fresh water in the country and our lands and waters are sacred to the
    Band and its members. We are working hard to build and maintain a
    stable, healthy Tribal community, amid many challenges. Like many rural
    areas, we are dealing with opioid abuse and the challenges of creating
    and maintaining jobs for our citizens and residents.
        It has taken many years for the Tribe to reduce our unemployment
    rate, which spiked considerably after the 2008-2010 economic downturn.
    Federal expenditures by our Tribe in fiscal year 2016 totaled about $20
    million, of which IHS, BIA and EPA funding amounted to $12 million or
    about 60 percent. It is critical to our Tribe that Federal funds within
    this subcommittee's jurisdiction increase in 2018 to help us address
    our great health, educational, social and natural resource needs. Our
    testimony today addresses IHS, BIA and EPA programs that are vital to
    the Lac du Flambeau Band. The Tribe thanks the subcommittee for its
    leadership and commitment to Indian Tribes which honors the Nation's
    trust responsibility to the Indian people. The Tribe appreciates that
    Congress provided increased funds in fiscal year 2017 for BIA, BIE and
    IHS programs.
        As you have done for fiscal year 2017, we ask that you reject
    President Trump's ``America First'' Budget for fiscal year 2018, which
    calls for unwarranted reductions in non-defense agency appropriations,
    including unwarranted cuts to the Department of Health and Human
    Services, Department of the Interior, and Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA). The America First budget proposal, if enacted, would
    cause great harm to the Band and to most Native Americans who, more
    than most Americans, rely heavily on Federal appropriations across
    multiple Federal agencies, not just Interior and DHHS.
        The Tribal Government does not want to inform any one of the
    hundreds of our loyal Tribal employees whose jobs depend, in whole or
    part on Federal funds, that the Tribe must lay them off in 2018 because
    the Federal Government did not honor its commitments to Indian people
    in accordance with the trust responsibility and the special government-
    to-government relationship. Please continue to educate your Senate
    colleagues concerning the trust obligation and the important work that
    Indian Tribes carry out with Federal funds. What our Tribe has worked
    decades to build will be at risk if program funding drops, layoffs
    occur and families move off the Reservation.
        We are grateful that the final spending measure for fiscal year
    2017 that Congress just passed. Native Americans, many of whom are low
    income wage earners, live a fragile existence. Adverse changes can tip
    them further into poverty and unemployment, which can lead to substance
    abuse and premature death. We have seen this on our Reservation. Please
    recognize the interconnectedness of IHS, BIA and EPA programs which
    help promote healthy Tribal members and healthy communities; essential
    building blocks for stable communities where Tribal parents can raise
    Native youth in safety and security so that may realize their fullest
    potential and contribute to their community's and the Nation's future.
                       i. indian health service programs
        The Tribe greatly appreciates the $232 million increase Congress
    provided for fiscal year 2017 for the IHS, allocated among such
    accounts as Hospitals and Clinics, Purchased/Referred Care (P/RC),
    Mental Health, Alcohol and Substance Abuse, Dental Health, Contract
    Support Costs (CSCs), construction and maintenance and improvement. The
    Tribe operates the Peter Christensen Health Center, Dental Program, a
    Family Resource Center, a Domestic Abuse Program, a Youth Center and
    Child Support Agency. Our programs ensure the support and preservation
    of family life and wellbeing by providing such services as outpatient
    mental health, outpatient alcohol and other drug abuse, and
    psychological consults. The Health Center provides quality healthcare
    and offers a full range of family medical services by Board Certified
    family physicians, advanced practice nurse practitioner and physician-
    assistants. The program also provides podiatry, optometry, pharmacy and
    a range of community-based services. Together, our health programs
    employ a staff of 140 individuals, about three-quarters of our
    workforce supported in part by funds appropriated by this subcommittee.
    The Tribe asks that Congress increase IHS funding in 2018 and reject
    the Administration's unwise cuts.
        Our rationale for this funding increase is borne of necessity. We
    are seeing how important proactive and preventive health services are
    for our community. Wisconsin is seeing a large increase in babies born
    with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS), a result of women taking
    prescription drugs such as Vicodin or heroin while pregnant. Recent
    data shows that Vilas County has the second-highest percent of NAS
    babies in the State, 2-3/100 babies. Early treatment is critical. We
    urge the subcommittee to increase funds for preventive health programs,
    which can save lives and empower our Tribe to help our citizens address
    addictions and mental health issues, especially targeting our Tribal
    youth. Please prioritize increases in fiscal year 2018 IHS funding for
    Hospitals and Clinics, mental health, substance abuse treatment and P/
    RC funds so that we can take a proactive stance by investing wisely in
    preventive health services.
                         ii. bie and bia appropriations
    Indian Education
        Congress provided $34.7 million for Adult Scholarships and $2.9
    million for special higher education scholarships for fiscal year 2017.
    We recommend this subcommittee include a similar increase for fiscal
    year 2018. As Congress noted last year: ``Indian education remains
    among the Committee's top priorities because it is a fundamental trust
    responsibility and because elementary and secondary students in
    particular have fallen far behind their peers.'' We oppose cuts to the
    BIE and Department of Education in fiscal year 2018 which threaten to
    undermine educational services for Native youth and adults. Together,
    these programs provide critical educational resources and services for
    Tribal members that are crucial to meeting the unique educational and
    cultural needs of our students. If our children are to excel in life,
    they must be educated in stimulating environments by well educated
    professionals, transported in modern buses over all-season roads and
    delivered to safe, loving homes. Our Tribe is doing its part. Education
    at Lac du Flambeau begins early. We operate the Little Dream Daycare
    and Zaasijiwan Head Start and Early Head Start programs. We also
    operate a Home-Based program that serves up to 24 families. Our early
    education programs include multiple activities designed to promote
    learning, school readiness and social/emotional wellness. We realize
    that good nutrition, learning through play and time outdoors in the
    fresh air are central to health.
        The Lac du Flambeau Public School and Lakeland Union High School
    educate our Tribal youth. The High School's 2015/2016 student body was
    20 percent Native American and 86 percent of high school graduates went
    on to attend 4- and 2-year colleges/technical schools, 9 percent
    entered the workforce or pursued other activities and 5 percent entered
    the military. For this reason, we oppose any effort to eliminate the
    Johnson O'Malley Program, the goal of which is to address the unique
    cultural needs of Indian students attending public schools through a
    supplemental program of services planned, developed and approved by the
    Local Indian Education Committee, comprised of parents of eligible
    Indian students. The $14 million JOM Program must be increased, so that
    Indian children are provided the supplemental programs that honor and
    celebrate their Native heritage and help them grow into confident,
    well-adjusted adults who contribute to their families.
    Road Maintenance Program
        The Tribe appreciates Congress including a $3.2 million increase in
    funding for the Road Maintenance Program for fiscal year 2017. We
    believe a $10 million increase is justified for fiscal year 2018. The
    Tribe receives less than $90,000 to maintain nearly 180 miles of BIA-
    owned roads. Our budget requirements for road maintenance are closer to
    $2 million annually. As the subcommittee noted, appropriations for
    fiscal year 2016 permitted only 16 percent of BIA-owned roads to be
    maintained in ``fair'' condition. According to the CDC, motor vehicle
    crashes are the leading cause of death among Native Americans aged 1-
    44. Native American infants are eight times more likely to be killed in
    a motor vehicle crash than a non-Native infant. Poorly maintained roads
    contribute to motor vehicle crashes. Poor roads contribute to absentee-
    ism at work and school and delay police and EMT responders. A year's
    entire road maintenance budget can be consumed in the winter months
    removing snow and salting/sanding roads to ensure freedom of movement.
    Transportation barriers undermine Federal and Tribal efforts to improve
    Native health, educate our youth and attract businesses and jobs to
    remote, rural communities like ours. The ``historical'' formula for the
    BIA Road Maintenance Program makes little sense to us. We ask the
    subcommittee to include report language for fiscal year 2018 that
    directs the BIA to explain the allocation methodology, verify each
    Tribe's road inventory that generate Road Maintenance dollars, and make
    publicly available to Tribes their relative share of funds.
                      iii. natural resources (epa and bia)
        The Tribe has a vibrant Natural Resources program, including a Fish
    Hatchery for several species of fish, Fisheries Management, Waterfowl
    habitat protection (Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, Conservation
    Law Enforcement, Wildlife), Water Resources, Historic Preservation and
    Land Management. Our Natural Resources Department employs fish
    biologists, wildlife biologists, fish hatchery operators, hydrologists,
    technicians and administrators, many of whom are paid in full or in
    part with EPA and BIA funds and critical to our work protecting the
    resources that were promised to us in our Treaties. We urge the
    subcommittee not to jeopardize our Natural Resources programs that are
    critical to protecting our culture, our health and our economy, part of
    Wisconsin's $19 billion hunting, fishing, recreation and tourism
    industry. A 31 percent reduction in EPA funding and cuts to BIA Natural
    Resources programs would be devastating to our Program. Even with
    existing funding, we struggle to meet the demands we face to maintain
    clean air, water and lands from the many contaminants that threaten our
    community. The highest concentrations of mercury tainted lakes are in
    the State's northern most counties, including Vilas and Oneida.
    Minnesota and Wisconsin lead the Nation with mercury-contaminated
    lakes. At present, there are more than 500 fish health mercury
    advisories in place in Wisconsin. This presents a direct threat to our
    culture because we cannot eat contaminated fish that are otherwise a
    staple of our diet.
    A. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
        Thank you for funding the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative at
    $300 million in fiscal year 2017. Do not terminate this vital program.
    For the indigenous people of Wisconsin, the Great Lakes represent the
    lifeblood of our culture and the foundation of our economies. The
    protection and preservation of the Great Lakes is a necessity.
    B. Trust-Natural Resources Management
        In fiscal year 2017, Congress appropriated $200.9 million for the
    BIA's Trust-Natural Resources Management programs, a $9.1 million
    increase from fiscal year 2016. Our Tribe alone needs nearly a $500,000
    increase for our Tribal Fish Hatchery Operations and Tribal Management/
    Development Program for fiscal year 2018. The Fisheries and Fish
    Culture Program raises all fish necessary for stocking reservation
    waters and we benefit from programs carried out by GLIFWC. Our
    fisheries program also generates Tribal revenues.
    C. EPA Tribal General Assistance Program
        Weeks ago, Congress approved $3.527 billion for State and Tribal
    Assistance Grants, including $2.461 billion for Infrastructure
    assistance grants and $1.066 billion for categorical grants
    (maintaining Tribal air quality management grants and Tribal general
    assistance program (Tribal GAP) grants at $12.8 million and $65.4
    million, respectively). The Tribal GAP program provides base
    environmental funding to assist Tribes in building their environmental
    capacity to assess environmental conditions, utilize available data and
    build their environmental programs to meet their local needs. This is a
    foundational program for Tribes to address the broad range of
    challenges we face regarding our natural resources. Our Natural
    Resources Program would suffer in the face of a 31 percent cut.
    D. Circle of Flight: Wetlands Waterfowl Program
        We urge the subcommittee to continue to provide support for the BIA
    Circle of Flight Program (about $707,000). This modest BIA program
    supports Tribal efforts throughout the Great Lakes Region to restore
    and preserve wetlands and waterfowl habitat within Tribal territories
    and enhances wild rice gathering, providing expanded hunting and
    fishing opportunities for economic development.
    E. Underground Storage Tank Fund (LUST)
        We remain concerned that annual reductions to the Underground
    Storage Tank fund (LUST) permits ongoing contamination of ground waters
    that threaten Tribal and other communities. We encourage the
    subcommittee to instruct EPA to give greater consideration to Tribal
    cleanup standards and help Indian Tribes remediate unsafe conditions on
    reservations.
        Thank you for affording us the opportunity to submit written
    testimony.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the League of American Orchestras
        The League of American Orchestras urges the Senate Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee to
    support fiscal year 2018 funding for the National Endowment for the
    Arts (NEA) at a level of $155 million. The bipartisan support in
    Congress for the ongoing work of the NEA was affirmed when a $2 million
    increase for the agency was included in the final fiscal year 2017
    omnibus appropriations bill. Further increases in funding in fiscal
    year 2018 will enable the agency to help more communities fulfill the
    NEA's mission to provide all Americans with diverse opportunities for
    arts participation.
        The League of American Orchestras leads, supports, and champions
    America's orchestras and the vitality of the music they perform. Its
    diverse membership of more than 2,000 organizations and individuals
    runs the gamut from world-renowned symphonies to community groups, from
    summer festivals to student and youth ensembles, from businesses
    serving orchestras to individuals who love symphonic music. Orchestras
    contribute to civic vitality, educate citizens of all ages, and unite
    people through creativity and artistry.
        In fiscal year 2016, the NEA's Grants to Organizations included 112
    direct grants to orchestras in the Art Works and Challenge America
    categories. These grants expand the capacity of orchestras to present
    concerts and programs that are greatly valued by communities of all
    sizes, due in no small part to the powerful leveraging capacity of one
    dollar of direct NEA funding to yield up to $9 in private and other
    public funds. The following eight orchestral awards from fiscal year
    2016 and fiscal year 2017 total $122,500 in direct Federal support and
    offer an inspiring glimpse into the unique community partnerships that
    result from the Federal investment in the NEA.
            nea funding broadens access for underserved communities
        One of the most valuable services the NEA provides is to improve
    public access to the arts. The Challenge America grant category offers
    support primarily to small and mid-sized organizations for projects
    that extend the reach of the arts to populations whose opportunities to
    experience the arts have been limited by geography, economics, or
    disability. The Billings Symphony Orchestra & Chorale (BSO&C), with its
    four full-time and four part-time staff and approximately 70 orchestra
    musicians, used its Challenge America grant to present guest artist Rex
    Richardson as trumpet soloist for several events, including a free
    concert and education and engagement programs in downtown Billings and
    in the town of Hardin. Among the schools Mr. Richardson visited were
    Hardin Middle School (a 100 percent Title I school that combines with
    several schools from the neighboring Crow Indian Reservation), Senior
    High School (a Title I school in Billings), and Montana State
    University-Billings. Mr. Richardson's master clinic for the Hardin
    middle school brass students proved to be an especially rewarding
    experience for an autistic high school band student who was unable to
    travel with the band to a State basketball tournament. Mr. Richardson
    deputized this young man to help with one group of middle school
    students while he worked with another; the orchestra's director of
    education reported ``This young man's smile never left his face because
    he was given a chance to work with someone of Mr. Richardson's caliber
    and was also given the chance to help other younger students while the
    rest of his band members were away.'' Approximately 800 Montanans,
    including this high school student, had truly memorable experiences
    thanks to NEA support.
        The Spokane Symphony, with a staff of 25, received an NEA Art Works
    grant for ``Music Heals,'' a unique collaboration with the Spokane
    Indian Reservation inspired by the words of a Spokane Tribal Elder:
    ``We won't heal until we all remember to sing, drum, and dance.'' The
    intergenerational program brought together students in the Wellpinit
    School District, Spokane Tribal Elders, and the community through music
    education in traditional instruments and interactive performances with
    the orchestra. By uniting music education and traditional Native
    American musical arts and storytelling, this collaboration encouraged
    students to participate in life-changing music-making. The orchestra
    performed on the grounds of the Spokane Tribe for a collaborative
    concert and cultural exchange with students performing on hand-made
    flutes and drums alongside members of the orchestra.
        With a full-time administrative staff of seven and upward of 100
    part-time professional musicians, the West Virginia Symphony Orchestra
    (WVSO) serves more than 35,000 West Virginians a year, many of whom
    live in isolated communities. An Art Works grant helped support the
    WVSO's statewide touring and community engagement project, bringing
    award-winning educational programs to communities such as Beckley,
    Elkins, Fairmont, and Parkersburg. The WVSO used music as a point of
    entry to help learners gain a better understanding of music, math, and
    other disciplines. Helping to shape the next generation of creative
    thinkers, productive citizens, and community leaders through the arts
    can make a difference in communities where unemployment and poverty
    rates are high and educational attainment rates low. NEA support is
    essential for the WVSO's statewide touring and engagement work.
        Another orchestra taking to the open road to engage with
    communities well beyond their concert hall is the Utah Symphony. The
    Great American Road Trip (GART) is a follow up to the symphony's 2014
    Mighty 5 Tour, and this venture will take the orchestra on a 1,200-
    mile tour of Utah this late summer. Free outdoor performances and
    educational activities in rural communities will offer opportunities to
    pay homage to Utah's landscape and to the country's Native American
    heritage. Thanks to support from the NEA, the Utah State Legislature,
    and Signature Sponsor the George S. and Dolores Dore Eccles Foundation,
    this tour will strengthen existing collaborations with other
    organizations and individuals in outlying communities, build new
    partnerships, and most importantly, enable the orchestra to fulfill its
    mission to ``connect the community through great live music.'' NEA
    support is an important component in allowing the Utah Symphony, with
    its 67 full-time and 15-part time staff, two librarians, and 86
    musicians, to make music accessible to the people throughout Utah, and
    this critical investment has long-lasting impact that creates both an
    artistic legacy and broader community engagement.
               nea funding supports educating our country's youth
        With six full-time and four part-time/contract staff members and 62
    musicians, the Chattanooga Symphony & Opera (CSO) maximized its Art
    Works grant to support ``Sound Beginnings,'' a series of educational
    programs that includes sending principal musicians from the orchestra
    to perform at no charge as many as 60 times for more than 25,000
    students in a 12-county area. Additionally, nearly 7,000 third grade
    students in Hamilton County schools attended the CSO's Young People's
    Concerts free of charge this year. During the course of its varied
    educational offerings, the CSO learned that many families often felt
    uncomfortable attending cultural events because their children with
    special needs might respond to music differently. With assistance from
    the Tennessee Arts Commission's Accessibility Office, the CSO
    immediately began efforts to offer programs for families and children
    with autism, Down Syndrome, and other disabilities. The resulting
    Saturday morning, ``Sensory Friendly Concert'' series in a variety of
    Chattanooga locations provided a welcoming and inviting way for these
    previously underserved children and families to interact with music and
    the CSO. One first-time attendee wholeheartedly affirmed the value of
    this series: ``We just wanted to say thank you for doing these sensory
    friendly concerts. Our son loves music but would never be able to sit
    quietly through a concert with drums, etc. This way he (we all!) were
    able to enjoy the beautiful music! Thank you again!'' With such
    enthusiasm from families and the community for this program, the CSO
    plans to continue--and perhaps expand--this series in the upcoming
    season.
        The Anchorage Symphony Orchestra (ASO), with just four full-time
    employees and more than 100 musicians, brings orchestral music to
    thousands of students far beyond its immediate region. An Art Works
    grant helped to support ASO's Young People's Concerts (YPCs), a
    collaboration with Anchorage School District music educators to
    encourage participation in school instrumental music programs among
    elementary school students. Each year, the ASO pays for buses to bring
    approximately 7,000 students from communities 75 miles north and 50
    miles south of Anchorage to attend the concerts, and it waives the $5
    admission fee for any student who cannot afford it. Although the ASO is
    pleased to introduce many of these students to a professional orchestra
    for the first time, its main goal is to plant the seed for extended
    musical participation. During a recent conversation, Dr. Bruce Wood,
    Director of the Anchorage School District's Music and Fine Arts
    Department, shared that a stunning ninety-three percent (93 percent) of
    ASD sixth graders elect to start band and orchestra. He wrote, ``I
    consider the Young People's Concerts as vital to a healthy music
    education for the children of the Anchorage School District.''
        nea funding supports american artistry and thoughtful community
                                   engagement
        The NEA provided Art Works funding to Pacific Symphony for its
    annual American Composers Festival, supporting four live concert
    performances that featured the musical works of California-based
    composers Frank Ticheli (a past composer-in-residence), John Adams
    (celebrating his 70th birthday), and Peter Boyer with his ``Ellis
    Island: The Dream of America.'' Pacific Symphony's project focused not
    just on this showcase of California artists, but on taking a closer
    look at its culturally-diverse Orange County home base. With a staff of
    50 full-time employees and 88 musicians, the Symphony offers a variety
    of low-cost participatory programs, community-wide engagement, and free
    public performances. Recent projects include a side-by-side amateur
    instrumental program, an annual Community Ensembles Festival paired
    with free outdoor Plazacasts of live concerts, and an annual ``Lantern
    Festival'' celebrating Chinese New Year, which attracted 4,200
    residents and visitors thanks to a partnership with the Irvine Chinese
    School and Bowers Museum. Pacific Symphony's programs have been
    intentionally designed to engage new audiences, offer unusual platforms
    and locations for engagement, and strategically build upon one another.
        The Portland Symphony Orchestra (PSO) in Maine is using an Art
    Works grant to help showcase local talent and creative assets. With 16
    staff members and 84 musicians, the PSO delivers programs that serve
    more than 100,000 people each season, and thanks to an fiscal year 2017
    Art Works grant, will be offering a special program this fall to
    celebrate the tenth and final season of its music director, Robert
    Moody. The program will feature The Book of Matthew, which American
    composer Mason Bates has re-written for choir and organ. The residents
    of Maine will be the first to hear this new version, which will feature
    Maine's top vocal ensemble, Choral Arts, as well as the Kotzschmar
    Organ. The program will also feature Leonard Bernstein's Symphony No. 1
    ``Jeremiah,'' and end with Karl Jenkins's The Armed Man--a work that
    will be performed for the first time in Maine with an orchestra. The
    overall program is inspired by Bernstein's famous quote in the wake of
    President Kennedy's death: ``This will be our reply to violence: to
    make music more intensely, more beautifully, more devotedly than ever
    before.'' Jenkins's piece ends powerfully with a hope for peace in a
    new millennium, bringing a note of optimism to a thought-provoking
    program that also honors the 100-year anniversary of the Armistice.
    With increased support from the NEA, the PSO can continue to present
    programming that shares world-class artistry and provokes thoughtful
    dialogue and meaningful reflection with Maine residents.
        Thank you for this opportunity to convey the tremendous value of
    NEA support for the communities served by orchestras throughout our
    country. Orchestras provide countless innovative collaborations,
    thoughtful programming for underserved communities, and lifelong
    learning opportunities in service to adults and children in communities
    of all sizes. As orchestras continually strive to share the power and
    benefits of music to more people, we applaud the NEA's national
    leadership in promoting excellence and engagement with high-quality
    artistry. We urge you to increase our Nation's creative potential and
    access to the arts by approving $155 million in funding for the
    National Endowment for the Arts in fiscal year 2018.

        [This statement was submitted by Jesse Rosen, President and CEO.]
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Literary Network
        The Literary Network (LitNet) is a coalition of 68 literary
    organizations from across the country. Our members represent
    independent presses, literary journals, educational institutions, and
    hundreds of thousands of writers and individuals who love and
    appreciate the written word.
        Since 1965, the National Endowment for the Arts has supported art
    and arts education initiatives in every congressional district in the
    United States, and the agency serves as an important economic driver
    for those communities. Every $1 of NEA funding leverages $9 in private
    and public dollars and fuels a dynamic cultural economy that generates
    millions of American jobs.
        Literature inspires, enriches, educates, and entertains. It reminds
    us that there is beauty and joy in language, that others have insights
    worth paying attention to, that in our struggles we are not alone. By
    helping writers and translators create new work and connect with
    audiences through publishers and other literary organizations and
    programs, the National Endowment for the Arts celebrates literature as
    an essential reflection of our Nation's rich diversity of voices. In
    the past 50 years, the NEA has given over $162 million to literary
    nonprofits and individual writers across the United States.
        On September 29th, 1965, President Johnson signed the National Arts
    and Humanities Act of 1965, and never have these words from that act
    rung truer than today:

            ``The world leadership which has come to the United States
            cannot rest solely upon superior power, wealth, and technology,
            but must be solidly founded upon worldwide respect and
            admiration for the Nation's high qualities as a leader in the
            realm of ideas and of the spirit.''

        The President's proposed fiscal year 18 budget will cut the budget
    of the National Endowment for the Arts from approximately $150 million
    to $29 million, effectively scaling down the program to nonexistence
    past 2018. This is unacceptable. By eliminating this funding, the
    administration is waging an assault on free expression, on the impact
    the arts have on the economy, and the role arts play in education,
    healing, and innovation. The fiscal year 17 budget of the National
    Endowment for the Arts makes up merely .004 percent of the Federal
    budget. This is just 46 cents for every American, less than the cost of
    a single stamp. Last year, the NEA made more than 2,400 grants in
    almost 16,000 communities in every congressional district across the
    country.
        The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that the arts and
    culture sector is a $704 billion industry, or 4.2 percent of the
    Nation's GDP--a larger share of the economy than transportation,
    tourism, and agriculture. The nonprofit arts industry alone produces
    $135 billion in economic activity annually. The arts employ more than 4
    million people in the creative industries nationally, prepare our
    students for the innovative thinking required in the 21st century
    workplace, and spur tourism. Arts organizations are spirited and
    entrepreneurial businesses. They employ people locally, purchase goods
    and services from within their communities, and market and promote
    their regions. The arts creates jobs that cannot be shipped overseas.
        As advocates for the literary arts, we understand the power in
    language, literature, and the arts, and the strength gained in sharing
    our thoughts and ideas in words. Art enriches our lives and opens doors
    to knowledge and understanding, and it is thanks to the National
    Endowment for the Arts that there are programs across the country that
    value and celebrate art and artists for their ability to touch on all
    aspects of the human experience.
        Your support for the arts is essential to our education system,
    economy, and our pride as a nation. We hope you will keep this in mind
    as you consider legislation that funds the National Endowment for the
    Arts.

    826 National
    Academy of American Poets
    Alice James Books
    American Poetry Review
    Asian American Writers' Workshop
    American Literary Translators Association
    Association of Writers & Writing Programs
    Authors Guild
    Bellevue Literary Press
    BOA Editions
    CantoMundo
    Cave Canem Foundation
    Center for the Art of Translation
    Coffee House Press
    Community of Literary Magazines and Presses
    Community-Word Project
    Copper Canyon Press
    Creative Nonfiction Foundation
    Downtown Writers Center, YMCA of Greater Syracuse
    Epiphany Magazine
    Fishtrap
    Four Way Books
    Graywolf Press
    Grubstreet
    Hugo House
    Just Buffalo Literary Center
    Kundiman
    Lambda Literary
    Letras Latinas, Institute for Latino Studies, University of Notre Dame
    Lighthouse Writers Workshop
    Literary Arts
    Literary Freedom Project
    LitTAP
    Loft Literary Center
    Los Angeles Literary Alliance
    Maine Writers & Publishers Alliance
    Mass Poetry
    Miami Book Fair
    Milkweed Editions
    Minerva Rising Press
    National Book Foundation
    O, Miami
    One Story
    The Operating System
    PEN America
    PEN Center USA
    Pen/Faulkner Foundation
    Pittsburgh Arts & Lectures
    Poetry Foundation
    Poetry Slam
    Poetry Society of America
    Poets & Writers
    Poets House
    Rain Taxi
    Sarabande Books
    Seattle Arts & Lectures
    Seattle City of Literature
    Small Press Distribution
    Split This Rock
    Teachers & Writers Collaborative
    University of Arizona Poetry Center
    Urban Word NYC
    Utah Humanities
    Wick Poetry Center
    Wordsmitten Media
    Words Without Borders
    Writers in the Schools
    Zyzzyva

                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
        Chairman Blunt, Members of the subcommittee and the distinguished
    Gentleman from the 6th District in Washington State representing my
    Tribe, Congressman Derek Kilmer. I am Frances Charles, Chairwoman of
    the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, an elected position that I have been
    honored to hold for the past 12 years. Thank you for providing me this
    opportunity to testify on the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Indian
    Health Service (IHS), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) budgets
    for fiscal year 2018. My testimony identifies our most urgent Tribal-
    specific funding needs at the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. We are also
    supporting some Regional and National budget requests which will
    benefit the Lower Elwha citizens and community.
             tribal-specific requests for lower elwha klallam tribe

    Bureau of Indian Affairs--$5.43 Million

        1.  $4.972 Million--Dam Removal and Fisheries Restoration--Public
    Law 102-495, Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act
               a.  $702,000--Salmon Hatchery O&M
               b.  $270,000--Flood Control Levee O&M
               c.  $4 million--Land Acquisition
        2.  $267,000--Tribal Court Enhancement and Implementation of Tribal
    Law and Order Act (TLOA) and Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
        3.  $191,000--Tiwahe Initiative--Tribe seeks to assert jurisdiction
    in its own court system over all cases arising under the Indian Child
    Welfare Act (ICWA) and to become a licensing agency for foster homes

    Indian Health Service--$500,000--Mental Health and Chemical Dependency
            programs

    Environmental Protection Agency--$356,000--Environmental Programs
        1.  $125,000--General Assistance Grant (GAP)
        2.  $81,000--Clean Water Act Sec. 106 Grant
        3.  $150,000--Puget Sound Partnership Tribal Capacity Grant

    Contract Support Costs--Past, Present and Future

        As a Self-Governance Tribe, Lower Elwha has been impacted by the
    Federal Government's refusal to pay full contract support costs (CSC)
    for contracted and compacted programs for the past two decades. In 2014
    and 2015, the Supreme Court determined that Tribes were entitled to
    CSC. The game-changer going forward was the ground-breaking decision by
    Congress in Public Law 114-113, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016,
    to create a new account in the appropriations bill specifically for CSC
    in 2016 and 2017 as well as language establishing an indefinite
    appropriation for CSC in both agencies. Under the new budget structure
    the full CSC that Tribes are entitled to will be paid and other
    programs will not be reduced if payments are underestimated in the
    President's budget. Tribes agree that this structure achieves the
    Nation's legal obligation to fully pay CSC without imposing any
    corresponding reduction in direct services to any Tribe. We also
    continue to request to fully fund CSC on a mandatory basis in fiscal
    year 2018-2021 and make it a permanent, indefinite appropriation.

    The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe

        The Lower Elwha Indian Reservation is located at the mouth of the
    Elwha River along the Strait of Juan de Fuca on the northern Olympic
    Peninsula, about 8 miles west of the City of Port Angeles, Washington.
    The Lower Elwha Tribe has roughly 1,000 members and a total land base--
    Reservation and adjacent trust lands--of about 1,000 acres. We are a
    salmon people with fishing rights in a large expanse of marine and
    fresh waters, reserved in the 1855 Treaty of Point No Point. To date,
    our economic development opportunities have been limited and we believe
    our long-term prospects are tied to natural resources restoration and
    preservation in an ecologically rich region where an extraction-based
    economy is well past its prime.
                  lower elwha tribal-specific funding requests
    $5.43 Million--Bureau of Indian Affairs

        1.  $4.972 Million--Dam Removal and Fisheries Restoration.--We were
    the leading advocate for the removal of the two hydro-electric dams on
    the Elwha River. In accordance with Congress's direction in the Elwha
    River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act of 1992 (Elwha Act),
    Public Law 102-495, we are working closely with the National Park
    Service and other agencies to remove the last remnants of the dams and
    restore the once famously abundant runs of native Elwha River salmon
    and steelhead. Unfortunately, removal of the dams caused a short- term
    threat to the salmon runs (due to sediment released from behind the
    former dams) and has adversely impacted our small Tribal land base and
    our Tribal budgets. We are strongly committed to the restoration of
    fisheries, fish habitat, streams and rivers, and the Port Angeles
    Harbor. We urgently need increased Self-Governance funds to support the
    operation of dam removal mitigation and restoration features and to
    revive our other Self-Governance activities from which we have been
    forced to transfer funds to support dam removal mitigation.
               a.  $702,000--Salmon Hatchery O&M Costs.--Fish Hatchery
            Operations Budget for the ongoing operation and maintenance
            (O&M) of our state-of-the-art hatchery, which went online in
            2011. This is a significant increase of $601,929 annually, but
            one that is amply justified by the crucial role that our
            hatchery serves in dam removal and fishery restoration. Our
            hatchery is a genetic preserve for native Elwha salmonids,
            which have been on the verge of extirpation from the impacts of
            the dams and which have been further threatened by the enormous
            sediment load unleashed by the removal of the dams. The
            National Marine Fisheries Service would not have approved dam
            removal under the Endangered Species Act without the hatchery's
            native salmonid programs. The Tribe should not have to bear the
            O&M cost of this important restoration facility that in fact
            benefits the entire region.
               b.  $270,000--Flood Control Levee O&M Costs.--The levee on
            our lands had to be expanded prior to dam removal in order to
            protect Tribal lands from the newly unleashed Elwha River and
            to conform to new Federal standards--clearly it is a mitigation
            feature of the dam removal project. In the 1992 Elwha Act,
            Congress intended that courts not be asked to address problems
            where legislative solutions would be far more effective in
            covering all the bases. Twenty-five years of inflation since
            1992 more than justifies this increase in the current annual
            operations allocation of $10,400.
               c.  $4 million for Land Acquisition.--Section 7(b) of the
            Elwha Act authorized $4 million so that the Secretary could
            acquire trust lands for the Tribe in Reservation status in
            Clallam County, Washington, for economic development and
            housing. But those funds have never been appropriated. In 1934,
            an Interior Department report concluded that the Reservation
            should be 4,000 acres, but currently we have only 1,000 acres,
            several hundred of which (on the river's side of the levee)
            have to be maintained in undeveloped status as floodplain
            habitat. In addition, we need legislative direction to ensure
            that former hydro-project lands are transferred to the Tribe as
            contemplated in Section 3(c)(3) of the Elwha Act. The Elwha
            people have struggled for a century from the harm to their
            culture and economies caused by the Elwha River dams. We had to
            endure the destruction of not only the fisheries but the treaty
            fishers themselves and the attendant loss of our traditional
            and cultural livelihood; we have lost an opportunity--which
            will only return after another generation--to teach our
            children the ways of their ancestors and the Elwha life as
            designed by the Creator.
        2.  $267,000--Funding for Tribal Court Enhancement and to Implement
    TLOA and VAWA.--Although the Interior Department and the Tribe have
    identified Tribal Court enhancement as a high priority, Lower Elwha has
    been unable to adopt the enhanced sentencing provisions authorized by
    the 2010 Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) or to exercise expanded
    Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction under the 2013 Violence Against
    Women Act (VAWA) because of the lack of adequate base funding for its
    Tribal Court development. Requested funding will enable our Tribe to do
    so by providing for: (a) mandatory criminal defense representation
    (including basic legal assistance for domestic violence victims); (b)
    legal representation for parents in abuse/neglect cases; (c) detention
    services; (d) probation services that focus on solutions and
    restorative justice by sharing coordinated case management and re-entry
    referrals; and, (e) basic court security. Full funding for TLOA-
    mandated provisions and increased base funding for our Tribal Court
    will enable Elwha to benefit from: BIA regional assessments using Trial
    Court Program Standards; specific technical assistance and training
    identified through these assessments; targeted training initiatives for
    specific Tribal court personnel (judges, prosecutors, public defenders
    clerks); development of Tribal Court bench books; identification of
    funding sources for pilot court programs; and captured data covering
    criminal pre-trial to post-conviction matters, including any collateral
    civil legal issues.
        3.  $191,000--Funding for ICW-related services from BIA's Tiwahe
    (Family) Initiative.--Lower Elwha faces a community crisis with the
    increasing number of child abuse/neglect cases, which stem from
    inordinately high rates of drug/substance abuse by parents or
    caregivers. This crisis severely impacts services in all facets of
    Tribal government. A coordinated community response must be based on
    multi-disciplinary, culturally informed case planning and service
    delivery, coupled with a strong commitment to restorative justice
    ideals and (in criminal cases) solutions-based sentencing. A major
    obstacle to implementing this approach is our lack of infrastructure to
    assume jurisdiction over all local cases clearly arising under the
    Indian Child Welfare Act; 85 percent of our current ICWA cases remain
    in the State court system. In addition, because we are dependent on an
    inadequate State system for licensing foster care providers, we are
    often unable to make proper placements to assist our families. For the
    past three fiscal years, the Tribe's base Federal funding (BIA Self-
    Governance ICWA) has remained flat-lined at a mere $45,000. We seek
    $191,000 additional annual funding from the BIA's Tiwahe (Family)
    Initiative, which would enable the Tribe to assert jurisdiction in its
    own court system over all cases arising under the ICWA and to become a
    licensing agency for foster homes.

    Indian Health Service Elwha Tribal-Specific Funding Requests--$500,000
            for Elwha Health Department Programs

        The drug abuse and mental health crisis threatens to destroy the
    potential and the cultural connections of many Tribal members and
    families. In fiscal year 2016, the Tribe's Mental Health and Chemical
    Dependency programs served 275 American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN)
    patients, with the potential to reach approximately 1,500 within
    Clallam and Jefferson County. The Tribe currently subsidizes its
    chemical dependency program with third-party revenue and gaming revenue
    to fund prevention health initiatives and chemical dependency programs,
    yet these critical health epidemics remain severely underfunded. To
    remedy this, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services formula must
    be expanded to inpatient chemical dependency treatment programs at the
    current encounter rate of $391/per day, with annual increases.

    Environmental Protection Agency Elwha Tribal-Specific Funding
            Requests--$356,000 for Elwha Tribal Environmental Programs
            (General Assistance Grant, $125,000; Clean Water (Sec. 106)
            Grant: $81,000; and Puget Sound Partnership Tribal Capacity
            Grant: $150,000)

        Lower Elwha's environmental programs have developed a strong
    pragmatic capability to protect human and basic environmental health
    over the past two decades, for not only the Tribal community but also
    the greater Port Angeles and northern Olympic Peninsula communities. By
    focusing on collaboration with local governments and other
    stakeholders, we have maximized the efficiency of our small but skilled
    staff. This would not be possible without the basic EPA funding that we
    seek to continue. This funding supports: basic staff salaries,
    including for our highly experienced program director (General
    Assistance Grant); water quality monitoring in significant local rivers
    and lakes (Clean Water Grant); Tribal participation and influence in
    local, State, and Federal processes that involve environmental planning
    and review activities (General Assistance and PSP Tribal Capacity
    Grants). In particular, EPA funding is critical to our participation in
    the cleanup of toxic contamination of Port Angeles Harbor, which was
    nominated for Superfund but deferred to State cleanup authority; under
    this deferral arrangement, the Tribe has a unique and important role in
    this cleanup as the sole local representative working directly with the
    responsible State agency to ensure that the cleanup will protect the
    health not only of Tribal members but all residents of the greater Port
    Angeles area.

    Regional and National Budget Requests

        The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe supports the fiscal year 2018
    Regional Budget Priorities of the Northwest Indian Fisheries
    Commission, Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, and the Northwest
    Portland Area Indian Health Board. We also support the fiscal year 2018
    National Budget Priorities of the National Congress of American Indians
    and National Indian Health Board.
        Thank you for considering the requests of the Lower Elwha Tribe.

        [This statement was submitted by Honorable Frances G. Charles,
    Chairwoman.]
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Mescalero Apache Tribe
        Background of the Mescalero Apache Tribe: As Europeans began to
    encroach on our ancestral homelands, the Mescalero Apache Tribe (Tribe)
    entered into the Treaty with the Apaches with the United States on July
    1, 1852. The Mescalero Apache Reservation (Reservation) was created by
    a succession of Executive Orders in the 1870's and 1880's. The
    Reservation spans 720 square miles (460,405 acres) across south-central
    New Mexico and is home to approximately 4,900 Tribal citizens and 200
    non-Indian residents.
        My testimony focuses on four priorities: increased funding and
    services to address methamphetamine and substance abuse; construction
    dollars for Tribal corrections and justice systems facilities;
    increased funding, streamlined regulations, and access to capital for
    housing; and parity in funding for Tribal forest management and
    wildfire prevention.

        Substance Abuse and Prevention: In December of 2015, the DEA and
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) dismantled three drug trafficking
    organizations distributing methamphetamine on the Mescalero Apache
    Reservation and across southeastern New Mexico. It was clear to the
    Federal investigators of this sting that drug cartels targeted the
    Reservation as a safe haven for their criminal enterprise.
        Leading up to the sting, our Reservation suffered a spike in drug-
    related crimes. The Federal sting was spurred by the brutal beating of
    a 13-year-old girl on the Reservation. Two male subjects were high on
    meth. The girl survived, but is still recovering from her injuries.
        To this day, our Reservation continues to reel from the infliction
    of this poison on our people. Meth and other illegal and legal
    prescription drugs have devastated our community. For more than a
    decade now, meth has plagued our Reservation with violent crime and
    suicide, as well as other health issues, including birth defects traced
    to women using meth while pregnant.
        Like other Indian nations, the Mescalero Apache Tribe is fighting
    to maintain our culture, language and identity, and this influence is
    coming in and attacking us. I look at other reservations across the
    country, and we're all facing this as a group. It's in big cities,
    small towns and villages. Mescalero is certainly not immune.
        Methamphetamine has a disproportionate devastating impact on Tribal
    communities, accounting for up to 40 percent of violent crime in Indian
    Country. The epidemic of substance abuse is the root cause of many
    social and economic issues facing Tribes. Inadequate funding for
    alcohol and substance abuse services has a ripple effect on our
    healthcare, education, and justice systems. Congress must provide
    sustainable funding to help families prevent and survive these
    challenges.

        REQUEST: The President's Budget requests an increase of $678,000
    for the IHS Substance Abuse program. The Mescalero Apache Tribe instead
    supports the recommendation put forth by the National Indian Health
    Board that the IHS Alcohol and Substance Abuse program be funded at
    $397 million for fiscal year 2018. This is $178.5 million above the
    fiscal year 2017 enacted level, and better reflects the dire situation
    of substance abuse facing Indian Tribes. In addition, while beyond the
    purview of this subcommittee, we ask that you work with your
    Appropriations Colleagues at Labor HHS and CJS to steer 10 percent of
    funding from the recently enacted CARA Initiative to address the
    scourge of addiction in Native communities.

        Public Safety Facility Construction: A January 2017 DOJ Inspector
    General Report states that, ``Violent crime rates in Indian country are
    more than 2.5 times the national rate and some reservations face more
    than 20 times the national rate of violence. However, many Tribal
    nations do not have the resources to develop the necessary correctional
    infrastructure.''
        Congress approved the transfer of funding for the Tribal public
    safety & justice construction program from the BIA to DOJ in fiscal
    year 1999. From fiscal year 1999-fiscal year 2002 the DOJ construction
    program received approximately $35 million annually. The Tribal Law and
    Order Act of 2010 amended the Tribal Justice Systems Infrastructure
    Program (TJSIP)(42 U.S.C. 13709) to authorize funding for Indian Tribes
    to construct multi-purpose justice centers that house police, courts,
    corrections, and alternatives to correction all within one facility.
    The Act authorized appropriations at $35 million annually. In recent
    years, DOJ's Tribal corrections construction and maintenance program
    has averaged less than $7 million. In fiscal year 2014, without any
    Tribal consultation, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP)--Bureau of
    Justice Assistance determined that it ``is no longer awarding grants
    for new construction projects. Currently, TJSIP funds are only
    available for renovation and/or expansion of existing facilities.'' See
    DOJ-Inspector General Report at 82 (Jan. 2017).
        The Mescalero Apache Tribe acknowledges that we cannot arrest our
    way out of the problem of violent and drug-related crime facing our
    community. However, any functioning justice system must employ
    incarceration as an option in order to deter crime and remove dangerous
    individuals from the public. For nearly two decades now, the Mescalero
    Apache justice system has operated without a local corrections center
    to incarcerate offenders sentenced by our Tribal Court.
        The Tribe has sought funding for an adult/youth correctional
    facility since 1998 to replace the dilapidated BIA jail, which was just
    over 4,100 square feet with a small fenced area for impounded vehicles.
    In 2003, the BIA--without consultation--closed the jail on what was
    supposed to be a temporary basis. It was never reopened. In 2009, the
    Tribe, participating in the BIA's High Priority Performance Goal (HPPG)
    initiative, applied for and received an ARRA planning and design grant
    for a new justice center. The plan was completed in 2012 for a
    Mescalero Apache Justice Center that would house the Court, the
    Prosecutor's Office, Probation Offices, and the Public Defender's
    Office in addition to separate cells for male, female and juveniles.
    The Tribe has not been able to secure funding to continue the project.

        REQUEST: We urge the subcommittee to either return the justice
    system construction program to the BIA or respectfully request that you
    work with your colleagues on the CJS Appropriations Subcommittee to
    restore and fully fund justice systems construction at the authorized
    level of $35 million.

        The Tribe generally supports the President's fiscal year 2018
    Budget request to direct 7 percent of ALL OJP funding to Indian
    Country's justice needs, and a separate request for $30 million for
    Tribal COPS. We ask that any overall increase in funding be directed to
    TJSIP program with direction to BJA to restore the new facilities
    construction program.

        Indian Housing Needs: fiscal year 2018 testimony before the
    subcommittee acknowledges Indian Country's unmet need of approximately
    68,000 housing units (new and replacement) that will cost in excess of
    $33 billion. Mescalero's housing needs conservatively stand at 300 new
    homes.
        While HUD, through its NAHASDA Indian Housing Block Grant program
    (IHBG), is the primary source of funding for housing on Indian lands,
    BIA's HIP is separate and distinct. HIP is a home improvement and
    replacement program that serves the most needy individual throughout
    Indian Country. HIP is a secondary, safety-net housing program that
    seeks to eliminate substandard housing and homelessness on Indian
    reservations.

        REQUEST: The fiscal year 2017 Omnibus provided $9.7 million for HIP
    an increase of $1.7 million. This was welcome news as the program has
    suffered sustained cuts over the past decade. We urge the subcommittee
    to oppose the President's fiscal year 2018 Budget proposal to eliminate
    the HIP program, and instead build on the progress made in fiscal year
    2017 and restore HIP funding to the fiscal year 2007 level of $18.6
    million.

        The Mescalero Apache Tribe also attempts to serve our Reservation
    housing needs by utilizing the USDA Single Family Housing Repair Loan
    and Grant Program and HUD's Indian Block Grant program. (On June 21st,
    the Tribe will be recognized for the success we have had with the USDA
    program as we serve low-income homeowners with remodeling activities.)
    The Tribe also received one tax credit project from the State of New
    Mexico's Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. And we have HIP
    and IHBG homes on the Reservation. Each of these agencies imposes a
    different environmental review process and requirements. The Tribe has
    a housing project that has been held up for several years due to delays
    in the multiple environmental review processes. The project came to a
    standstill and remains stalled.

        REQUEST: We urge the subcommittee to add report language to
    streamline and unify environmental review requirements for all Federal
    Indian housing-related programs.

        Finally, while outside the purview of this subcommittee, we urge
    you to reach out to your Appropriations Committee colleagues to reject
    any proposed cuts to the HUD Section 184 Indian Loan Guarantee Program
    and Title VI loan program. In addition, we ask that you work to improve
    the LIHTC program to guarantee that at least 10 percent of tax credits
    are allocated to the housing crisis on Indian lands. These programs
    represent vital access to outside investment capital and enable Tribes
    to leverage our limited Indian Housing Block Grant funds.

        Forest Management and Wildfire Prevention: The Lincoln National
    Forest (LNF) and nearby BLM lands were carved out of the initial
    Reservation boundaries promised to the Tribe. The Mescalero people have
    maintained strong cultural ties to these lands. To this day, we
    continue to gather plants important to our traditions and conduct
    ceremonies on these Federal lands.
        Since 1960, the Tribe has leased approximately 860 acres of LNF
    lands under two special use permits to establish, manage, and operate
    Ski Apache. The Tribe has made significant improvements to the Resort,
    including a recent $15 million investment to triple the ski lift
    capacity and $2.6 million for world-class zip lines to provide year-
    round recreation. Ski Apache employs 350 people and contributes many
    millions of dollars to the local economy in tourists and lodgers. To
    protect these investments and our sacred lands, the Tribe has a
    considerable interest in maintaining a healthy forest and preventing
    wildfires and resulting flooding.
        However, Tribal forestry programs receive far less funding than our
    State and Federal counterparts. The 2013 IFMAT Report acknowledges that
    BIA allocations to Tribes average only $2.82/acre; whereas, National
    Forests receive $8.57/acre and State forests in the western U.S.
    average an astounding $20.46/acre. At one-fourth to one-tenth of the
    funding our State and Federal counterparts receive, Tribes are able to
    accomplish vastly more reductions in hazardous fuels and have
    healthier, functioning forest ecosystems. This work is not sustainable.
        Nature provided us a preview of what will happen if the Mescalero
    forestry program is allowed to die. The Little Bear Fire started
    modestly on June 4, 2012, caused by lightning in the White Mountain
    wilderness in LNF. Over the ensuing five days, LNF deployed few assets
    and the fire jumped the fireline blazing through the Ski Apache Resort
    and onto Tribal lands. Within two weeks, the Little Bear Fire burned
    35,339 acres in LNF, 8,522 acres of private land, 112 acres of State
    land and 357 acres of the Reservation. The fire also destroyed more
    than 255 buildings and homes in the region and 44,500 acres of prime
    watershed. The overall estimated cost of the fire, including
    suppression and damages, exceeded $100 million.
        A comparison of the impacts of the Little Bear Fire on the
    healthier Mescalero Tribal forests and much less healthy LNF
    demonstrates the need for continued funding of smart fuels management
    projects. In 2008, the Tribe completed an important, cost-effective
    hazardous fuels reduction project on the Eagle Creek portion of the
    Reservation. As the Little Bear Fire moved across the landscape, the
    previously treated Eagle Creek project area was used as a defensible
    space to turn the Little Bear Fire away from the steep, densely
    forested terrain of the North Fork of the Rio Ruidoso, and prevented
    complete devastation of the Village of Ruidoso source waters. The
    Little Bear Fire is proof positive that hazardous fuels reduction
    projects work to save lives, protect property, and maintain healthy
    forests.
        Hazardous fuels funding levels must be restored to enable Tribes to
    continue to protect our communities. Each year, more forests throughout
    the country are burning, more critical watersheds are jeopardized, and
    more communities are placed at risk. Congress must acknowledge and
    fulfill the legal treaty and trust obligations of the United States to
    help protect and care for Indian lands and our forests as permanent
    homes. Tribal forestry programs must be funded accordingly. The United
    States must fully fund hazardous fuels treatment for Indian lands and
    nearby Federal lands separately from the national firefighting budgets.
    The fiscal year 2018 Omnibus took positive steps by increasing BIA
    Forestry funding to $54.1 million, including a $2 million increase for
    forest thinning projects.

        REQUEST: We urge the subcommittee to build on this progress and
    support the Intertribal Timber Council's request to fund BIA Forestry
    at $79.1 million (+$25 million) as a first step towards the additional
    $100 million needed for Tribal forest funding parity with other Federal
    forestry programs recommended in the IFMAT III report. We ask that you
    oppose the President's request to cut BIA Forestry funding by $2.8
    million.

        [This statement was submitted by Danny Breuninger, President.]
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Metlakatla Indian Community
        The requests of the Metlakatla Indian Community for the fiscal year
    2018 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies budget are as follows:
      --Appropriate $1,000,000 through the BIA Safety of Dams (SOD) program
            to address the hazard mitigation needs and initial planning
            phases for improvements at Chester Lake Dam.
      --Move forward with full and mandatory funding for Contract Support
            Costs (CSC).
      --Funding for Tribal courts in Public Law 83-280 States.
      --Shield IHS funding from sequestration.
      --Support for additional funding for Village Built Clinics.

        The Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC) is located on the Annette
    Island Reserve in southeast Alaska, a land base of 87,000 acres.
    Through our Annette Island Service Unit we provide primary health
    services at our outpatient facility through funding from the IHS as a
    co-signer to the Alaska Tribal Health Compact under the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act. We have significant fish
    and forestry resources, but as noted elsewhere in this testimony, we
    require more resources to fully manage them.
    Chester Lake Dam
        Chester Lake is the sole municipal water supply, so maintaining
    this reservoir is essential to the survival of the Tribe. Measures to
    secure and improve this water supply are a high priority to Tribal
    leaders. It is this consideration that led the Emergency Preparedness
    Task Force to enforce the cessation of hydropower operations from
    Chester Lake during the extremely low water period from July to
    September in 2016.
        This had the effect of making the Tribe rely more heavily on diesel
    power generation and the Purple Lake Dam. The Bureau of Indian Affairs
    (BIA) Safety of Dams Downstream Hazard Classification Study 2016 was
    performed in summer 2016 to determine if the dam's hazard
    classification needed to be re-evaluated and to begin potential work to
    make improvements to this reservoir.
        This process is part of the oversight provided by BIA SOD to ensure
    the safety of dams in Indian Country. In March 2017, SOD informed MIC
    that the Chester Lake Dam qualified to have its hazard classification
    upgraded from low to high hazard, thereby requiring additional
    comprehensive evaluation of the Dam, its status and steps to take to
    prevent any kind of an emergency or hazard to the community health and
    wellness.
        The MIC has determined, through this process, that $1,000,000 in
    infrastructure funding is necessary to make safety improvements at
    Chester Lake Dam, as well as carry out necessary planning and studies
    for expansion of the dam's storage and hydropower production capacity.
    The total cost of this project will be approximately $12 million, but
    the initial funding will allow for immediate safety measures to be
    implemented to protect the drinking water supply while planning for the
    Phase 2 improvements that will increase not only water storage capacity
    but also expanded hydropower production from Chester Lake Dam.
    Contract Support Costs (CSC)
        Our great thanks for this subcommittee's leadership in making
    funding of IHS and BIA contract support costs (CSC) for fiscal year
    2016, and now fiscal year 2017, an indefinite amount and also having
    made it a separate account in the IHS and BIA budgets. This shift makes
    an enormous difference in helping ensure that the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) is fully funded and
    implemented as Congress intended in these two agencies. It also
    significantly enhances the Federal-Tribal government-to-government
    relationship. For IHS, the fiscal year 2017 estimate for contract
    support costs is $800 million, and for the BIA it is $278 million.
        Thank you also for listening to Tribes who explained why the
    problematic IHS-supported fiscal year 2016 enacted bill proviso which
    effectively denied the CSC carryover authority granted by the ISDEAA.
    We appreciate that this proviso is absent from the Consolidated
    Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2017.
        Our objective, though, continues to be the indefinite appropriation
    of CSC funding as mandatory and permanent. Full payment of CSC is not
    discretionary; it is a legal obligation under the ISDEAA, affirmed by
    the U.S. Supreme Court. Funding of CSC on a discretionary basis has in
    the very recent past placed the House and Senate Appropriations
    Committees, in their own words, in the ``untenable position of
    appropriating discretionary funds for the payment of any legally
    obligated contract support costs.'' We remain committed to working with
    the appropriate congressional committees to determine how best to
    achieve this objective.
    Tribal Court Assistance for Tribes Subject to Public Law 83-280
        We appreciate the much-needed support in the fiscal year 2017
    appropriations bill for Tribes who are affected by Public Law 83-280
    and who are striving to serve their communities with competent and
    appropriate judiciary systems.
        The fiscal year 2017 Explanatory Language accompanying the
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, fiscal year 2017 would increase BIA
    Tribal Justice Support funding for Tribes affected by Public Law 83-280
    (first enacted during the early 1950s termination era) who are working
    to exercise their rightful jurisdiction on domestic violence and other
    matters, and to increase available remedies and services for crime
    victims. It is very important for the future of Tribal nations affected
    by Public Law 83-280 to continue development of robust criminal
    jurisdiction systems. We quote below the fiscal year 2017 language:

            ``Funding for Tribal justice support is restored to
            $17,250,000, of which not less than $10,000.000 is to address
            the needs of Tribes affected by Public Law 83-280. The
            Committees remain concerned about Tribal court needs as
            identified in the Indian Law and Order Commission's November
            2013 report, which notes Federal investment in Tribal justice
            in ``Public Law 280'' States has been more limited than
            elsewhere in Indian Country. The Committees expect the Bureau
            to work with Tribes and Tribal organizations in these States to
            fund plans that design, promote, sustain, or pilot courts
            systems subject to jurisdiction under Public Law 83-280. The
            Bureau is also directed to formally consult and maintain open
            communication throughout the process with Tribes and Tribal
            organizations on how this funding supports the technical
            infrastructure and future Tribal court needs for these
            jurisdictions.''
    Shield IHS Funding From Sequestration
        We have requested in our previous years' testimony that the IHS
    budget be protected from sequestration. We again ask this
    subcommittee's support of an amendment to the Balanced Budget and
    Emergency Deficit Control Act to exempt the IHS from sequestration of
    funds, just as Congress has done for the Veterans Health
    Administration's health programs. We are very concerned that the
    current fiscal year 2018 funding cap for non-defense discretionary
    spending is lower than the fiscal year 2017 spending cap, and when
    considered along with the President's ``skinny'' fiscal year 2018
    budget outline proposal, which significantly lowers non-defense
    discretionary spending, we fear a significant sequestration of funds in
    fiscal year 2018. IHS funding for healthcare services should be made
    exempt from sequestration.
    Village Built Clinics
        We thank Congress so much for the $11 million for Tribal health
    clinic leases in the fiscal year 2017 Consolidated Appropriations bill,
    and in particular for Senator Murkowski's determination in advocating
    for these very small clinics which are the health lifeline in rural
    Alaska villages. We ask everyone to put yourself and your family in the
    position of living in a tiny, incredibly remote village with no roads
    and challenging weather and needing the healthcare that can be provided
    by trained community members and the health professionals who rotate in
    and out of those communities and utilize the small clinics as
    headquarters. We are also pleased that the House Natural Resources
    Subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs hearing on
    Indian infrastructure needs in Indian Country, with the support and
    participation of Representative Don Young, included a discussion of the
    needs of Village Built Clinics. It was an appropriate subject as many
    of the Village Built Clinics are in disrepair and there is great need
    for a reserve fund for their upkeep and expansion. In 2015, the Alaska
    Native Health Board estimated that $14 million annually was needed to
    fund a replacement reserve to address the crisis state of the clinics.
         We support increased funding for Village Built Clinics and request
    that the funding be: (1) recurring, (2) a separate line item in the IHS
    budget, and (3) displayed in the Budget Justification to better enable
    planning and certainty. The fiscal year 2017 funding is supplemental to
    the approximately $4.5 million already being provided to those life-
    saving small clinics and should be so reflected. In 2015, the Alaska
    Native Health Board estimated that $12.5 million was needed in addition
    to the existing $4.5 million base. Accordingly, the $11 million
    increase in fiscal year 2017 was a major step forward but still does
    not cover the full amount of need. In addition, without a separate line
    item for Village Built Clinics, much of the funding could be
    distributed to other types of facility leases, leaving the Village
    Built Clinics coming up short.
        We are glad to provide any additional information you may request.
    Thank you for your consideration of the concerns and requests of the
    Metlakatla Indian Community.

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

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

        The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
    (Metropolitan) encourages the subcommittee's support for fiscal year
    2018 Federal funding of $1.5 million in financial assistance from the
    Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Soil, Water and Air Program for the
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program (Salinity Control
    Program) to prevent further degradation of Colorado River water quality
    and increased economic damages.
        The salt concentration in the Colorado River causes over $382
    million in damages to water users each year. While this figure is
    significant, had it not been for the efforts of the Salinity Control
    Program, damages would be much higher. Salinity Control Program actions
    have reduced salinity concentrations of Colorado River water over 90
    milligrams per liter (mg/L) from what they would have been without the
    actions. That reduction has avoided additional damages of over $200
    million per year. Modeling by Reclamation indicates that the economic
    damages will rise to approximately $614 million by the year 2035
    without continuation of the program.
        Metropolitan is the regional water supplier for most of urban
    Southern California, providing supplemental water to retail agencies
    that serve approximately 19 million people. Water imported via the
    Colorado River Aqueduct has the highest level of salinity of all of
    Metropolitan's sources of supply, averaging around 630 mg/L since 1976.
    This salinity level causes economic damages to all sectors. For
    example, high salinity leads to:
      --A reduction in the useful life of water heaters, faucets, garbage
            disposals, clothes washers, and dishwashers, and an increased
            use of water softeners in the household sector;
      --An increase in the cost of cooling operations, additional need for
            and cost of water softening, and a decrease in equipment
            service life in the commercial sector;
      --An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
            and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
      --A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
            utility sector;
      --Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
            with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
            terms and conditions, an increase in desalination and brine
            disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
            basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling due to
            groundwater quality deterioration;
      --Increased cost of desalination and brine disposal for recycled
            water in the municipal sector; and
      --A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
            water use for leaching in the agricultural sector.

        Concern over salinity levels in the Colorado River has existed for
    many years. To deal with the concern, the International Boundary and
    Water Commission signed Minute No. 242, Permanent and Definitive
    Solution to the International Problem of the Salinity of the Colorado
    River in 1973, and the President signed the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act of 1974 (Act) into law. To further foster
    interstate cooperation and coordinate the Colorado River Basin States'
    efforts on salinity control, the seven Basin States formed the Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Forum.
        The Forum is charged with reviewing the Colorado River's water
    quality standards for salinity every 3 years. In so doing, it adopts a
    Plan of Implementation consistent with these standards. The Plan of
    Implementation, as adopted by the States and approved by EPA in 2014,
    calls for 67,000 tons of additional salinity control measures to be
    implemented by Reclamation, the Natural Resources Conservation Service
    (NRCS) and the BLM by 2018.
        EPA has identified that more than 60 percent of the salt load of
    the Colorado River comes from natural sources. The majority of land
    within the Colorado River Basin is federally owned, much of which is
    administered by BLM. In implementing the Colorado River Basin Salinity
    Control Act in 1974, Congress recognized that most of the salts in the
    Colorado River originate from these federally owned lands. Title I of
    the Salinity Control Act deals with the U.S. commitment to the quality
    of waters being delivered to Mexico. Title II of the Act deals with
    improving the quality of the water delivered to users in the United
    States. This testimony deals specifically with Title II efforts.
        In 1984, Congress amended the Salinity Control Act and directed
    that the Secretary of the Interior develop a comprehensive program for
    minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands
    administered by BLM. In 2000, Congress reiterated its directive to the
    Secretary and requested a report on the implementation of BLM's program
    (Public Law 106-459). In 2003, BLM employed a Salinity Coordinator to
    increase BLM efforts in the Colorado River Basin and to pursue salinity
    control studies and to implement specific salinity control practices.
    BLM is now working on creating a comprehensive Colorado River Basin
    salinity control program as directed by Congress.
        Meaningful resources have been expended by BLM in the past few
    years to better understand salt mobilization on rangelands. With a
    significant portion of the salt load of the Colorado River coming from
    BLM administered lands, the BLM portion of the overall program is
    essential to the success of the effort. Inadequate BLM salinity control
    efforts will result in additional economic damages to water users
    downstream.
        Implementation of salinity control practices through BLM is a cost
    effective method of controlling the salinity of the Colorado River and
    is an essential component to the overall Colorado River Basin Salinity
    Control Program. Continuation of adequate funding levels for salinity
    within the Soil, Water and Air Program will assist in preventing the
    water quality of the Colorado River from further degradation and
    significant increases in economic damages to municipal, industrial and
    irrigation users. A modest investment in source control pays huge
    dividends in improved drinking water quality to nearly 40 million
    Americans.
        Metropolitan urges the subcommittee to support funding for fiscal
    year 2018 of $1.5 million from the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM)
    Soil, Water and Air Program for the Colorado River Basin Salinity
    Control Program.

        [This statement was submitted by Jeffrey Kightlinger, General
    Manager.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National American Indian Court Judges
                                  Association
        On behalf of the National American Indian Court Judges Association
    (NAICJA), this testimony addresses important programs in the Department
    of Interior, Indian Health Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and
    Environmental Protection Agency as they concern Tribal justice system
    funding. Specifically, NAICJA joins the National Congress of American
    Indians (NCAI) in requesting:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Program                   NCAI Fiscal Year 2018 Request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOI: Bureau of Indian Affairs         Provide increases via Tribal base
                                           funding instead of through grants
    DOI: Bureau of Indian Affairs         $82 million in additional funding
                                           for base funding for Tribal
                                           courts
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        NAICJA is a national, non-profit association comprised of Tribal
    justice personnel, including Tribal leaders, judges, justices, court
    administrators, court clerks, Indian law practitioners and scholars,
    and others devoted to supporting and strengthening Tribal justice
    systems. NAICJA's mission, as a national representative membership
    organization, is to strengthen and enhance Tribal justice systems
    through education, information sharing, and advocacy. Established in
    1969, NAICJA has a long history of dedication to providing educational
    support for Tribal court judges and court-related personnel.
        Tribal justice systems are the primary and most appropriate
    institutions for maintaining order in Tribal communities. The vast
    majority of the approximately 350 Tribal court systems function in
    isolated rural communities. These Tribal justice systems face many of
    the same difficulties faced by other isolated rural communities, but
    these problems are greatly magnified by the many other complex problems
    that are unique to Indian country.
        Tribal justice systems are faced with a wide range of difficult
    criminal and civil justice problems on a daily basis, including lack of
    jurisdiction over non-Indians, complex jurisdictional relationships
    with Federal and State criminal justice systems, inadequate law
    enforcement, great distance from the few existing resources, lack of
    detention staff and facilities, lack of sentencing or disposition
    alternatives, lack of access to advanced technology, and lack of
    substance abuse testing and treatment options, among other issues.
        Part of the Federal trust responsibility to Indian Tribes includes
    basic governmental services in Indian Country, funding for which is
    appropriated in the discretionary portion of the Federal budget. Tribal
    governments exist to protect and preserve their unique cultures,
    identities, and natural environments for posterity. As governments,
    Tribes must deliver a wide range of critical services, such as
    education, workforce development, and first-responder and public safety
    services, to their citizens. The Federal budget for Tribal governmental
    services reflects the extent to which the United States honors its
    promises to Indian people.
        Yet Tribal justice systems historically have been under-funded and
    continue to be under-funded in most Tribal communities. In 1991, the
    United States Civil Rights Commission found that ``the failure of the
    United States Government to provide proper funding for the operation of
    Tribal judicial systems . . . has continued for more than 20 years.''
    \1\ The Commission also noted that ``[f]unding for Tribal judicial
    systems may be further hampered in some instances by the pressures of
    competing priorities within a Tribe.'' \2\ Moreover, they opined that
    ``[i]f the United States Government is to live up to its trust
    obligations, it must assist Tribal governments in their development. .
    . .'' \3\ The Commission ``strongly support[ed] the pending and
    proposed congressional initiatives to authorize funding of Tribal
    courts in an amount equal to that of an equivalent State court'' and
    was ``hopeful that this increased funding [would] allow for much needed
    increases in salaries for judges, the retention of law clerks for
    Tribal judges, the funding of public defenders/defense counsel, and
    increased access to legal authorities.'' \4\ The Indian Law and Order
    Commission (ILOC) noted that in addition to funding shortfalls, short-
    term, competitive funding approach is deficient because it reflects
    Federal priorities rather than Tribal ones, favors hired grant-writers,
    requires Tribes to compete against each other, and offers only 3-year
    programs that often leave Tribes with staff turnover and short-term
    programs.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ United States Commission on Civil Rights, The Indian Civil
    Rights Act: A Report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights 71
    (June 1991).
        \2\ Id.
        \3\ Id.
        \4\ Id.
        \5\ Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native
    America Safer: Report to the President & Congress of the United States
    83 (2013) [hereinafter ILOC Report].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Allocate $82 Million for Tribal Base Funding
        In September 2015, the Bureau of Indian Affairs submitted a report
    to Congress that revealed that the BIA is funding most Tribal courts at
    a dismal 6 percent of estimated need.\6\ The BIA estimates that full
    funding for Tribal courts would cost over $860 million. For Tribal
    courts operating in Public Law 280 jurisdictions, funding has been even
    lower. BIA estimates that it would cost an additional $16.9 million for
    Tribes in mandatory Public Law 280 jurisdictions to be funded at 6
    percent of need noting that ``while $16.9 million would not be widely
    viewed as robust or perhaps even adequate, it would match existing
    levels of funding in non-Public Law 280 States, which reflect a
    constrained fiscal environment.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ ``Report to the Congress on The Budgetary Cost Estimates of
    Tribal Courts in Public Law 83-280 States,'' Bureau of Indian Affairs,
    Office of Justice Services (Sept. 16, 2015).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The critical financial need of Tribal courts ultimately led to the
    passage of the Indian Tribal Justice Act (the ``Act'').\7\ Congress
    found that ``[t]ribal justice systems are an essential part of Tribal
    governments and serve as important forums for ensuring public health,
    safety and the political integrity of Tribal governments.'' \8\
    Affirming the findings of the Civil Rights Commission, Congress further
    found that ``Tribal justice systems are inadequately funded, and the
    lack of adequate funding impairs their operation.'' \9\ In order to
    remedy this lack of funding, the Act authorized appropriation base
    funding support for Tribal justice systems in the amount of $50,000,000
    for each of the fiscal years 1994 through 2000.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Public Law No. 103-176 (codified at 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et
    seq.)
        \8\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601(5).
        \9\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601(8).
        \10\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3621(b).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To carry out the provisions of the Indian Tribal Justice Act,
    Congress authorized annual appropriations of over $58 million annually
    for each of the fiscal years 1994-1999 with $50 million annually for
    base support funding for Tribal justice systems. In today's dollars
    this would be $82 million per year, which would be less than 10 percent
    of the overall need estimated by BIA. Unfortunately, a total of only $5
    million of the more than $58 million per year appropriated was actually
    appropriated through 1999.\11\ Since Congress enacted the Indian Tribal
    Justice Act in 1993, the needs of Tribal court systems have continued
    to increase, but there has been no corresponding increase in funding
    for Tribal court systems.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ United States Commission on Civil Rights, A Quiet Crisis:
    Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country 79 (2003)
    *hereinafter ``A Quiet Crisis''+.
        \12\ In 2000, Congress reaffirmed the Congressional commitment to
    provide this increased funding for Tribal justice systems when it
    reauthorized the Act for seven more years of funding at the same level
    of more than $58 million per year through the Indian Tribal Justice
    Technical and Legal Assistance Act. See Pub. L. No. 106-559 Sec. 202.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Despite numerous congressional reauthorizations of the Act over the
    past couple of decades--most recently in the Tribal Law and Order Act
    (TLOA) \13\--funds have never been appropriated to implement the Act.
    The Act does not differentiate between Tribes subject to Public Law 280
    jurisdiction or not. The promise of this much-needed base funding must
    be fulfilled. We ask Congress to commit to fully funding Tribal courts
    within the next 5 years by incrementally increasing funding each year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Tribal Law and Order Act, Public Law 111-211, Sec. 242 (2010).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Conclusion
        Thank you for your consideration of this testimony. For more
    information, please contact A. Nikki Borchardt Campbell at
    nikki@naicja.org or Ansley Sherman at ansley@naicja.org.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies
        Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum and Members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony
    regarding Federal appropriations for the National Endowment for the
    Arts in fiscal year 2018. My name is Pam Breaux, and I am the Chief
    Executive Officer of the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies
    (NASAA), the organization representing the State and jurisdictional
    arts agencies of the United States. Today, I urge your committee to
    support funding the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at $155
    million in fiscal year 2018.
        Last year, while considering funding for fiscal year 2017, this
    Committee voted unanimously to increase funding for the agency by
    $500,000. The States and NASAA are extremely grateful to the
    subcommittee for this, particularly given the limitations Congress
    faces because of sequestration. As you look to the next budget, NASAA
    hopes you will consider increasing funding for the NEA, which makes a
    substantial impact in communities throughout the United States.
        In asking for an increase in funding for the NEA, it is important
    to acknowledge the continued bipartisan support that this subcommittee
    and Congress have demonstrated for State arts agencies. Through a
    highly effective Federal-State partnership, the NEA distributes 40
    percent of its programmatic funds to State and regional arts agencies
    each year, amounting to $41 million in fiscal year 2016; these dollars
    help to leverage additional public and private investments in the arts,
    empower States and regions to address their unique priorities, and
    serve far more constituents than Federal funds alone could reach.
        State arts agencies use their share of NEA funds, combined with
    funds from State legislatures, to support 21,000 grants to arts
    organizations, civic organizations, schools and artists in more than
    4,400 communities across the United States. Twenty-six percent of State
    arts agencies' grant awards go to nonmetropolitan areas, supporting
    programs that strengthen the civic and economic sustainability of rural
    America. Thirty-nine percent of State arts agencies' grant awards go to
    arts education, fostering student success in and out of school and
    providing the critical thinking, creativity and communications skills
    needed to meet the demands of today's competitive work force.
    Congress's ongoing endorsement of the 40 percent formula is essential
    to State arts agencies, boosting their ability to drive innovation in
    their States.
        Throughout the country, State arts agencies play significant roles
    in shaping education policy, stimulating economic growth and helping
    communities thrive as rewarding and productive places to live, conduct
    business, visit and raise families. Should Congress support an increase
    for the NEA, State arts agencies will be able to expand their
    meaningful role in helping every congressional district have full
    opportunities to experience the economic, civic and cultural benefits
    that the arts offer. An example area of focus for NASAA and State arts
    agencies is the NEA's work with the Department of Defense (to support
    arts therapy in healing programs for veterans at the Walter Reed
    National Military Medical Center and the National Intrepid Center of
    Excellence). Federal leadership has enabled State arts agencies to
    replicate this successful partnership at the State level. In a recent
    poll NASAA conducted of State arts agencies, more than 90 percent of
    respondents said that they are either currently undertaking or
    interested in pursuing arts therapy programs for veterans.
        Thank you for your consideration. NASAA looks forward to continuing
    to work productively with this subcommittee, and we stand ready to
    serve as a resource to you. Thank you for your consideration.

        [This statement was submitted by Pam Breaux, Chief Executive
    Officer.]
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
        On behalf of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
    (NACAA), thank you for this opportunity to testify on the fiscal year
    2018 proposed budget for the United States Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA), particularly grants to State and local air pollution
    control agencies under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act (CAA),
    which are part of the State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) program.
    Specifically, NACAA strongly opposes the administration's proposal to
    cut State and local air quality grants by 30 percent (from $227.8
    million in fiscal year 2017 to $159.5 million in fiscal year 2018) and
    is very concerned about the significant hardship this will pose on the
    public's health and welfare. We ask that Congress, at a minimum,
    continue to fund these grants at last year's level. Additionally, NACAA
    requests that grant funds for fine particulate matter monitoring remain
    under Section 103 authority, rather than being shifted to Section 105
    authority.
        NACAA is a national, non-partisan, non-profit association of State
    and local air pollution control agencies in 45 States, the District of
    Columbia and four territories. The members of NACAA have the primary
    responsibility under the Clean Air Act for implementing our Nation's
    clean air program. The air quality professionals in our member agencies
    have vast experience dedicated to improving air quality in the United
    States. These observations and recommendations are based upon that
    experience. The views expressed in this testimony do not necessarily
    represent the positions of every State and local air pollution control
    agency in the country.
      steep cuts will have devastating impacts on state and local programs
        For many years, State and local air pollution control agencies have
    struggled with insufficient resources and have done what they could to
    address their budget shortfalls. However, due to economic hardships,
    States and localities increasingly rely on Federal grants.
    Unfortunately, since grant levels have essentially remained flat in
    recent decades, taking inflation into consideration, grant funding has
    actually decreased by nearly 17 percent since 2000.
        State and local agencies would find it difficult to accommodate any
    cuts to Federal air quality grants; additional cuts of 30 percent would
    be devastating. Such reductions would severely impede the ability of
    many agencies to continue essential programs and, in the most extreme
    cases, some smaller l ocal agencies could conceivably have to close
    down entirely. With such cuts, many State and local air pollution
    control agencies will have trouble fully implementing the CAA's health-
    based air standards and delivering the clean and healthful air the
    public deserves. Additionally, these agencies and their regions could
    be subject to harsh sanctions under the CAA, including the withholding
    of millions of dollars in Federal highway funds, severe emissions
    ``off-set'' limits that could interfere with economic development, and
    the possibility of EPA imposing Federal Implementation Plans on States.
        Maintaining funding for State and local agencies will not only
    protect public health, but will also allow them to continue to provide
    services to the public and the regulated community, such as more
    expedited permit processing, compliance assistance and streamlined
    regulatory operations. These services, if adequately funded, contribute
    to economic development and administrative efficiencies.
        NACAA recently surveyed State and local air quality agencies to
    learn what a reduction of approximately 30 percent in Federal air
    quality grants would mean to their programs.\1\ The results reveal a
    very disturbing picture: cuts of the magnitude proposed would likely
    have a devastating impact on their efforts to provide healthful air
    quality for the public. Indeed, if Congress enacts such cuts, we fear
    more people will die prematurely and get sick unnecessarily.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NACAA Report, Impacts of Proposed fiscal year 2018 Budget Cuts
    on State and Local Air Quality Agencies (May 22, 2017), http://
    www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/NACAAFundingReport-
    FY2018.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In responding to the NACAA survey, agency after agency painted a
    similar picture of severe curtailments to their programs in the face of
    the steep cuts being proposed: cancellation of programs, loss of staff
    and a diminished capacity to obtain and maintain healthful air quality.
    Nearly every respondent reported that cuts of this magnitude would
    severely reduce the benefits the agencies can provide. These include
    not only to the general public, with respect to decreasing air
    pollution, maintaining clean air and generally protecting public
    health, but also to the regulated community, in terms of permitting,
    compliance assistance and other services.
        The respondents provided a long and varied list of ways in which a
    30-percent reduction would impact State and local air quality,
    affecting nearly every function they perform. They identified many
    activities to be reduced and/or eliminated, including monitoring,
    inspections, enforcement, permit issuance, compliance assistance, data
    analysis, equipment maintenance and complaint response, along with
    losing staff who are needed to do all that work, among others.
        The impacts of these reductions are far reaching. Numerous agencies
    reported that they would be operating at a bare minimum level and that
    the services they provide the public would be limited or even
    eliminated. Perhaps most importantly, efforts to obtain healthful air
    quality and maintain clean air would suffer as a result of these
    resource constraints on their programs.
        Agencies also reported that their State or local governments, which
    already provide the lion's share of funding for clean air programs,
    would not be able to make up for the reductions in Federal grants
    through additional State or local appropriations, general funds, grants
    or other contributions. Additionally, several agencies noted that they
    could consider increasing fees to address the shortfall, but that
    gaining approval for additional fees is unlikely as well.
        Finally, State and local air quality agencies reported that a 30-
    percent cut in grants could force them to turn some of their important
    Clean Air Act implementation work back to the Federal Government. Since
    local communities, including many regulated entities, generally prefer
    working with their local and State agencies (as opposed to EPA), the
    return of responsibilities to the Federal Government would be a
    tremendous loss. Additionally, since the proposed budget calls for
    sharp cuts to EPA's operating budget as well, the agency would not be
    in a good position to take on the tasks that the State and local
    agencies can no longer carry out.
        While the responses taken as a whole provide an overall impression
    of the adverse impacts of the proposed grant reductions, reading what
    State and local agency officials said in their own words about their
    individual agencies offers a sense of the harm these critically
    important programs and public health would suffer. A sampling follows:

        ``A cut in our Federal grant of 30 percent would impose serious and
    adverse impacts on our individual State and collective ability to
    effectively run our air pollution control programs. There would very
    likely be many more people in our State getting sick and possibly dying
    as a result of these budget cuts.''

        ``We are insufficiently staffed to assure citizens are protected
    from asbestos. Asbestos is a carcinogen and was widely used in
    buildings . . . Our current staffing . . . is only able to inspect 8
    percent of the structures. This inability to verify compliance places
    the public directly at risk.''

        ``Without question, a cut of 30 percent to the already-reduced
    funding levels would devastate our program . . . [W]e would be forced
    to cut our staffing by at least one-third . . . a reduction in staffing
    along the proposed lines would significantly delay the issuance of
    permits for new construction.''

        ``If you cut back on enforcement programs, such as inspections and
    compliance assistance, your regulated community tends to be out of
    compliance more of the time. This can result in increased emissions
    which affect the health of your citizens.''

        ``Because we are at the Federal minimum for our air monitoring
    network and unable to fully meet our planning, inventory, and asbestos
    compliance requirements, a reduction of 30 percent would be
    devastating. We clearly would be unable to meet the federally-mandated
    responsibilities.''

        ``The State and local funding cuts combined with the proposed 30
    percent Federal funding cut will result in about a 72 percent reduction
    in [our] overall budget. This will significantly impact [our] ability
    to be here at all, and if we are still here, it will be at a 60-70
    percent decreased staffing level leaving us with 7-10 FTEs to manage a
    6 county area. At this level, we will not be able to meet the core
    requirements of the State contract and Federal grants.''

        ``A reduction of Federal funds may result in an air quality
    monitoring network that does not meet Federal requirements.''

        ``These cuts ignore reality; because we still have to meet all the
    existing Federal requirements . . . When we fail, due to a lack of
    resources, it will be local taxpayers who bear the burden of paying
    environmental groups' legal fees.''

        ``We'd no longer do any air toxics work.''
    air pollution is still a significant threat to human health in spite of
                                  improvements
        There are many important problems that fall under this
    subcommittee's jurisdiction, but it is unlikely that any pose more of a
    threat to public health than air pollution. In fact, tens of thousands
    of people in this country die prematurely each year and many others
    suffer serious health problems as a result of exposure to air
    pollution. These include, among other things, premature mortality;
    cancer; and cardiovascular, respiratory, neurological and reproductive
    damage.\2\ This subcommittee has the opportunity to address very
    serious public health and welfare problems by providing adequate
    Federal funding for State and local air agencies' efforts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ FY 2014-2018 EPA Strategic Plan (April 10, 2014), page 8.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to EPA figures, about 120 million people in this country
    (about 40 percent of the population) lived in counties that exceeded at
    least one of the Federal health-based air pollution standards in
    2015.\3\ With respect to hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), EPA's
    National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) indicate that in 2011 ``all 285
    million people in the U.S. ha[d] an increased cancer risk of greater
    than 10 in one million,'' while one-half million people have an
    increased risk of cancer of over 100 in a million, due to exposure to
    HAPs.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ FY 2018 EPA Budget in Brief (May 2017), page 11, https://
    www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/fy-2018-budget-in-
    brief.pdf.
        \4\ http://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment/2011-nata-
    assessment-results.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While we have made great improvements in air quality in this
    country and even though the programs under the Clean Air Act have
    provided significant health and welfare benefits, air pollution remains
    a significant threat to human health and there is much work to be done.
      nacaa recommends that authority for monitoring grants remain under
                                  section 103
        EPA has proposed to begin shifting funds for PM2.5 monitoring from
    Section 103 authority, where no State or local matching funds are
    needed, to Section 105, which would require a match. We recommend that
    the funds remain under Section 103 authority. For individual agencies
    that have concerns about the matching requirements, this will ensure
    that they do not have to refuse essential monitoring funds because they
    do not have the resources for the match. In past years, Congress has
    been very responsive to our requests on this issue, for which we are
    very grateful, and we recommend that Congress again retain these grants
    under Section 103 authority.
                                   conclusion
        NACAA strongly opposes the Administration's proposed decrease of 30
    percent in grants to State and local air pollution control agencies
    under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act for fiscal year 2018,
    as part of the State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) program
    (decreasing grants from $227.8 million in fiscal year 2017 $159.5
    million). We recommend that Congress provide funding at last year's
    level, at a minimum. We further request that grants for
    PM2.5 monitoring remain under Section 103 authority, rather
    than being shifted to Section 105 authority.
        Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this important issue
    and for your consideration of the funding needs of State and local air
    quality programs.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies
        As the subcommittee begins to develop legislation to fund USEPA in
    the fiscal year 2018 budget, the National Association of Clean Water
    Agencies (NACWA) thanks you for your past support for strong funding
    for clean and safe water and appreciates the opportunity to submit our
    appropriation testimony for fiscal year 2018. NACWA represents a
    growing network of nearly 300 public wastewater and stormwater agencies
    of all sizes nationwide. Below are our key appropriations priorities
    for fiscal year 2018.

    Agency: USEPA
    Program: Clean Water State Revolving Fund
    Funding Request: $2.8 B (2x fiscal year 2017 enacted level)

        The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) is a critical tool
    which municipal clean water agencies around the U.S. leverage to help
    meet their Federal obligations under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The
    low-interest loans, and in limited cases grants and loan forgiveness,
    that the CWSRF provides help clean water agencies make critical
    infrastructure investments as affordably as possible for ratepayers.
    The CWSRF has been instrumental in many communities' successes in
    complying with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
    permits, implementing secondary (biologic) treatment of wastewater, and
    reducing the frequency and size of sewer overflows during wet weather
    events. The CWSRF is also essential for many communities working to
    implement new regulatory requirements ranging from updated water
    quality standards to tightening nutrient limitations. And, the CWSRF is
    increasingly used to help implement innovative stormwater and nutrient
    management projects and green infrastructure.
        The CWSRF is increasingly crucial at a time when--even with tools
    like the CWSRF--sewer and water rates are increasing well above the
    rate of inflation. Key drivers of rising rates include Federal consent
    decrees requirements, associated capital construction and debt service,
    CSO and SSO controls, and sewer rehabilitation and replacement.
        As you know, recent water crises have focused increasing national
    attention on the state of our Nation's water infrastructure. NACWA has
    welcomed proposals to dramatically boost water infrastructure spending,
    and believes that the requested doubling of Federal appropriations
    would be an appropriate step in fiscal year 2018. Of course, we also
    recognize the limitations Congress faces. In light of this, at minimum
    we urge Congress to maintain level funding with the $1.39 B enacted in
    fiscal year 2017 to help ensure these programs remain strong.

    Agency: USEPA
    Program: Integrated Planning
    Funding Request: Provide at least $6.5 M for Integrated Planning

        NACWA utility members have been encouraged by the Integrated
    Planning Framework for Municipal Stormwater & Wastewater which EPA put
    forth in 2012. NACWA urges Appropriators to provide at least $6.5
    million to help advance this approach, which promises to aid
    municipalities in addressing their CWA obligations strategically.
    Integrated Planning allows for prioritizing clean water investments
    within a compliance schedule that focuses on the highest-impact
    investments first, generating greater ``bang for the buck'' and
    allowing communities to address environmental and public health issues
    holistically and cost-effectively. NACWA has been pleased to see
    bipartisan support for Integrated Planning from Congress. We urge
    funding for this program to help the Agency provide technical
    assistance to pilot communities as this approach becomes better
    accepted and understood across the United States.

    Agency: USEPA
    Program: Geographic Programs
    Funding Request: $473 M (Maintain fiscal year 2017 enacted levels
            across all Geographic Programs)

        USEPA's Geographic Programs, including the Great Lakes Restoration
    Initiative (GLRI), Chesapeake Bay Program, Long Island Sound, among
    others, support watershed-based investments aimed at improving water
    quality and related goals. The goals and impacts of these programs
    cross multiple States, impact waters of national significance, and
    leverage significant State, local, and private dollars. In many cases,
    the geographic programs have helped forge partnerships between clean
    water agencies, upstream landowners, conservation groups, and other
    stakeholders to strategically address root problems and advance water
    quality, reduce historic contamination, restore habitat, and many other
    goals that advance the Clean Water Act goals of fishable and swimmable
    waters. NACWA was pleased to see funding ultimately maintained for
    these programs in fiscal year 2017 but is alarmed by the President's
    fiscal year 2018 Budget Proposal which proposes their elimination. We
    urge Appropriators to restore funding for these important and
    successful programs this year.

    Agency: USEPA
    Program: Categorical Grants: Nonpoint Source Sec. 319
    Funding Request: $165 million (Maintain fiscal year 2017 enacted level)

        Nonpoint Source grants are provided to State, Tribes, and
    territories to aid implementation of EPA-approved Nonpoint Source
    Management Programs under Sec. 319 of the CWA. Activities provided
    under these programs include technical and financial assistance to
    municipalities, outreach and education, and technology transfer and
    training. These programs also help monitor and assess the impacts of
    nonpoint management projects, an area where continued research and
    documentation is in demand by public entities and the private sector.
        The CWA has been remarkably successful in reducing point source
    discharges, and in many watersheds nonpoint sources remain the largest
    outstanding driver of water quality impairments. Nonpoint sources also
    contribute to acute public health risks such as harmful algal blooms
    and threats to drinking water. Continued progress on improving water
    quality under the CWA relies in large part on the ability to improve
    nonpoint source management. NACWA was alarmed to see this program
    proposed for elimination in the President's fiscal year 2018 Budget
    Proposal and we urge Appropriators to restore funding.

    Agency: USEPA
    Program: Categorical Grants: Pollution Control Sec. 106
    Funding Request: $230 M (Maintain fiscal year 2017 enacted level)

        Under Sec. 106 of the CWA, EPA provides Federal assistance to
    States and Tribes to aid in their role of enforcing the CWA. Strong
    State programs are essential to the cooperative Federalism approach of
    the Act. The clean water agencies represented by NACWA continually
    engage with their State programs offices on all aspects of CWA
    permitting, compliance and enforcement. NACWA is interested in efforts
    to help streamline programs but is concerned by proposed cuts to these
    grants in fiscal year 2018, as they may have near-term impacts on the
    functioning of State programs to the detriment of the regulated
    community.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration, and please do not
    hesitate to contact NACWA for additional information.

        [This statement was submitted by Kristina Surfus, Director of
    Legislative Affairs.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Association of Conservation
                                   Districts
                                                         August 7, 2017

    Senator Lisa Murkowski, Chairman,     Senator Tom Udall, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior,             Subcommittee on Interior,
     Environment, and Related Agencies,    Environment, and Related
    Committee on Appropriations,           Agencies,
    U.S. States Senate,                   Committee on Appropriations,
    Washington, DC.                       U.S. Senate,
                                          Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman and Ranking Member:

        The National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD)
    represents America's 3,000 conservation districts and the 17,000 men
    and women who serve on their governing boards. Conservation districts
    are local units of government established under State law to carry out
    natural resource management programs at the local level. Districts work
    with millions of cooperating landowners and operators to help them
    manage and protect land and water resources on all private lands and
    many public lands in the United States.
        Recent events across the country have shown the importance and
    continued benefit of proper management of our water and forest
    resources. For fiscal year 2018, NACD respectfully requests an
    appropriation of $184.9 million for Environmental Protection Agency's
    319 Nonpoint Source Grants. We also request maintaining level funding
    for the Forest Service's State and Private Forestry program at $237
    million in the fiscal year 2018 Interior appropriations bill.
        The 319 Nonpoint Source Grants are critically important to stream
    bank stabilization, stormwater management, low-impact development, and
    other projects led by conservation districts to address water quality
    at the local level. Working lands are under increased pressure to
    produce food, feed, fuel, and fiber for the world's growing population.
    Because of this reality, it is more important than ever that we
    dedicate the resources necessary to ensuring local communities continue
    to have access to and realize the benefits of clean water.
        State and Private Forestry is one of the few U.S. Forest Service
    (USFS) programs that provides technical and financial assistance to
    private landowners. For this reason, State and Private Forestry
    programs should be staffed and funded at levels that allow for strong
    public-private partnerships and ensure greater forest management and
    economic opportunity on private, non-industrial forest lands.
        Thank you for your consideration of these requests. We look forward
    to working with you as we continue to serve the nation through natural
    resource conservation.

                Sincerely,
                                        Brent Van Dyke,
                                                        NACD President.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
                                   Officials
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of the
    subcommittee, I am David Terry, Executive Director of the National
    Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO), which represents the 56
    State and Territory Energy Offices. NASEO is submitting this testimony
    in support of funding for the ENERGY STAR program (within the Climate
    Protection Partnership Division of the Office of Air and Radiation) at
    the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NASEO supports funding
    of at least $55 million, including specific report language directing
    that the funds be utilized only for the ENERGY STAR program. The ENERGY
    STAR program is successful, voluntary, and cost-effective. The program
    has a proven track record--it makes sense, it saves energy and money
    and Americans embrace it. With a slowly recovering economy, ENERGY STAR
    helps consumers and businesses control expenditures over the long term.
    The program is strongly supported by product manufacturers, utilities
    and homebuilders, and ENERGY STAR leverages the States' voluntary
    efficiency actions. Voluntary ENERGY STAR activities are occurring in
    public buildings, such as schools, in conjunction with State Energy
    Offices, in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware,
    District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
    Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
    Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
    York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
    Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
    Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
    The proposed elimination of this program in the President's budget is a
    grave mistake.
        The ENERGY STAR program is focused on voluntary efforts that reduce
    the use of energy, promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy, and
    works with States, local governments, communities and business to
    achieve these goals in a cooperative, public-private manner. NASEO has
    worked very closely with EPA and approximately 40 States are ENERGY
    STAR Partners. With very limited funding, EPA's ENERGY STAR program
    works closely with the State Energy Offices to give consumers and
    businesses the opportunity to make better energy decisions and
    catalyzes product efficiency improvements by manufacturers without
    regulation or mandates. This program is voluntary.
        ENERGY STAR focuses on energy efficient products as well as
    buildings (e.g., residential, commercial, and industrial). Over 1
    billion ENERGY STAR certified products were shipped in 2015 across more
    than 85 product categories for a cumulative total of well over 5.2
    billion products since 1992. The ENERGY STAR label is recognized across
    the United States. In 2014, 89 percent of households recognized the
    ENERGY STAR label when it was shown to them. This constitutes an
    increase of 48 percent since the Consortium for Energy Efficiency first
    conducted the National Awareness of ENERGY STAR survey in 2000. It
    makes the work of the State Energy Offices much easier, by working with
    the public on easily recognized products, services, and targets. In
    order to obtain the ENERGY STAR label a product has to meet established
    guidelines. ENERGY STAR's voluntary partnership programs include ENERGY
    STAR Buildings, ENERGY STAR Homes, ENERGY STAR Small Business, and
    ENERGY STAR Labeled Products. The program operates by encouraging
    consumers and working closely with State and local governments to
    purchase these products and services. Marketplace barriers are also
    eradicated through education. State Energy Offices are working with EPA
    to promote ENERGY STAR products, ENERGY STAR for new construction,
    ENERGY STAR for public housing, etc. A successful example of how State
    Energy Offices are leveraging this key national program is the Nebraska
    Energy Office, which since 2005, has utilized ENERGY STAR as the
    standard for certifying home and office electronics that are eligible
    under the State's successful and long-running Dollar and Energy Savings
    Loan program.
        In 2016, millions of consumers and 16,000 voluntary partners, that
    included manufactures, builders, businesses, communities and utilities,
    tapped the value of ENERGY STAR and achieved impressive financial and
    environmental results. Their investments in energy-efficient
    technologies and practices reduced utility bills by well over $34
    billion.
        An estimated 500,000 homes were improved through the whole house
    retrofit program, Home Performance with ENERGY STAR (HPwES) through
    2015. This work was performed by 48 locally sponsored programs and more
    than 2,100 participating contractors across the nation. Over 30 States,
    including California, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada, and Pennsylvania,
    operate or support the Home Performance with ENERGY STAR programs.
        The State Energy Offices are very encouraged with progress made at
    EPA and in our States to promote programs to make schools more energy
    efficient, in addition to an expanding ENERGY STAR Business Partners
    program. In Kentucky, the State has partnered with school districts and
    engineering firms to advance ENERGY STAR rated schools, resulting in
    more than 325 ENERGY STAR rated schools in the State, a 67 percent
    increase since 2012. Over the past few years, Kentucky has moved
    aggressively to promote and build zero-net energy schools. Other States
    that have over 150 ENERGY STAR rated schools include Arizona,
    California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
    New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah,
    Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. Over 27 percent of Utah's K-12
    schools are certified as ENERGY STAR.
        EPA provides technical assistance to the State Energy Offices in
    such areas as ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager (how to rate the
    performance of buildings), setting an energy target, and financing
    options for building improvements and building upgrade strategies.
    ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager is used extensively by State Energy
    Offices to benchmark performance of State and municipal buildings,
    saving taxpayer dollars. Portfolio Manager is the industry-leading
    benchmarking tool used voluntarily by more than 325,000 commercial
    buildings. Portfolio Manager is used to measure, track, assess, and
    report energy and water consumption.
        Additionally, the industrial sector embraces ENERGY STAR and
    companies such as GM, Eastman Chemical, Nissan, Raytheon, Boeing and
    Toyota are recognized for sustained energy excellence by the program.
    At the close of 2014, the number of industrial sites committed to the
    ENERGY STAR Challenge for Industry grew, while 306 sites met or
    exceeded their targets by achieving an average 20 percent reduction in
    industrial energy intensity.
        The State Energy Offices are working cooperatively with our peers
    in the State environmental agencies and State public utilities
    commissions to ensure that programs, regulations, projects and policies
    are developed recognizing both energy and environmental concerns. We
    have worked closely with this program at EPA to address these issues.
    We encourage these continued efforts.
                                   conclusion
        The ENERGY STAR program saves consumers billions of dollars every
    year. The payback is enormous. NASEO supports robust program funding of
    at least $55 million in fiscal year'17. Funding for the ENERGY STAR
    program is justified. It's a solid public-private relationship that
    leverages resources, time and talent to produce tangible results by
    saving energy and money. NASEO endorses these activities and the State
    Energy Offices are working very closely with EPA to cooperatively
    implement a variety of critical national programs without mandates.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Foresters
        The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) appreciates the
    opportunity to submit written public testimony to the House Committee
    on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies regarding our fiscal year (FY) 2018 appropriations
    recommendations. Our priorities focus primarily on appropriations for
    the USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) State and Private Forestry
    (S&PF) programs.
        State Foresters deliver technical and financial assistance, along
    with forest health, water and wildfire protection for more than two-
    thirds of the Nation's 751 million acres of forests. The Forest Service
    S&PF mission area provides vital support to deliver these services,
    which contribute to the socioeconomic and environmental health of rural
    and urban communities. The comprehensive process for delivering these
    services is articulated in each State's Forest Resource Assessment and
    Strategy (State Forest Action Plan), authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill
    and continued in the Agriculture Act of 2014.
        Your support of the following programs is critical to helping
    States address the many and varied challenges outlined in Forest Action
    Plans.
                         wildland fire and forest fuels
        Wildland Fire Funding: State Foresters ask for your continued
    support to pass legislation that fixes the broken wildfire funding
    system and addresses much-needed forest management reforms, either
    separately or in tandem.
        The current wildfire suppression funding model continues to the
    challenge the Forest Service's ability to achieve its overall mission
    and negatively impacts Agency programs of priority to State Foresters.
    Over time, the portion of the Forest Service's budget dedicated to fire
    has grown from under 20 percent to more than 50 percent of the agency's
    total budget. As wildfire eats up a larger share of the agency's
    budget, less is available to other critical programs. Compounding the
    issue is the practice of fire transfers--occurring when appropriated
    suppression funds run out--that disrupts or cancels projects that
    conserve and enhance our Nation's public and private forests.

        -- The Department of the Interior and the Forest Service need a
    long-term fire funding solution that would result in stable and more
    predictable budgets.

        In addition to the wildfire funding issue are the challenges posed
    by the Nation's unhealthy, overgrown and fire-prone Federal forests.

        -- We support environmentally responsible forestry reforms on
    Federal lands as part of the funding remedy or as a separate effort.

        State Fire Assistance (SFA): More people living in fire-prone
    landscapes, high fuel loads, drought, and unhealthy landscapes are
    among the factors that led most State Foresters to identify wildland
    fire as a priority issue in their State Forest Action Plans. We now
    grapple with increasingly expensive and complex wildland fires--fires
    that frequently threaten human life and property. In 2016 there were
    67,743 wildfires that burned 5.5 million acres.

        -- Eighty 2 percent of the total number of fires were where State
    and local departments had primary jurisdiction. 46 percent of the total
    acres burned were on State and private lands. In 2015, 85 percent of
    all local and State crews and engine dispatched outside of their
    geographic area were responding to Federal fires, primarily on initial
    attack.

        -- Attacking fires when they are small is the key to reducing
    fatalities, injuries, loss of homes and cutting Federal fire-fighting
    costs.

        SFA and Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) are the fundamental Federal
    mechanisms for assisting States and local fire departments in
    responding to wildland fires and in conducting management activities
    that mitigate fire risk on non-Federal lands. SFA helps train and equip
    local first responders who are often first to arrive at a wildland fire
    incident and who play a crucial role in keeping fires and their costs
    as small as possible. A small investment of SFA funds supports State
    forestry agencies in accessing and repurposing equipment from the
    Federal Excess Personal Property and the Firefighter Property programs.
    In fiscal year 2015, these two programs delivered more than $169
    million in equipment for use by State and local first responders.

        -- NASF supports funding the State Fire Assistance program at $87
    million and Volunteer Fire Assistance at $15 million in fiscal year
    2018. The need for increased funding for fire suppression on Federal
    lands has broad support and the administration's budget recommends a
    funding increase to meet the anticipated fire threat. Some of the
    largest and costliest Federal land fires begin on State, local and
    privately owned lands. The need to increase fire suppression funding
    for State, local and private lands, where over 80 percent of wildfires
    occur, is just as urgent and should reflect the increases on Federal
    lands.
                        forest pests and invasive plants
        Also among the greatest threats identified in the State Forest
    Action Plans are native and non-native pests and diseases. These pests
    and diseases have the potential to displace native trees, shrubs and
    other vegetation types in forests; the Forest Service estimates that
    hundreds of native and non-native insects and diseases damage the
    Nation's forests each year. They are also devastating the trees and
    forests of America's cities and towns. For example, the cost of
    replacing a single street tree is approximately $1000. The growing
    number of damaging pests and diseases are often introduced and spread
    by way of wooden shipping materials, movement of firewood, and through
    various types of recreation. In 2010, approximately 6.4 million acres
    suffered mortality from insects and diseases\1\ and there is an
    estimated 81.3 million acres at risk of attack by insects and disease
    over the next 15 years.\2\ These losses threaten clean and abundant
    water availability, wildlife habitat, clean air, and other
    environmental services. Furthermore, extensive areas of high insect or
    disease mortality can set the stage for large-scale, catastrophic
    wildfire.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Man, Gary. 2011. Major Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in
    the United States: 2010 Update. Last accessed on March, 5, 2015 at:
    http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/
    ConditionsReport_2011.pdf.
        \2\ Tkacz, Bory, et al. 2014. NIDRM 2012 Report Files: Executive
    Summary. Last accessed on March, 5, 2015 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/
    foresthealth/technology/pdfs/2012_RiskMap_Exec_
    summary.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Cooperative Forest Health Management program supports
    activities related to prevention, monitoring, suppression, and
    eradication of insects, diseases, and plants through provision of
    technical and financial assistance to States and territories to
    maintain healthy, productive forest ecosystems on non-Federal forest
    lands. Forest pests know no bounds. Controlling pests on private lands
    can stop millions of dollars in damage much of which would occur on
    public lands. The Cooperative Forest Health Management program plays a
    critical part in protecting communities already facing outbreaks and in
    preventing exposure of more forests and trees to the devastating and
    costly effects of exotic and invasive pests and pathogens.

        -- NASF supports funding the Forest Health Management--Cooperative
    Lands Program at $48 million in fiscal year 2018.
    assisting landowners and maintaining working forest landscapes--forest
                              stewardship program
        Working forest landscapes are a key part of the rural landscape,
    providing an estimated 900,000 jobs, clean water, wood products, and
    other essential services to millions of Americans. Private forests make
    up two-thirds of all the forestland in the United States and support an
    average of eight jobs per 1,000 acres.\3\ However, the Forest Service
    estimates that 57 million acres of private forests in the U.S. are at
    risk of conversion to urban development over the next two decades.
    Programs like the Forest Stewardship Program and Forest Legacy Program
    are key tools identified in the State Forest Action Plans for keeping
    working forests intact and for providing a full suite of benefits to
    society. Almost 90 percent of those who have stewardship plans,
    implement them. Almost 50 percent of the Nation's wood supply comes
    from small landowners who are the target of this program. Last year
    this program assisted over 455,000 landowners in developing or revising
    their stewardship plans or leading them to resources who are able to
    assist. Again fires and diseases know no bounds. A robust program has
    positive impacts on the Nation's watersheds, wildlife habitat and
    neighboring public lands.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Forest2Market. The Economic Impact of Privately-Owned Forests.
    2009.

        -- NASF supports funding the Forest Stewardship Program at $29
    million in fiscal year 2018. Increasing active management on Federal
    lands has broad support and has received increased funding in recent
    years through the Forest Products budget line item, while funding for
    Forest Stewardship has decreased. . The need to provide funding on
    State and private lands is just as urgent.
                             forest legacy program
        This program provides critical Federal assistance to States and
    private landowners to keep working forests working through permanent
    conservation easements and in some cases, fee acquisitions. Each
    easement acquisition is required to have a long-term forest stewardship
    plan.
        Working forests play an important role to sustain the economic,
    ecological, and social well-being of America's rural and urban areas
    through the jobs they support and the benefits they provide, such as
    wildfire threat reduction, clean air and water, wildlife habitat, and
    outdoor recreation space.

        -- NASF supports funding the Forest Legacy Program at $62 million
    in fiscal year 2018. NASF supports the program being fully funded from
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund and not be included in the
    discretionary budget cap. NASF also recommends report language
    requiring coordination with State Foresters prior to recommendation and
    selection of easements and acquisitions due to land management
    considerations and tax implications.
                urban and community forest management challenges
        Urban and community forests are important to achieving energy
    savings, improved air quality, neighborhood stability, aesthetic value,
    reduced noise, and improved quality of life in municipalities and
    communities around the country. There are demonstrable studies that
    show positive impacts urban trees and forests have on: childhood
    asthma, mitigating the impacts of auto exhaust, reducing home heating
    and air conditioning costs, providing economically viable solutions for
    storm water absorption, enhancing retail business and even reducing
    crime rates. In fact, urban and community forests have been shown to
    provide environmental, social, and economic benefits to the more than
    80 percent of Americans living in medium and large size cities and
    towns.\4\ Yet, urban and community forests face serious threats, such
    as development and urbanization, invasive pests and diseases, and fire
    in the wildland urban interface (WUI).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ United States Census Bureau, Growth in Urban Population
    Outpaces Rest of Nation, Census Bureau Reports. Available at https://
    www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html.
    Last Accessed March 5, 2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Since its expansion under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act
    of 1990 (CFAA), the Forest Service's Urban and Community Forestry
    (U&CF) Program has provided technical and financial assistance to
    promote stewardship of urban forests in communities of all sizes across
    the country. The program is delivered in close partnership with State
    Foresters and leverages existing local efforts that have helped
    thousands of communities and towns manage, maintain, and improve their
    tree cover and green spaces. The program directly serves more than
    7,000 communities across the United States. The program has over a 2:1
    match for Federal dollars provided for this program.

        -- NASF supports funding the Urban and Community Forestry program
    at $31 million in fiscal year 2018.
        importance of forest inventory data in monitoring forest issues
        The Forest Inventory and Analysis program (FIA) enables forest
    managers and the natural resource community to understand the scope and
    scale of trends and changes in forest conditions and to make
    projections of future conditions. Funding for FIA supports State and
    private lands, which account for two-thirds of America's forests and
    provide public benefits such as clean air and water, wildlife habitat,
    outdoor recreation, jobs and wood products.
        NASF is concerned with the recent proposed and realized reductions
    to the USDA Forest Service Research and Development budget and
    recommends a total R&D funding level of $303 million--$83 million
    allocated to FIA.

        -- NASF supports funding the Forest Inventory and Analysis program
    at $83 million in fiscal year 2018.
                          landscape scale restoration
        National priority Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) projects are a
    key way that States, in collaboration with the USDA Forest Service and
    other partners, address critical forest priorities across the
    landscape. LSR projects focus only on the most critical priorities
    identified in each State's Forest Action Plan and on achieving national
    goals as laid out in the State and Private Forestry national themes. As
    a result, LSR contributes to achieving results across the landscape and
    to making meaningful local, regional, and national impacts.
        Competitive allocation of Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act funds
    was codified in the 2008 Farm Bill. The LSR budget line item was
    subsequently included in the fiscal year 2014 appropriations bill as
    the funding mechanism for a competitive process aimed at addressing
    critical priorities identified in State Forest Action Plans and based
    on the tenets of the State and Private Forestry redesign effort--
    conserve working forest landscapes, protect forests from harm, and
    enhance public benefit from trees and forests.
        LSR allows State forestry agencies to target resources toward the
    highest priority forest needs in a State, group of States, or region,
    while also meeting national priorities.
        Regional review teams comprised of State and Federal officials with
    knowledge of the on-the-ground realities within the region carry out a
    rigorous review process to select the LSR projects that will receive
    funding within their region. Selected LSR projects are, as a result,
    the best and most ground-truthed landscape-scale, cross-boundary,
    outcome-driven projects.

        -- NASF supports funding the Landscape Scale Restoration program at
    $23 million in fiscal year 2018. NASF does not support increases in
    this program coming at the expense of other programs described above.
    NASF also supports report language which would allow for additional
    funding over fiscal year 2017 levels for LSR to be allocated for the
    highest national priorities as identified in each of the State Forest
    Action Plans as determined by each State Forester.
         epa categorical nonpoint source pollution grants (section 319)
        In addition to USFS programs, State foresters also receive critical
    program support through the EPA, most notably through the STAG (State
    and Tribal Assistance Grant) categorical grants for nonpoint source
    pollution (aka ``319 funds''). Despite the need to make substantial
    changes in how the EPA functions and interacts with the States, these
    grants allow for the cooperation inherent in ``cooperative
    Federalism'', are an appropriate function for the agency, and should be
    kept robustly funded. For many State forestry agencies, these funds are
    critical in supporting delivery of water quality best management
    programs and helping private forest owners protect water resources in
    their forests, leading to clean water outcomes that benefit all
    citizens.

        -- NASF supports maintaining level funding for the Nonpoint Source
    Pollution Grants--a level of $170 million.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Outdoor
                          Recreation Liaison Officers
        Thank you Chairwoman Murkowski, Senator Udall and other honorable
    Members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit written
    testimony pertaining to funding for the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund's (LWCF) State Assistance Program in the fiscal year 2018 Interior
    Appropriations bill.
        Overview of Funding Request: As outlined below, we encourage you to
    continue the Federal investment in the LWCF, especially as it relates
    to the State and local partnership created through the State Assistance
    Program. We would like to remind the subcommittee one of the key
    purposes of the Act was to help preserve, develop, and assure access to
    outdoor recreation facilities to provide recreation and strengthen the
    health of U.S. citizens in close to home venues. Therefore, we urge you
    to continue to make greater investments in States and local communities
    by:
      --Appropriating a minimum of $110 million for the State Assistance
            Program in fiscal year 2018.
      --If overall allocations for LWCF are increased above fiscal year
            2017 levels we request at least 40 percent of fiscal year 2018
            LWCF appropriations be directed to the State Assistance
            Program.
      --Continue the innovative, ``Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership''
            (ORLP) competitive grant program in fiscal year 18 at $12
            million.

        About the National Association of State Outdoor Recreation Liaison
    Officers. We are an organization of State and territorial officials,
    appointed by our Governors to be a liaison to the Federal Government
    for the administration of and advocacy for the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund's State Assistance Program. We work in this capacity
    to ensure close-to-home access to parks and recreation opportunities in
    communities throughout the Nation and to ensure the program is
    administered effectively and efficiently.
        The State Assistance Program of the LWCF. Originally the majority
    of the LWCF was set aside to be a partnership program between the
    Federal Government and State and local political subdivisions to
    provide outdoor recreation in close to home locations. These outdoor
    recreation facilities were meant to provide social, healthful and
    economic benefits and to improve the quality of life throughout the
    Nation. That is why in the original Act, 60 percent of the LWCF was
    dedicated to State and local grants.
        However, after a ten year period a congressional conference
    committee eliminated the percent set aside for State and local grants,
    while incorporating a provision that required no less than 40 percent
    be dedicated to Federal land acquisition. Therefore, with the
    elimination of any percentage dedicated to State and local outdoor
    recreation grants the amount for State and local grants declined and
    the Federal percentage increased over the years. This is the primary
    reason there is a common misconception among many that LWCF is merely a
    Federal land acquisition program. We want to emphasize this was not
    true in the beginning of the program and it is certainly not true
    today. We are proud the dollar-for-dollar matching grant of the State
    Assistance Program requires a strong commitment from States and local
    governments to support construction of outdoor recreation projects and
    to operate and maintain them forever.
        The State Assistance Program requires that the ongoing maintenance
    of these areas are the responsibility of the State and local partner in
    perpetuity. This is a real deal for the citizens of the Nation, as the
    Federal Government encourages the development of outdoor recreation
    through these 50 percent matching grants and the citizens benefit from
    convenient access to these close to home areas. One additional benefit
    is the areas developed and maintained through program remains the
    property of the State or local government, but the resources developed
    through the LWCF remain publicly accessible in perpetuity and are
    protected as such by the LWCF Act.
        In summary, we thank the committee for their on-going support of
    LWCF which provides close-to-home recreation access for our Nation's
    citizens and we look forward to our continued partnership with the
    National Park Service in administering the program.

        [This statement was submitted by Lauren S. Imgrund, Pennsylvania
    State Liaison Officer; President, National Association of State Liaison
    Officers.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians
                                  introduction
        On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), we
    would like to acknowledge the steadfast work undertaken and attention
    paid by the Members of this subcommittee to uphold the Federal trust
    and treaty obligations funded in this appropriations bill. As the most
    representative organization of American Indian and Alaska Native
    Tribes, NCAI serves the broad interests of Tribal governments across
    the Nation. As Congress considers the fiscal year 2018 budget, we call
    on decision-makers to ensure that the promises made to Indian Country
    are honored in the Federal budget. This testimony addresses the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs (BIA), Indian Health Service (IHS), and Tribal
    programs in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The fiscal year
    2017 Omnibus included hard-fought increases for BIA, Bureau of Indian
    Education (BIE), IHS, and other core Tribal government programs. We are
    hopeful that the fiscal year 2018 final Interior appropriations bill
    will build on the investments made in Indian Country in the fiscal year
    2017 Omnibus.
                          federal trust responsibility
        The relationship between Tribal nations and the Federal Government
    is unique and founded on mutual promises. Indian treaties have the same
    status as treaties with foreign nations, and because they are made
    under the US Constitution are ``the supreme law of the land.'' Treaties
    and laws have created a fundamental contract between Indian Nations and
    the United States: Tribes ceded millions of acres of land that made the
    US what it is today, and in return Tribes have the right of continued
    self-government and the right to exist as distinct peoples on their own
    lands. That fundamental contract--the Federal trust relationship--
    ensures that Tribal governments receive funding for basic governmental
    services. As governments, Tribes must deliver a wide range of critical
    services, such as health, education, workforce development, first-
    responder, and public safety services, to their citizens. The
    obligations to Tribes and their citizens funded in the Federal budget
    reflect the trust responsibility. Importantly, these programs are not
    based on race or ethnicity but rather on the centuries-long political
    relationship between Tribal communities and the United States.
        Due to fluctuations in Federal funding and the uncertain budget
    process, many Tribes have faced continued emergencies in meeting the
    public service needs of their citizens.\1\ Funding decisions by the
    Administration and Congress are an expression of our Nation's policy
    priorities, and the Federal budget for Tribal governmental services
    reflects the extent to which the United States honors its obligations
    to Indian people.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See NCAI Resolution ATL-14-084.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   tribal growth benefits states and regions
        While the Federal treaty and trust relationship calls for Federal
    funding of education, healthcare, and other government services,
    upholding Indian treaty and trust obligations is also an important
    component of Tribal and surrounding regional economies.
        Economists have found that Tribal economic growth leads to economic
    growth in surrounding regions. Tribal economic activity produces
    regional multiplier impacts for the off-reservation economy.\2\
    Economic research on Tribal colleges, timber, procurement, and casinos
    has shown direct, indirect, and induced impacts on gross regional
    product and employment.\3\ Well-functioning governments are essential
    to market economies. Governments provide local and national public and
    quasi-public goods that the private sector would otherwise under
    provide,\4\ such as public safety and justice--essential for conducting
    business on reservations and Tribal lands. In addition, Federal and
    Tribal governments fund public investments in core infrastructure, such
    as roads, bridges, and water and sanitation systems that provide high
    economic rates of return.\5\ Such core infrastructure in Indian Country
    has faced insufficient public investment for decades. Additionally,
    noncore public investments, such as early childhood education, early
    childcare, healthcare, and a range of human services, provide at least
    as much of a near-term economic boost as core infrastructure.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Croman, K. S., & Taylor, J. B. (2016). ``Why beggar thy Indian
    neighbor? The case for Tribal primacy in taxation in Indian country.''
    Joint Occasional Papers on Native Affairs (JOPNA 2016-1). Tucson, AZ
    and Cambridge, MA: Native Nations Institute and Harvard Project on
    American Indian Economic Development.
        \3\ Ibid.
        \4\ Hackbart, M., & Ramsey, J. R. (2002). The theory of the public
    sector budget: An economic perspective. Budget Theory in the Public
    Sector, 172.
        \5\ Bivens, J. and Blair H. (2016). A public investment agenda that
    delivers the goods for American workers needs to be long-lived, broad,
    and subject to democratic oversight.
        \6\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            bureau of indian affairs
        On May 23, the administration released its detailed fiscal year
    2018 budget request. Themes in this budget include shifting Federal
    costs to other governments (including Tribes, States, and localities).
    The fiscal year 2018 budget for Indian Affairs would be $2.48 billion,
    a decrease of $371.7 million below the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus level,
    a decrease of about 13 percent. Compared to the fiscal year 2017
    annualized CR, the cut is 10.9 percent. Operation of Indian Programs
    would receive $2.1 billion in the President's budget, a decline of 11
    percent compared to the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus level and 8 percent
    compared to the fiscal year 17 CR. Tribal Priority Allocations would be
    cut by 12.7 percent relative to the fiscal year 17 CR level. Bureau of
    Indian Education (BIE) would be cut by $105.1 million, 11.8 percent
    less than the fiscal year 17 Omnibus and $64.3 million and 7.6 percent
    less than the fiscal year 2017 CR.
        The President's budget would eliminate many programs identified by
    Tribal leaders as critical to Tribes across the Nation, including: the
    Housing Improvement Program (HIP), $8 million; Tribal Climate
    Resilience, $9.9 million; Alaska Native Programs, $1 million; Small and
    Needy Tribes, $1.8 million; Special Higher Education Scholarships, $2.7
    million; Science Post Graduate Scholarship Fund, $2.4 million; Juvenile
    Detention Center Education program, $499,000; Replacement School
    Construction, $45.4 million; Replacement Facility Construction, $11.9
    million. We request that Congress reject these eliminations, not only
    because the reductions undercut the Federal trust responsibility, but
    also run counter to the program areas identified as important by Tribal
    leaders themselves during budget consultations. Nine out of twelve
    regions during budget formulation in March 2017 identified scholarships
    as a top five program in need of increases (out of all the line items
    in the BIA budget). Half of all BIA regions identified HIP as a top
    five priority.
        In addition to eliminations, the administration's budget also
    proposes drastic cuts to programs identified as critical to Indian
    County. For instance, the President's budget cuts Human Services
    overall by $35.2 million compared to the fiscal year 17 Omnibus (a 22
    percent cut), in programs that provide social services, welfare
    assistance, and Indian Child Welfare Act protections. The reductions
    largely reflect elimination of funding for pilot programs for the
    Tiwahe initiative. Several of the top TIBC budget priorities reviewed
    in the BIA budget formulation are programs included in the Tiwahe
    initiative, including Social Services. Tribal leaders expressed strong
    support for programs that are a part of this initiative because of its
    goals of reducing poverty, domestic violence, and substance abuse,
    which in turn makes for safer communities. The integrated programming
    to addressing interrelated problems represents a promising approach to
    complex problems in Indian Country, breaking down silos to meet the
    needs of families and communities.
        Many of the programs involved in this initiative have not had
    funding increases for years (except in the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus
    bill), and they remain top programs in fiscal year 2018 and 2019.
    Notably, all Tribes received recurring base increases under the
    initiative. Non-pilot Tribes stand to gain from learning best practices
    that will be documented and shared by the pilot Tribes in addressing
    issues that affect most Tribes throughout the Nation, such as
    intervention and prevention, improving case management, strengthening
    partnerships with providers, and increasing access to family and social
    services to ultimately improve health, safety, and well-being.
        The President's budget proposes $326 million for Law Enforcement, a
    reduction of $21.4 million, or a 6 percent cut compared to the fiscal
    year 17 CR. Proposed reductions include $3 million for the pilot
    program to reduce recidivism, which was completed in 2017 and $10
    million provided to conduct Tribal courts assessments located in Public
    Law 83-280 States. Tribal Courts would be reduced by $6 million, which
    eliminates increases provided under the Tiwahe initiative. BIA recently
    conducted an analysis of law enforcement and detention needs pursuant
    to the Tribal Law and Order Act, and found that the total need for
    basic law enforcement and detention services in Indian country is $1
    billion. This estimate includes Tribes without regard to whether they
    are located in a Public Law 280 jurisdiction. Given the inadequacy of
    current funding levels, the BIA has had a policy for many years to
    generally provide law enforcement and detention funding only to Tribes
    in non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions. This has left Tribes in many areas
    completely without BIA support for Tribal police and detention needs.
    We ask Congress to commit to fully funding Tribal law enforcement and
    detention within the next 5 years by incrementally increasing funding
    each year.

        If this budget were enacted for BIA, the overall funding provided
    for BIA would be lower than any level in the last 15 years, when
    adjusted for inflation. The 2017 BIA funding level is 6 percent below
    the comparable 2010 level after adjusting for inflation. In 2018, those
    cuts would grow to 20 percent. These reductions are untenable and
    absolutely break the trust responsibility to Indian Tribes. We urge
    this subcommittee to continue its bipartisan effort to meet the Federal
    obligations for Indian Country.
                                   education
        The budget request would temporarily suspend funding for BIE school
    Construction and cuts construction funding from $57.8 million to $80.2
    million, more than 40 percent below fiscal year 2017 funding levels;
    and cut the Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP), the core program
    for operation of BIE, by $2.4 million to a proposed $398.8 million. The
    budget request also would reduce funding for the Johnson O'Malley
    Program, another top ranked program by Tribes, by $4.6 million, a
    reduction of more than 30 percent, to $10.2 million. We urge this
    subcommittee to reject these proposed cuts to education, reductions
    which would significantly undermine opportunities for Native students.
                                road maintenance
        NCAI appreciates the increase of $3.6 million for Road Maintenance
    for a total of $30.3 million in the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus bill. The
    administration's budget would only fund Roads Maintenance at $28.1
    million. We urge Congress to restore funding at least to the fiscal
    year 2017 Omnibus level. Most BIA regions have identified that this
    program requires additional increases to meet unmet needs. Currently,
    BIA needs approximately $290 million per year to maintain BIA-owned
    roads and bridges to an adequate standard.
                               natural resources
        The fiscal year 2018 budget proposes untenable cuts for many Tribal
    natural resource programs: Rights Protection Implementation (-$11
    million or 28 percent compared to the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus), Tribal
    Management and Development (-$2 million compared to the fiscal year
    2017 Omnibus), Forestry (-$5 million, a 10 percent cut), and Fish-
    Wildlife-and-Parks (-$2.8 million, an 18 percent cut). Tribal
    representatives on the Tribal Interior Budget Council have expressed
    strong support for these programs throughout the 2018 budget
    consultation meetings and NCAI urges Congress to reject these deep cuts
    to Tribal natural resource programs.
      economic contributions and value added of federal treaty and trust
                                 responsibility
        Federal funding that meets Federal Indian treaty and trust
    obligations also provide significant contributions to the economy. In
    just the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
    and Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) ``contribute substantially to
    economic growth in Tribal areas. . . .'' \7\ In fiscal year 2012,
    Indian Affairs ``contributed over $14 billion in value added, $18
    billion in economic activity and supported nearly 93,000 jobs, many of
    them on Indian lands.'' \8\ Value added is the contribution of an
    activity to overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Indian Affairs
    specific funding to support Tribal governments provided value added of
    $0.9 billion and economic contributions of $1.2 billion. These
    estimates for GDP included energy, minerals, forestry, irrigation,
    support for Tribal government, and loan guarantees. Education and
    public safety also provide significant social and economic benefits
    that are difficult to measure. Justice service programs provide
    economic benefits of: protection of property rights, support of health
    and safety, lower medical costs from crime, human capital development,
    and other positive spillover effects.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Economic Report, fiscal year
    2012, July 29, 2013.
        \8\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             indian health service
        NCAI thanks the subcommittee for including increases for IHS in the
    fiscal year 2017 Omnibus bill of $232.3 million over the fiscal year
    2016 enacted amount. For fiscal year 2018, the Tribal Budget
    Formulation Workgroup requested $7.1 billion for IHS. NCAI supports the
    requests of the Workgroup and the National Indian Health Board. NCAI
    appreciates the bipartisan support for the Indian Health Service budget
    in Congress and we look forward to ongoing support for the IHS budget
    in providing much needed increases for the IHS budget.
                        environmental protection agency
        Tribes and States are the primary implementers of environmental
    programs. Program capacity building is a top environmental priority
    identified by Tribes as part of the EPA National Tribal Operations
    Committee National Tribal Caucus. The Indian General Assistance Program
    (IGAP) is unique among Federal programs in that it provides a
    foundation which Tribes can leverage to support other greatly-needed
    programs. GAP funding is particularly critical to Alaska Native
    villages, where it provides 99 percent of the overall funding to
    address their fundamental and often dire needs, such as safe drinking
    water and basic sanitation facilities. NCAI urges the subcommittee to
    protect this funding against cuts in fiscal year 2018.
                                   conclusion
        Thank you for this opportunity to share our concerns on programs
    that fulfill treaty and trust obligations in the Federal budget. We
    look forward to working with this subcommittee on a bipartisan basis
    once again this year.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the National Ground Water Association
        The National Ground Water Association (NGWA) requests that $5
    million be allocated in the fiscal year 2018 Interior, Environment &
    Related Agencies appropriations bill to the United States Geological
    Survey (USGS) Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program to
    continue implementation and maintenance of a national groundwater
    monitoring network (NGWMN).
        In addition to funding, NGWA is also requesting eligibility of the
    cooperative grant funding be expanded to Tribes, as well as State and
    local governments. Tribes are currently able to provide data, but are
    not eligible to receive funding to help create and/or maintain a
    groundwater monitoring network.
        NGWA is the world's largest association of groundwater
    professionals, representing public and private sector engineers,
    scientists, water well contractors, manufacturers, and suppliers of
    groundwater related products and services. NGWA maintains that
    management of groundwater resources should be a coordinated effort
    between Federal, State and local governments based on the strengths of
    each government level, the best science available, and the nature of
    the resource. The NGWMN is a great example of cooperation between
    levels of government, in order to manage and protect a vital natural
    resource.
        Water is one of the most critical natural resources to human,
    ecosystem and economic survival. Nationally, over 40 percent of the
    drinking water supply comes from groundwater and, in some locations, it
    is relied on by 80 percent of Americans for drinking water. Groundwater
    also serves as a key source of agricultural irrigation water.
        While the health of the American people and our Nation's economic
    prosperity depends on groundwater, no systematic nationwide monitoring
    network is in place to measure what is currently available and how
    groundwater levels and quality may be changing over time.
        As with any valuable natural resource, our groundwater reserves
    must be monitored to assist in planning and minimizing potential
    impacts from shortages or supply disruptions. Just as one cannot
    effectively oversee the Nation's economy without key data; one cannot
    adequately address the Nation's food, energy, economic, and drinking
    water security without understanding the extent, availability and
    sustainability of a critical input--groundwater.
        Congress acknowledged the need for enhanced groundwater monitoring
    by authorizing a national groundwater monitoring network with passage
    of Public Law 111-11 (Omnibus Public Land Management Act) in 2009, the
    SECURE Water Act, and viability of the network was proven through the
    completion of pilot projects in six State--Illinois, Indiana,
    Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, and Texas. These States voluntarily
    pilot tested concepts for a national groundwater monitoring network as
    developed by the Federal Advisory Committee on Water Information's
    (ACWI) Subcommittee on Ground Water (SOGW).
        Following completion of the pilots and reports on the viability of
    the NGWMN, congressional support for the network has enabled national
    implementation of the program:

      --Fiscal year 2015: $2.6 million
      --Fiscal year 2016: $3.6 million
      --Fiscal year 2017: $4.1 million

        However, national implementation has no yet been achieved. To date,
    only 22 grants have been awarded to State and local agencies, with the
    third round of awards currently pending.

        While continuing support for the NGWMN is requested at this time,
    it is important to note that the requests will be finite once all
    States are connected to the network. From there, the costs of ongoing
    maintenance of the network are expected to be minimal.
        Once implemented nationwide, the NGWMN would provide consistent,
    comparable nationwide data that would be accessible through a public
    web portal for Federal, State, local government and private sector
    users. In these tight fiscal times, the proposed network would build on
    existing State and Federal investments, maximizing their usefulness and
    leveraging current dollars to build toward systematic nationwide
    monitoring of the groundwater resource.
        Funding from the NGWMN will be used for two purposes:

        1.  Provide grants to regional, State, and Tribal governments to
    cost share increased expenses to upgrade monitoring networks for the 50
    States to meet the standards necessary to understand the Nation's
    groundwater resources. Activities funded include: site selection, web
    services development, well drilling, well maintenance, among others.
        2.  Support the additional work necessary for USGS to manage a
    national groundwater monitoring network and provide national data
    access through an Internet web portal.

        A selection of State projects funded is listed below to demonstrate
    to type of work being funded by Congress in the first rounds of
    cooperative agreements.

      --Alaska Department of Natural Resources received funding to become a
            data provider, serving water level data to the portal. In
            addition, funding is received to do well maintenance and well
            drilling.
      --Minnesota Pollution Control Agency received funds to re-establish
            web services to provide data to the network and expand coverage
            across all of the States principal aquifers.
      --South Carolina Department of Natural Resources received funding to
            set-up web services to provide water level data to the NGWMN.
      --Texas Water Development Board received funding to select and
            classify water quality wells and incorporate them into the
            NGWMN.

        A complete list of all cooperative agreements funded is available
    for fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016. Each recipient of funding
    must also provide USGS a report, following the conclusion of the
    funding period.
        Though the amount of funding requested is small in the context of
    the Department of Interior's annual budget request, funding is vital
    considering that, for a small investment, we can begin finally to put
    in place adequate monitoring of the hidden resource that provides over
    40 percent of the Nation's drinking water supply and serves as a key
    driver for our agricultural economy.
        Thank you for your consideration of this request. With questions or
    in request of additional information, please contact Lauren Schapker,
    NGWA Government Affairs Director, at lschapker@ngwa.org.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

        The National Ground Water Association is a not-for-profit
    professional society and trade association for the groundwater
    industry. NGWA is the largest organization of groundwater professionals
    in the world. Our more than 11,000 members from all 50 States and 72
    countries include some of the leading public and private sector
    groundwater scientists, engineers, water well contractors,
    manufacturers, and suppliers of groundwater related products and
    services. The Association's vision is to be the leading community of
    groundwater professionals that promotes the responsible development,
    use and management of groundwater resources.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

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

        On behalf of the National Humanities Alliance, with our nearly 200
    member organizations, I write to express strong support for the
    National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
                                    overview
        For fiscal year 2018, we respectfully urge the subcommittee to fund
    the National Endowment for the Humanities at $155 million.
        We would like to thank the subcommittee for appropriating $149.8
    million to the NEH for fiscal year 2017, thereby increasing the
    Endowment's funding by nearly $2 million for the second consecutive
    year. These increases are critical steps in rebuilding the capacity of
    the NEH, which has been severely eroded in recent years. Despite the
    recent increases, the Endowment's current funding is 20 percent below
    its fiscal year 2010 level, when adjusted for inflation. Modestly
    increasing the NEH's budget to $155 million would allow the Endowment
    to regain its capacity to support the humanities at a time when the
    humanities are increasingly called upon to meet national needs.
        While we recognize the seriousness of the fiscal situation faced by
    Congress and the Administration, and we understand the difficult
    choices that are before this subcommittee, we believe that expanding
    the capacity of the NEH should continue to be a priority. In the
    remainder of this testimony, I will highlight some of the many ways
    that the NEH serves national needs and helps accomplish critical
    national goals.
                           neh serves national needs
        The National Endowment for the Humanities' funding is distributed
    to the Federal/State Partnership, which supports humanities councils in
    every State and territory; Competitive Grants divisions, which award
    peer-reviewed grants in research, education, preservation, digital
    humanities, challenge grants, and public programs; and the Common Good
    Initiative, which harnesses the power of the humanities to address
    society's pressing challenges. I will highlight just five examples of
    how NEH grants serve clear national needs.
        1.  The NEH's Standing Together program aids veterans'
            reintegration into civilian life and deepens public awareness
            of the experience of war.
              For the past 4 years, the NEH has supported innovative
            programs that harness the power of the humanities to serve
            veterans. Increased appropriations over the past 2 years have
            been critical to expanding these programs, although much unmet
            demand continues to exist. In fiscal year 2017, the NEH
            introduced the Dialogues on the Experience of War program,
            which supports community discussion groups for veterans and
            their families. The NEH awarded one of these grants to a
            faculty member at the University of Oklahoma to develop a
            course for past, current, and future (ROTC) service members.
            Through an exploration of the history and literature of war,
            the course encourages veterans to express thoughts on the
            experience of war.
              Other efforts funded through the Standing Together initiative
            include writing programs for veterans suffering from PTSD;
            intensive college-preparation programs; and training for
            Veterans Affairs staff to help them understand the experiences
            of veterans.
        2.  The NEH plays a key role in the preservation of native
            languages and cultures.
              The NEH supports the documentation and teaching of native
            languages, history, and culture. A 2016 grant to the North
            Slope Borough Department of Inupiat History allowed it to work
            together with the Inupiat Heritage Center Museum to properly
            conserve seven paintings depicting the traditions and history
            of the Inupiat people. These paintings, in conjunction with an
            ongoing oral history project, help pass the Inupiat culture to
            the next generation. Another 2016 grant was awarded to the
            Cankdeska Cikana Community College in Fort Totten, North Dakota
            to develop a curriculum on Dakota literature and oral history,
            preserve the Dakota language, and increase outreach efforts to
            the broader community.
              The NEH's Office of Challenge Grants, meanwhile, awarded
            funding to the Northwest Indian College in Bellingham,
            Washington to develop programs to preserve the culture and
            revitalize the language of the Salish people. These are just
            three examples of NEH's long-term commitment to sustaining,
            revitalizing, and preserving Native American languages and
            cultures.
        3.  The NEH is the only entity, Federal or private, with a national
            mandate to ensure that support for the humanities serves all
            Americans.
              Through NEH on the Road, the NEH brings museum exhibitions to
            underserved regions, making use of existing exhibitions from
            larger museums to efficiently provide high-quality exhibitions
            to communities across the country. More than half of the
            communities served have fewer than 50,000 residents. For
            example, in Red Cloud, Nebraska, a community of only 1,020,
            more than 3,000 people saw Our Lives, Our Stories: America's
            Greatest Generation. The exhibit traveled to 23 other locations
            including Excelsior Springs and Fulton, Missouri and Fairmont,
            West Virginia. Additionally, between 2012 and 2023, For All The
            World To See: Visual Culture and The Struggle for Civil Rights,
            will travel to a total of 50 sites, including in Boise, Idaho,
            Park City, Utah, and Belton, Texas.
              To ensure a wide reach, the NEH has also dedicated funding
            lines for innovation in humanities curricula in community
            colleges, HBCUs, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and Tribal
            Colleges. A recent grant to Columbus State Community College in
            Columbus, Ohio, funds the development of a course on the
            history of Western medicine, disease, and public health, the
            first such general education course taught at a community
            college. This course is specifically designed for students
            interested in medical fields to afford an understanding of the
            social, political, and cultural dimensions of disease.
        4.  The NEH safeguards our historical and cultural legacies
              With small grants to historical societies, historic sites,
            archives, and town and county record offices around the
            country, the NEH ensures that local historical documents and
            artifacts are preserved under the proper conditions and
            accessible in the long-term. For example, the NEH recently
            awarded a grant to Scarborough Library at Shepherd University
            to assess the preservation of memorabilia, photographs, books,
            scrapbooks, correspondence, and maps related to the history of
            Shepherdstown, West Virginia. A 2016 grant of just $2,035
            funded the purchase of equipment to monitor the environmental
            conditions for the collections at the Hockaday Museum of Art in
            Kalispell, Montana, thereby enabling the preservation of the
            history and art of Glacier National Park.
              In a massive undertaking, the NEH is also enabling the
            digitization of historical newspapers from around the country
            through the National Digital Newspaper Program. For example, in
            2016, NEH awarded a grant to the Alaska Division of Libraries,
            Archives, and Museums to digitize 100,000 pages of historic
            Alaska newspapers published between 1866 and 1922. To date, the
            NEH has provided support for the digitization of approximately
            11 million pages of newspapers published between 1690 and 1963
            --making these resources accessible for scholars, students, and
            anyone interested in researching local history or genealogy.
              NEH also supports the publication of the documents associated
            with important historical figures and events and ensures that
            these documents are widely accessible. For example, a 2016
            grant to the University of Tennessee supported the publication
            of the papers of President James Polk and the development of an
            online portal that provides free and convenient access to
            students, teachers, and the public. Another recent grant
            supported the University of Southern Mississippi's digitization
            and online publication of 483 interviews documenting the Civil
            Rights Movement in Mississippi.
        5.  With a modest investment, the NEH stimulates private, local
            investment in the humanities and cultivates tourism.
              NEH matching grants over the last 50 years have generated
            more than $4 billion in non-Federal donations to humanities
            projects and institutions. The NEH's investments in museums,
            historic sites, research, and the preservation of historic
            artifacts have played a key role in developing local cultural
            heritage tourism economies, which attract 78 percent of all
            leisure travelers. Over several decades, for example, the NEH
            has supported the development of new exhibitions at Thomas
            Jefferson's Monticello. These grants have had an outsized
            impact on the local economy as Monticello welcomes nearly
            400,000 annual visitors, 93 percent of whom are from outside
            Virginia and 50 percent of whom stay in a hotel for at least
            one night adding at least $13.1 million to the local economy.

        In addition to these highlighted programs, each year the NEH awards
    hundreds of competitive, peer-reviewed grants to individual scholars
    and a broad range of nonprofit educational organizations around the
    country. Grantees include universities, two- and four-year colleges,
    humanities centers, research institutes, museums, historical societies,
    libraries, archives, scholarly associations, K-12 schools, local
    education agencies, public television/film/radio producers, and more.
    Through its competitive grants programs, the NEH supports the
    preservation of collections that would be otherwise lost, path-breaking
    research that brings critical knowledge to light, programs for teachers
    that enrich instruction in schools, and public programs that reach
    individuals and communities in every district in the country.
        Overall, the NEH's support is crucial for building and sustaining
    humanities' infrastructure in all 50 States, serving American citizens
    at all stages of life.
                                   conclusion
        We recognize that Congress faces difficult choices in allocating
    funds in this and coming years. We ask the subcommittee to consider
    modestly increased funding for the humanities through the NEH as an
    investment in opportunity for all Americans, innovation and economic
    growth, and strengthening our communities. Thank you for your
    consideration of our request and for your past and continued support
    for the humanities.

        Founded in 1981, the National Humanities Alliance advances national
    humanities policy in the areas of research, preservation, public
    programming, and teaching. Nearly 200 organizations are members of NHA,
    including scholarly associations, humanities research centers,
    colleges, universities, and organizations of museums, libraries,
    historical societies, humanities councils, and higher education
    institutions.

        [This statement was submitted by Stephen Kidd, Executive Director.]
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Indian Child Welfare Association
        The National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) is a national
    American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) nonprofit organization. NICWA has
    provided leadership in the development of public policy that supports
    Tribal self-determination in child welfare and children's mental health
    systems for over 30 years. This testimony will provide funding
    recommendations for the following programs administered by the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the Department of the Interior: Indian Child
    Protection and Family Violence Prevention grant programs ($43 million),
    Social Services ($50 million), Welfare Assistance ($80 million), Indian
    Child Welfare Act On or Near Reservation Program grant program (Tribal
    Priority Allocation--$20 million), and Indian Child Welfare Act Off-
    Reservation Program grant program ($5 million).
        In order for AI/AN children to have the full protections and
    supports they need, Congress must appropriate adequate funds to the
    basic child welfare programs and services that Tribal communities, like
    all communities, need. States also rely on Tribes to help them provide
    appropriate child welfare services to AI/AN children and families that
    fall under their jurisdiction.\1\ This includes partnering on
    investigations of child abuse and neglect reports, building case plans
    for families, providing culturally based family services, and securing
    appropriate out-of-home placements. Investments in these programs will
    reduce preventable trauma to children and families, reduce future
    expenditures for more expensive and intrusive services, and decrease
    long-term involvement with the child welfare system.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005). Indian Child
    Welfare Act: Existing information on implementation issues could be
    used to target guidance and assistance to States. Retrieved from http:/
    /www.gao.gov/new.items/d05290.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The recommendations below suggest funding increases that will
    provide Tribal communities with sufficient child welfare funding, avoid
    unnecessary restraint on local Tribal decisionmaking, and support
    established State and Tribal partnerships dedicated to the protection
    of AI/AN children.
                        priority program recommendation
        BIA Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act
    Recommendation: Appropriate for the first time $43 million for the
    three discretionary grant programs under this law--$10 million for the
    Indian Child Abuse Treatment Grant Program, $30 million for the Indian
    Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Grant Program, and $3
    million for the Indian Child Resource and Family Service Centers
    Program to protect AI/AN children from child abuse and neglect. Despite
    overwhelming need these grant programs have never been appropriated
    funds since their inception in 1990.
        The Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act
    (ICPFVPA), Public Law No. 101-630 (1990), was enacted to fill gaps in
    Tribal child welfare services--specifically child protection and child
    abuse treatment--and to ensure better coordination between child
    welfare and domestic violence programs. The act authorizes funding for
    two Tribal programs: (1) the Indian Child Protection and Family
    Violence Prevention Program, which funds prevention programming as well
    as investigation and emergency shelter services for victims of family
    violence; and (2) the Treatment of Victims of Child Abuse and Neglect
    program, which funds treatment programs for victims of child abuse. It
    also authorizes funding to create Indian Child Resource and Family
    Service Centers in each of the BIA regional areas. These centers would
    provide training, technical assistance, and consultation to Tribal
    child protection programs.
        There is an incredible need for family violence prevention and
    treatment resources in AI/AN communities. As recently recognized by
    Congress in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, AI/
    AN women are more likely than any other population to experience
    intimate partner violence. In fact, more than one in three AI/AN women
    experience intimate partner violence at some point in their lives.\2\
    Further, AI/AN children experience child abuse and neglect at an
    elevated rate. They are victims of child maltreatment at a rate of 13.8
    per 1,000, compared to the national rate of 9.2 children per 1,000.\3\
    These problems are intricately intertwined. Studies show that in 49-70
    percent of cases, men who abuse their partners also abuse their
    children,\4\ while child abuse investigations reveal violence against
    the mother in 28-59 percent of all cases.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Black, M. C., & Breiding, M. J. (2008). Adverse health
    conditions and health risk behaviors associated with intimate partner
    violence--United States, 2005. (Table. 1) Morbidity and Mortality
    Weekly Report, 57(5), 113-117.
        \3\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
    for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and
    Families, Children's Bureau. (2015). Child maltreatment 2015.
    Rockville, MD: Author.
        \4\ White Eagle, M., Clairmon, B., & Hunter, L. (2011). Response to
    the co-occurrence of child maltreatment and domestic violence in Indian
    Country: Repairing the harm and protecting children and mothers [Draft]
    (pp. 19-20). West Hollywood, CA: Tribal Law and Policy Institute.
        \5\ Carter, J. (2012). Domestic violence, child abuse, and youth
    violence: Strategies for prevention and early intervention. San
    Francisco, CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Child abuse prevention funding is vital to the well-being and
    financial stability of AI/AN communities. Beyond the emotional trauma
    that maltreatment inflicts, victims of child maltreatment are more
    likely to require special education services, more likely to be
    involved in the juvenile and criminal justice systems, more likely to
    have long-term mental health needs, and have lower earning potential
    than their peers.\6\ Financially, child maltreatment costs Tribal
    communities and the United States $210,012 per victim.\7\ Child abuse
    prevention funding is an investment Tribal communities believe in, but
    need support to fulfill.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Fang, X., Brown, D. S., Florence, C. S., & Mercy, J. A. (2012).
    The economic burden of child maltreatment in the United States and
    implications for prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 156-65. doi:
    10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.10.006.
        \7\ Fang, X., Brown, D. S., Florence, C. S., & Mercy, J. A. (2012).
    The economic burden of child maltreatment in the United States and
    implications for prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 156-65.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         other program recommendations
        BIA Welfare Assistance Program: Increase appropriation levels to
    $80 million to support Tribal services that assist families in crisis,
    prevent child neglect, sustain kinship placements for children placed
    outside their homes, support adults in need of care, and provide final
    expenses.
        The Welfare Assistance line item provides five important forms of
    funding to AI/AN families: (1) general assistance, (2) child
    assistance, (3) non-medical institution or custodial care of adults,
    (4) burial assistance, and (5) emergency assistance.
        AI/AN child welfare programs and social service agencies need to
    have the resources necessary to support families in times of crisis and
    uncertainty. AI/AN adults--including parents and kinship caregivers--
    are unemployed on reservations at a rate more than two times the
    unemployment rate for the total population.\8\ Thirty-four percent of
    AI/AN children live in households with incomes below the poverty line
    as compared to 20.7 percent of children nationwide.\9\ The crippling of
    Native economies before the self-determination era left Tribal
    communities overwhelmingly impoverished, with few economic
    opportunities and high unemployment. The barriers to employment vary
    region to region in Indian Country, but include geographic remoteness,
    a weak private sector, poor basic infrastructure, and even a lack of
    basic law enforcement infrastructure. These conditions make the
    programs funded under welfare assistance an important safety net for
    AI/AN families.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Stegman, E., & Ebarb, A. (2010). Sequestering opportunity for
    American Indians/Alaska Natives (Para. 1). Retrieved from Center for
    American Progress website: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/
    poverty/news/2013/11/26/80056/sequestering-opportunity-for-american-
    indians-and-alaska-natives.
        \9\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources
    and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau. (2013).
    Child health USA 2012 (p. 9). Rockville, MD: Author.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The General Assistance Program provides short-term monetary
    assistance for basic needs like food, clothing, shelter, and utilities
    to individuals who are actively working towards financial stability and
    ineligible for all other financial assistance programs. The Emergency
    Assistance Program provides a one-time emergency payment of less than
    $1,000 to individuals experiencing property damage beyond their
    control. These programs are essential to families experiencing
    unexpected job loss or financial crisis. They often provide the
    assistance necessary to help a family make ends meet and keep their
    children safely in their home.
        The Child Assistance Program provides payments for AI/AN children
    on Tribal lands who must be cared for outside their homes in foster
    care, adoptive, or guardianship placements and who are not eligible for
    other Federal or State child placement funds.
        The current funding for the Welfare Assistance Program does not
    begin to meet the needs in Tribal communities. This leaves families in
    poverty and caregivers willing to take children who have been abused or
    neglected into their homes without sufficient financial support.
        BIA Indian Child Welfare Act Program: Increase appropriations to
    the Indian Child Welfare Act On or Near Reservation Program grant
    program to $20 million and the Off Reservation grant program to $5
    million.
        The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was a response to national
    findings that public and private child welfare agencies were
    systematically removing AI/AN children from their homes and communities
    at horrendous rates, often without due process and under questionable
    circumstances. To prevent these troubling practices, which
    unfortunately still occur today, Congress provided protections to AI/AN
    families in State child welfare and judicial systems under ICWA. It
    also recognizes the authority of Tribal nations to provide child
    welfare services and adjudicate child welfare matters. To effectuate
    these provisions, ICWA authorized grant programs to fund child welfare
    services on or near reservations and for ICWA support in off-
    reservation, urban Indian programs.
        At the time that ICWA was passed in 1978, Congress estimated that
    between $26 million--$62 million would be required to fully fund Tribal
    child welfare programs on or near reservations.\10\ Even after an
    important fiscal year 2015 increase as part of the Tiwahe Initiative,
    current funding levels fall far short of this estimate--especially
    after adjusting for inflation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ S. Rep. No. 95-597 (p. 19) (1977).

            Appropriate $5 million for the authorized, but unfunded, Off-
            Reservation ICWA Program to ensure all AI/AN children receive
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            effective services as required by ICWA.

        According to the 2010 Census, 67 percent of AI/AN people lived off-
    reservation. These children and families are best served when State
    child welfare systems are not only working with the child's Tribe, but
    also with urban Indian child welfare programs. These programs provide
    assistance to States and the child's Tribe, and provide culturally
    appropriate child welfare services. For this reason, ICWA authorizes
    child welfare funding for urban Indian programs. From 1979-1996,
    funding was allocated to urban organizations serving Native children
    and families. When funded, off-reservation programs provided important
    services such as recruitment of Native foster care homes, child abuse
    prevention efforts, and culturally appropriate case management and
    wraparound services. When funding stopped, the majority of these
    programs disintegrated even as the population of AI/AN children off-
    reservation increased. This funding must be reinstated.
        BIA Social Services Program: Provide $50 million to fortify child
    protective services and ensure meaningful technical assistance to
    Tribal social service programs across Indian Country.
        The Social Services Program provides a wide array of family support
    services, filling many funding gaps for Tribal programs and ensuring
    Federal staff and support for these programs. Importantly, the Social
    Services Program provides the only BIA and Tribal-specific funding
    available for ongoing operation of child protective services in Indian
    Country. It also funds BIA social workers at regional and agency
    offices, and funds training and technical assistance to Tribal social
    service programs and workers.
        The Social Services Program is drastically underfunded and as a
    result, AI/AN children and families suffer. Recent increases as part of
    the Tiwahe Initiative are to be commended and their momentum must be
    continued. This recommended increase will ensure that basic child
    protective services are provided in Tribal communities across the
    country, that Tribes have access to meaningful training and technical
    assistance, and that the BIA has the resources necessary to fill
    service gaps. The Tribal Interior Budget Council estimated an unmet
    need of $32 million on top of the fiscal year 2015 enacted level during
    Tribal budget formulation for fiscal year 2017.
                                     ______

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

        Good afternoon. I am Stephen Schoenholtz, Director of the Virginia
    Water Resources Research Center at Virginia Tech. Thank you for this
    opportunity to testify on behalf of National Institutes for Water
    Resources (NIWR), in support of the Water Resources Research Act
    program, a program funded as part of the U.S. Geological Survey's
    (USGS) budget. I specifically want to thank you for the subcommittee's
    strong continuing support for the Water Resources Research Act, and
    request that the subcommittee fund the WRRA program in fiscal year 2018
    at $9 million.
        The Water Resources Research Act, enacted in 1964, is designed to
    expand and provide more effective coordination of the Nation's water
    research. The Act establishes water resources research institutes
    (Institutes) at lead institutions in each State, as well as for
    Washington D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Federated
    States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
    and American Samoa.
        Congress created the Institutes to fulfill three main objectives:
      --Develop, through research, new technology and more efficient
            methods for resolving local, State, and national water
            resources challenges;
      --Train water scientists and engineers through on-the-job
            participation in research; and
      --Facilitate water research coordination and the application of
            research results through dissemination of information and
            technology transfers.

        Since 1964, the Water Resources Research Institutes have fulfilled
    these three objectives in partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey.
    The Institutes, managed by a director in each State, promote water-
    related research, education, and technology transfer at the national,
    State, and local level through grants and sponsored projects. The
    program is the only federally-mandated research network that focuses on
    applied water resource research, education, training, and outreach.
        The Water Resources Research Institutes program is a State-based
    network dedicated to solving problems of water quantity (supply) and
    quality in partnership with universities, local governments, the water
    industry, non-governmental organizations, and the general public. Each
    State contributes a minimum of a 2:1 match if non-Federal funds to
    Federal funds, thus ensuring that local and regional priorities are
    addressed and the impact of Federal dollars is maximized. The
    Institutes are a direct, vital link between Federal water interests and
    needs and the expertise located within the States' research
    universities.
        The Water Resources Research Institutes program also provides a
    mechanism for ensuring State, regional, and national coordination of
    water resources research, education of future water professionals, and
    proper transfer and utilization of results and outcomes. In fact, the
    Institutes collaborate with 150 State agencies, 180 Federal agencies,
    and more than 165 local and municipal offices.
        For more than five decades, the Institutes, in partnership with
    USGS, have provided significant research results and services to our
    Nation and proven successful at bringing new water professionals into
    the work force. Although these projects primarily focus on State needs,
    they also address water issues relevant to our Nation. The following
    are several examples of research conducted by Institutes across the
    country.
        My Institute, the Virginia Water Resources Research Center (VWRRC),
    is a research unit in the College of Natural Resources and Environment
    at Virginia Tech. Planning and sustainable management of surface water
    and groundwater supplies has become a significant issue for Virginia.
    In 2015, the Virginia General Assembly directed their Joint Legislative
    Audit and Review Commission to assess accuracy and effectiveness of
    Virginia's planning and permitting program for sustainable water
    supply. The VWRRC was contracted by JLARC to form an advisory committee
    and to conduct research on the State's sustainability model for
    groundwater in eastern Virginia and for surface water throughout the
    State. A resultant report produced by the VWRRC in 2016 was used by
    JLARC to inform the General Assembly of the effectiveness of current
    efforts to sustainably manage water supplies and to recommend
    considerations for improvements.
        In 2015, Alaska's Sagavanirktok (Sag) River flooded the Dalton
    Highway, cutting off the only overland passage to the Prudhoe Bay
    Oilfields for a period of approximately 3 weeks. Following that event,
    the University of Alaska Fairbanks Water and Environmental Research
    Center has been continuously working with the Department of
    Transportation and Alyeska Pipeline Services Company to understand Sag
    River flood dynamics and reduce the risk of highway and/or pipeline
    damage from future flooding events.
        Researchers with the New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute
    developed an innovative desalination technology to remove organic
    substances and salts from water produced from oil and gas exploration.
    Water in this system can be potentially recycled in the industrial
    process making it more cost-effective. The technology also uses
    bacteria to convert biodegradable pollutants into electricity, which
    offsets operation energy use or supplies additional energy for other
    systems for operators.
        Researchers at the Nevada Water Resources Research Institute are
    studying issues associated with water reuse--a water supply strategy of
    particular importance to water-scarce regions. Work includes
    identifying contaminants, evaluating existing and emerging treatment
    technologies, assessing potential public health and environmental
    health impacts, and outreach to the public.
        Research being funded through the Maine Water Resources Research
    Institute will help determine what remediation efforts might be
    required by drinking water utilities in the wake of an increase in the
    rate and intensity of precipitation events and associated rapid runoff.
    These extreme events wash organic matter into lakes that can ultimately
    cause a buildup of organic carbon that can trigger disastrous algal
    blooms, taste and odor problems, and may form unhealthy by-products.
    Their work will inform the development of management and adaptation
    strategies to ensure sustained high water quality.
        There are two grant components of the USGS Water Resources Research
    Institutes program.
        The State Water Research Grants provide competitive seed grant
    funding opportunities for State water institutes for research
    priorities that focus on State, local, and community water resources
    problems. The study areas span the spectrum of water supply, water
    quality, and public policy issues of water management. These seed
    grants are used to develop future research proposals and secure
    additional external funding.
        The National Competitive Grants program promotes collaboration
    between the USGS and university scientists in research on significant
    regional and national water resources issues and promotes dissemination
    of results of the research funded under this program.
        With our funding and educational services, water-related
    professionals and researchers provide solutions to the many complex
    water management challenges we face, including toxicity in urban
    stormwater runoff, managing aquifer recharge in drought--stricken
    communities, and monitoring and alleviating human and ecological health
    impacts associated with water reuse.
        Our Nation faces growing challenges in providing water for
    agriculture, human consumption, industrial use, and natural resource
    applications. Institutes also use their base grants to help train new
    scientists, disseminate research results to water managers and the
    public, and promote intrastate and regional collaboration. The Water
    Resources Research Institutes serve to build the STEM workforce as we
    enter a period in which there will be a disproportionate number of
    retirements in all sectors.
        For fiscal year 2018, the National Institutes for Water Resources
    recommends the subcommittee provide $9,000,000 to the USGS for the
    Water Resources Research Institute program. We respectfully submit
    that, even in times of fiscal challenges, investing in programs at USGS
    focused on data collection and the reliability and quality of water
    supplies is critically important to the health, safety, quality of
    life, and economic vitality of communities across the Nation.
        Thank you, on behalf of all the Institute directors, for the
    opportunity to testify and for the subcommittee's strong support of the
    Water Resources Research Institutes program.

        [This statement was submitted by Dr. Stephen H. Schoenholtz,
    Director, Virginia Water Resources Research Center.]
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the National Opera Center of America
                                (OPERA America)
        Madam Chairman and distinguished Members of the subcommittee, I am
    grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of OPERA
    America, its Board of Directors and its more than 2,000 organizational
    and individual members. We strongly urge the Subcommittee on Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies in the Committee on Appropriations to
    designate a total of $155 million to the National Endowment for the
    Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2018. This testimony and the funding
    examples described below are intended to highlight the importance of
    Federal investment in the arts, so critical to sustaining a vibrant
    cultural community throughout the country.
        The NEA makes it possible for everyone to enjoy and benefit from
    the performing arts. Before the establishment of the NEA in 1965,
    funding for the arts was mostly limited to larger cities. The NEA has
    helped to strengthen regional dance, opera, theater and other artistic
    disciplines that Americans enjoy. NEA funding provides access to the
    arts in regions with histories of inaccessibility due to economic or
    geographic limitations. Not only has every congressional district
    received direct funding from the NEA, but 40 percent of the NEA's
    budget is automatically distributed to State arts councils, reaching
    tens of thousands of audience members and communities across the
    country.
        The NEA envisions a ``nation in which every American benefits from
    arts engagement, and every community recognizes and celebrates its
    aspirations and achievements through the arts.'' The agency has helped
    the arts become accessible to more Americans, which in turn has
    increased public participation in the arts.
        Opera is a continuously growing art form that can address the
    diverse needs and backgrounds of our communities. New opera companies
    are being established in communities that have never before had access
    to live performances. OPERA America's membership includes approximately
    160 professional U.S. company members representing 48 States (including
    DC).
        Opera audiences are growing more diverse. From 2008 to 2012, the
    percentage of African American attendees increased by 59 percent,
    Hispanic attendance grew by 8.3 percent, and those of other non-white
    groups grew by 19.4 percent. During this time period, younger audiences
    have also increased. The 18-24 age bracket grew by 43.2 percent and
    those in the 25-34 bracket grew by 33.8 percent.
        Since 1900, nearly 1,000 new operatic works have been produced by
    professional opera companies in North America. Of that 1,000, 589
    operas premiered between 1995 and 2015. In the 2015-2016 season, 33
    North American operas premiered. The growth in number and quality of
    American opera corresponds directly to the investment of the NEA's
    earlier investment in the New American Works program of the former
    Opera-Music Theater Program.
        Beyond the opera house, opera companies are finding new and
    exciting ways to bring the essence of opera to other local theaters and
    community centers, frequently with new and innovative works that
    reflect the diverse cultures of the cities they serve. Strong
    partnerships with local schools extend the civic reach of opera
    companies as they introduce children to a multi-media art form and
    discover promising young talent.
        The NEA is a great investment in the economic growth of every
    community. Despite diminished resources, including a budget that is $17
    million less than it was in 2010, the NEA awarded more than 2,400
    grants in 2016 in nearly 16,000 communities. These grants nurture the
    growth and artistic excellence of thousands of arts organizations and
    artists in every corner of the country. NEA grants also preserve and
    enhance our Nation's diverse cultural heritage. The modest public
    investment in the Nation's cultural life results in both new and
    classic works of art, reaching the residents of all 50 States and in
    every congressional district.
        In 2016, small-sized organizations (organizations with budgets
    under $350,000 per year) received 30 percent of the NEA's direct grants
    and 40 percent of NEA supported activity took place in high poverty
    neighborhoods.
        The return of the Federal Government's small investment in the arts
    is striking. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the NEA
    developed an ``Arts and Cultural Production Satellite Account'' which
    calculated the arts and culture sector's contributions to the gross
    domestic product (GDP) at 4.2 percent (or $729.6 billion) of current-
    dollar GDP in 2014. Additionally, the nonprofit performing arts
    industry generates $135.2 billion annually in economic activity,
    supports more than 4.13 million full-time equivalent jobs in the arts,
    and returns $9.59 billion in Federal taxes (Arts and Economic
    Prosperity IV, Americans for the Arts). It is estimated that the North
    American opera industry injects over $1 billion directly into the
    economy each year.
        On average each NEA grant leverages at $9 from private and public
    funds. Few other Federal investments realize such economic benefits,
    not to mention the intangible benefits that only the arts make
    possible. The NEA continues to be a beacon for arts organizations
    across the country.
        The return on investments is not only found in dollars. In 2012,
    2.2 million people volunteered 210 million hours with arts and cultural
    organizations, totaling an estimated value of $5.2 billion--a
    demonstration that citizens value the arts in their communities.
                               nea grants at work
        Past NEA funding has directly supported projects in which arts
    organizations, artists, schools and teachers collaborated to provide
    opportunities for adults and children to create, perform, and respond
    to artistic works. NEA funding has also made the art form more widely
    available in all States, including isolated rural areas and inner
    cities.
        The more than 2,400 grants awarded to nonprofit arts organizations
    and arts programs supported projects that encourage artistic creativity
    and bring the arts to millions of Americans.
        NEA grants are awarded to opera organizations through its core
    programs: Art Works; Challenge America Fast Track Grants; and Federal/
    State Partnerships. In fiscal year 2016, the NEA awarded 66 grants to
    the opera field through the Art Works category, totaling $2,133,000.
    The Industry
    $12,000
    Los Angeles, CA
        To support the premiere of a new multidisciplinary opera,
    ``Galileo,'' by composer Andy Akiho. Adapted from Bertolt Brecht's
    play, ``Life of Galileo,'' the work will connect Brecht's text to a
    contemporary aesthetic, exploring new ways of realizing his theatrical
    theories. To draw out the mythical, promethean strands of the play's
    themes, the opera will be staged around an enormous bonfire on a
    stretch of public beach in Santa Monica, near the Santa Monica
    Mountains National Park. Director Yuval Sharon will create a new
    version of Brecht's original work which composer Andy Akiho will set to
    music. The project's multidisciplinary collaborations with a Los
    Angeles-based theater and dance company will continue the
    organization's mission of creating new works that honor the origins of
    the genre while pushing to expand its traditional boundaries.
    Opera Theatre of Saint Louis
    $90,000
    St. Louis, MO
        To support the creation and production of a new performing edition
    of ``The Grapes of Wrath,'' by composer Ricky Ian Gordon and librettist
    Michael Korie. Based on John Steinbeck's 1939 novel of the same name,
    the story follows the Joad family's fight for survival from the Dust
    Bowl in Oklahoma to California during the Great Depression. The opera
    premiered in 2007 as a large-scale production that included three acts,
    nearly 50 featured singers, and a four-hour run-time. The composer and
    librettist developed a shorter, two-act version that required fewer
    performers on stage and will be more accessible to a greater number of
    opera companies for future productions.
    Intermountain Opera Bozeman
    $10,000
    Bozeman, MT
        To support performances of Donizetti's ``The Daughter of the
    Regiment,'' with related audience engagement activities. Educational
    and outreach activities include a public workshop, a performance for
    elementary school students, a class for students at Bozeman High
    School, a class for adults at Montana State University (MSU), and
    master classes for MSU vocal students.
    Opera Memphis
    $30,000
    Memphis, TN
        To support 30 Days of Opera. The fifth year of the initiative will
    be comprised of a month of admission-free opera performances featuring
    an original children's opera, ``pop-up'' style opera performances, and
    masterclasses. Activities will include both structured concerts and
    educational workshops, as well as collaborative performances with
    community organizations.
        Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending
    Federal tax dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered
    from a 40 percent budget cut in the mid-nineties, leaving its programs
    seriously underfunded. The continued bipartisan support for the NEA has
    continued to support artists and audiences, allowing opera and the arts
    to address critical issues, making communities healthier and more
    vibrant. The ``Dear Colleague'' letter in the U.S. House of
    Representatives received a record 154 signatures in support of the NEA.
        We urge you to continue toward restoration and increase the NEA
    funding allocation to $155 million for fiscal year 2018.
        On behalf of OPERA America, thank you for considering this request.

        [This statement was submitted by Marc A. Scorca, president and CEO,
    OPERA America.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Parks Conservation Association
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and Members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on
    behalf of National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). Founded in
    1919, NPCA is the leading national, independent voice for protecting
    and enhancing America's National Park System for present and future
    generations. I appreciate the opportunity to provide our views
    regarding the National Park Service (NPS) fiscal year 2018 budget.
        National parks protect America's heritage and deliver robust
    economic returns of $10 in economic benefits nationally for every
    dollar invested in the NPS. The economic value of parks has grown along
    with visitation so that last year, national parks supported nearly $35
    billion in economic activity and 318,000 jobs. NPCA and other polling
    indicates the vast popularity of national parks and strong bipartisan
    support for adequately funding them. And of course they are deeply
    loved by the American people in part because they protect our cultural
    and natural heritage.
        We acknowledge the tremendous challenge the subcommittee faces in
    setting thoughtful spending priorities, so we are grateful for your
    consistent support for national parks. NPCA and our partners in the
    National Parks Second Century Action Coalition commend your
    subcommittee for providing needed increases for the National Park
    Service the last four fiscal years, with a particularly noteworthy
    increase in fiscal year 2016. This will be helpful for parks to try to
    keep up with their funding challenges. As they are still behind where
    they need to be to meet their mission, we urge you to do your best to
    build on this support as the System enters its next century of service
    to the American people.

        Top three fiscal year 2018 Priorities: NPCA requests appropriated
    funding for NPS with a focus on these accounts:

        1.  $2,535,436,369 for `Operation of the National Park System'
        2.  $303,089,287 for `National Parks Construction'
        3.  $30,000,000 for `National Park Partnerships'/Centennial
    Challenge

        These amounts represent a similar increase as that enacted for the
    system's centennial year.

        However, we must note there are other programs critical to NPCA. My
    testimony outlines these and several other issues:

      --The Budget Control Act and need for another budget deal;
      --Park operations and construction funding and their connection to
            the maintenance backlog;
      --The Centennial Challenge program;
      --The Land and Water Conservation Fund and Historic Preservation
            Fund;
      --National Heritage Areas;
      --The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act;
      --Policy riders;
      --And the administration's workforce reduction effort.

        Budget Control Act (BCA) and budget process: We've been dismayed to
    see the many challenges to the budget and appropriations process in
    recent years, and the threat and harm they have brought to national
    parks. We were deeply discouraged in fiscal year 2013 when the BCA, due
    to the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to
    identify offsets, mandated sequester cuts that were so damaging to
    national park operations that they resulted in shuttered facilities and
    thousands of ranger positions going unfilled. We were consequently
    pleased with the 2-year budget deals that have provided needed relief
    from that indiscriminate and damaging instrument with spending levels
    that are already austere absent the sequester.
        One of our largest concerns now is the need for another budget deal
    to prevent the sequester, and we urge the committee to work with your
    colleagues to ensure a deal. We are urging Congress to reach such a
    deal as a central component of our fiscal year 2018 advocacy.
        The President's fiscal year 2018 budget: Not helpful to fiscal year
    2018 is the extraordinarily damaging president's budget, which if
    enacted would be the largest cut to the park service since WWII. It
    seeks to cut more than 1,200 staff (FTEs), cut park operations by 8
    percent, reduce deferred maintenance funding despite claims to the
    contrary, and much more. The deep cut to EPA threatens the health of
    park air and waters. We urge the subcommittee to wholeheartedly reject
    that deeply flawed proposal.
        The Interior allocation: NPCA believes the allocation provided to
    the subcommittee in recent years has been insufficient and emblematic
    of the austere constraints on domestic discretionary investments. In
    part to address this concern, we continue to urge legislation to
    address the dysfunctional system of catastrophic wildfire funding that
    burdens the Interior allocation. We support a clean fire funding fix, a
    bipartisan solution that would 1) access disaster funding, 2) minimize
    transfers, and 3) address the continued erosion of agency budgets over
    time, with the goal of reinvesting in key programs that would restore
    forests to healthier conditions.
        Further, we feel that the Interior subcommittee allocation is
    unlikely to ever be sufficient to meet the full needs of the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), the National Park System backlog, or
    the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Secure Rural Schools (SRS)
    programs, all of which should receive mandatory funding support outside
    of the Interior bill.
        Park operations and the maintenance backlog: The subcommittee's
    recent increases for maintenance accounts will be very helpful for
    national parks--but we regret to acknowledge that more is needed. After
    adjusting for inflation, fiscal year 2017 levels for park operations is
    still $96 million, or 4 percent below levels in fiscal year 2010, when
    NPCA analysis indicated an annual operations shortfall of approximately
    a half billion dollars. Many parks remain understaffed: between fiscal
    year 2010 and fiscal year 2016, FTEs for the park service were reduced
    by 2,515 FTEs--an 11.3 percent reduction in staff (from fiscal year
    2018 NPS budget justifications). As you know, these losses can be
    damaging, with impacts such as less day-to-day maintenance, less
    scientific inventory and monitoring, reduced hours or even closed
    public facilities, fewer visitor programs, and other challenges to
    parks fulfilling their mission. The challenge is compounded by a 13
    percent increase in visitation over the last 2 years, with some parks
    struggling with much more than that average.
        Support for our request would help address the $11.3 billion
    deferred maintenance backlog. The backlog continues to threaten the
    protection of nationally significant resources and, eventually the
    experience of visitors. Recent increases have been helpful but are
    still insufficient to meet the need. While the backlog is one of our
    highest funding priorities, we do not want a focus on the backlog to
    cause other needed work to fall further behind; therefore, we
    respectfully request broad investments in park operations to address
    cyclic maintenance and repair and rehabilitation, but also,
    importantly, the many operating needs beyond maintenance.
        Construction and the backlog: The NPS construction account is a
    principal mechanism for addressing major repair needs, yet even after
    the fiscal year 2016 increase in that account, it remains $286 million,
    or 58 percent below levels of 15 years ago after adjusting for
    inflation. This is why the requested increase for this account is so
    important to address needed projects throughout the park system.
        Dedicated backlog funding: We respect that it can be very difficult
    to identify budgetary offsets for mandatory programs, yet urge Congress
    to recognize that a more realistic long-term solution is needed to
    address the maintenance backlog. Under current allocations established
    by the BCA, it is difficult to see how this subcommittee will be able
    to address even the highest priority non-transportation facilities'
    needs. We were grateful for the recent opportunity to testify to the
    House Natural Resources Committee on this issue on March 16th, 2017 and
    recommend review of NPCA's testimony submitted for that hearing.
        We are heartened at the bipartisan introduction of the National
    Park Service Legacy Act, S. 751 and H.R. 2584. We're grateful of the
    support of several Interior appropriators for those bills. We urge the
    members of the committee to cosponsor the bill and work with other
    members of Congress and the administration to ensure its passage as a
    standalone bill or as a component of a larger infrastructure package or
    other appropriate bill.
        Centennial Challenge: We commend this subcommittee for restoring
    the Centennial Challenge program in fiscal year 2015, and for the
    increases for the program in fiscal year 2016 and 2017. This support
    has leveraged more than two dollars for every dollar invested for
    signature projects across the National Park System that enhance the
    visiting experience. Many more philanthropic opportunities await, so we
    hope the subcommittee can support the request for an increase in this
    exciting program that enjoys strong bipartisan support. We commend
    Congress for passage of the Centennial Act in the last Congress to
    dedicate funding to that program and to a newly established endowment.
    Given the extraordinary philanthropic interest in the program,
    sustained or increased appropriations would help leverage additional
    philanthropic dollars--a wise investment. We understand the intent of
    the committee in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus report in directing
    Centennial Challenge dollars to focus on deferred maintenance. While we
    commend you on the increase and concur that maintenance is a pressing
    need as outlined above, we fear this could have the effect of competing
    with investments in the many philanthropic-driven projects that improve
    the visiting experience in other ways beyond maintenance.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF): The acquisition of
    inholdings is directly related to better managing the places in which
    our nation already has made a significant investment. Thus we urge
    support for the NPS Federal land acquisition and management portion of
    LWCF, a critical tool for protecting our national parks. We were
    pleased the fiscal year 2016 omnibus included better funding for the
    LWCF program and a 3-year reauthorization. However, we were also
    disappointed to see a cut to LWCF in fiscal year 2017, leaving
    insufficient funds for several proposed projects. We urge the
    subcommittee to reject the president's draconian request for this
    account and restore appropriated funding. Additionally, we request
    support for permanent reauthorization of the program through support
    for H.R. 502, which now has more than 160 bipartisan cosponsors.
        Historic Preservation Fund (HPF): The HPF provides the primary
    source of funding for State Historic and Tribal Historic Preservation
    Offices in all 50 States. The HPF also supports the Historic Tax Credit
    program, responsible for the rehabilitation of over 40,000 buildings,
    the creation of 2.5 million jobs and the leveraging of $117 billion in
    private investments in historic preservation projects. We commend the
    committee on the increase for the fund in fiscal year 2017 to $81
    million and request continued support for the program at that level.
        National Heritage Areas (NHAs): NPCA is a strong supporter of the
    National Heritage Area program. The 49 existing NHAs have generated $12
    billion in economic activity and $1.2 billion in tax revenues, and
    generated over 900,000 volunteer service hours. This mighty program
    with a modest budget ($19.8 million in fiscal year 2017) deserves
    support from both Congress and the president. Furthermore, support for
    H.R. 1002 would establish a program structure and provide uniform
    standards for designating, funding and assessing all NHAs.
        Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA): We appreciate
    this subcommittee has supported short-term extensions of FLREA.
    Reauthorization is critical for NPS to retain needed fee revenue. As
    NPCA continues to support a long-term reauthorization of FLREA with the
    respective authorizing committees, we ask the subcommittee to continue
    support for annual extensions.
        Policy Riders: Efforts to attach environmentally damaging policy
    riders only further threatens the appropriations process, so we were
    grateful that the final fiscal year 2017 bill was largely free of the
    many proposed riders that would have threatened parks, their
    ecosystems, and the health of visitors and wildlife within them. We
    urge continued rejection of efforts to attach damaging riders.
        The Administration's Workforce Reduction Effort: We are deeply
    concerned about the administration's effort to reduce the size of the
    Federal workforce as it relates to the park service and the agencies
    that support it, particularly EPA, which ensures the health of park
    water and air. As noted earlier, parks are already understaffed. We are
    concerned not only about the potential for this process to further
    reduce park service staff but also to eliminate or merge important
    programs and offices. We ask the committee to monitor this exercise and
    remind the administration that these actions are within your
    jurisdiction. One option for such a statement would be through report
    language similar to that provided in the Agriculture section of the
    fiscal year 2017 omnibus report.
        In conclusion: NPCA has emphasized to this subcommittee over the
    years the importance of providing more adequate funding for America's
    treasures. As the subcommittee has acknowledged, the National Park
    Service and System are deeply popular with the American public and are
    important for local economies. As we emphasize the importance of
    providing staff to serve record numbers of visitors, and staff and
    resources to address the repairs backlog, we should not forget the
    profound importance of park sites in preserving and interpreting our
    natural and cultural heritage--a heritage that defines America's very
    identity. This subcommittee has recognized these places as priorities;
    we again commend you for supporting their needs and urge your
    continuing support.
        This subcommittee and its House counterpart have also emphasized
    the importance of a sustainable funding model for NPS. As you know,
    NPCA has long explored concepts that supplement but do not supplant the
    Federal responsibility to appropriate funding for our nation's parks.
    In this spirit, we again urge cosponsorship of the maintenance backlog
    legislation, S. 751.
        Again, respectfully recognizing what we expect will be another
    constrained allocation, we urge you to provide the best funding level
    possible for NPS to help the agency recover from underfunding.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

        [This statement was submitted by John Garder, Director of Budget
    and Appropriations.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Recreation and Park Association
        Thank you Chairwoman Murkowski, Senator Udall, and other honorable
    Members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit written
    testimony pertaining to funding for the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund's (LWCF) State Assistance Program and in the fiscal year 2018
    Interior Appropriations bill.
    Overview of Funding Request:
        As outlined below, we encourage you to renew the Federal investment
    in the LWCF. However, given that the purpose of the Act is to help
    preserve, develop, and assure access to outdoor recreation facilities
    to strengthen the health of U.S. citizens, we urge you to make a
    greater investment in States and local communities by:
      --Allocating a minimum of 40 percent of fiscal year 2018 LWCF
            appropriations to the State Assistance Program;
      --If not at least 40 percent overall, than a minimum of $110 million
            in overall funding for the State Assistance Program, which is
            consistent with the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2017;
      --Continuing the innovative, ``Outdoor Recreation Legacy
            Partnership'' (ORLP) competitive grant program in the amount of
            $12 million; and,
      --Find a permanent solution to fully fund the LWCF at its authorized
            amount of $900 million, again, with a minimum of 40 percent of
            annual funding allocated to the State Assistance Program.
    About the National Recreation and Park Association:
        The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), is a nonprofit
    organization dedicated to the advancement of public parks, recreation
    and conservation efforts nationwide. Our members touch the lives of
    every American in every community every day. Through our network of
    more than 50,000 professional members and advocates we represent park
    and recreation departments in cities, counties, townships, special park
    districts, and regional park authorities, along with citizens concerned
    with ensuring close-to-home access to parks and recreation
    opportunities exist in their communities. Everything we support and do
    leverages their role in conservation, health and wellness, and social
    equity to improve the communities in which they work, play and live.
    40 Percent Allocation of Total LWCF Appropriations to the State
            Assistance Program:
        The LWCF State Assistance Program provides dollar-for-dollar
    matching grants to States and local communities for the construction of
    outdoor recreation projects. The land purchased with LWCF State
    Assistance funding remains the property of the State or local
    government, and the resources developed through the LWCF remain
    publicly accessible in perpetuity.
        The LWCF provides numerous benefits to local communities across
    America, and it does so through a dedicated funding source--namely oil
    and gas leasing revenues from the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The
    Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) anticipates that a minimum of
    $4 billion will be generated from these leases in 2017 alone, with only
    a small fraction (approximately 10 percent using final fiscal year 2017
    funding levels) provided overall to the LWCF. Unfortunately an even
    more miniscule amount is provided to the State Assistance Program. This
    is in large part due to the fact that current law mandates that a
    minimum of 40 percent of the total LWCF annual appropriations must be
    provided to the Federal land acquisition program without specifying an
    amount for the State Assistance Program. As a result, States and local
    communities have historically received a very disproportionate share of
    the total LWCF appropriations, with less than 15 percent of total LWCF
    funding going to the State Assistance Program since 1998.
        With this as background, we thank you very much for your efforts in
    fiscal year 2016, which led to the highest total appropriation for LWCF
    in years. You also realized that a higher percentage of overall LWCF
    dollars should be allocated to the States for the purpose of meeting
    the ever increasing need for safe and accessible close-to-home
    recreation. The $110 million for State Assistance in fiscal year 2016
    represents approximately one-quarter of overall LWCF appropriations for
    the year.
        For fiscal year 2017, while the overall appropriation for LWCF was
    reduced compared to the previous year, we're grateful that the State
    Assistance Program was maintained at the same $110 million total
    amount.
        While this amount signifies a major improvement over the long-term
    average of, again, less than 15 percent of total LWCF spending, we call
    upon the subcommittee to seek a permanent solution to funding the LWCF
    at its authorized amount of $900 million, with the State and Local
    Assistance Program receiving at least 40 percent of overall LWCF
    expenditures each year. With four-out-of-five Americans now living in
    our larger communities, and the fact the original LWCF Act called for
    60 percent to State Assistance, it's reasonable that the formula grants
    to the States for outdoor recreation should receive a more equitable
    distribution of LWCF dollars annually.
        We agree on the importance of preserving and providing access to
    our national treasures for all to enjoy--and congratulate and recognize
    the National Park Service as it enters its second century. However,
    we'd like to remind you that many treasured public areas are NOT
    located on Federal property.
        For the reasons outlined below, we are asking you to empower States
    and local communities to do more to preserve, develop, and assure
    access to outdoor recreation facilities to strengthen our Nation by
    allocating 40 percent of total LWCF appropriations to the State
    Assistance Program in fiscal year 2018.
    LWCF State Assistance's Return on Investment and Return on Objective:
        One of the key aspects of the LWCF State Assistance Program is the
    ability to create jobs. The outdoor recreation industry, as such is
    supported by LWCF State Assistance, is an economic powerhouse in the
    United States. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, the
    industry generates $887 billion in consumer spending and supports over
    7 million jobs annually.\1\ In fact, our own research has determined
    that America's local and regional public park agencies generated nearly
    $140 billion in economic activity and supported nearly 1 million jobs
    from their operations and capital spending alone in 2013.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Outdoor Industry Association, ``The Outdoor Recreation Economy
    Report 2017''.
        \2\ NRPA, ``The Economic Impact of Local Parks'' published 2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Considering there are 7,800 State and over 100,000 locally managed
    parks throughout the country, it is obvious that outdoor recreation is
    most prevalent at the State and local level, and it is the LWCF State
    Assistance Program which serves as the catalyst for so many of the
    places, spaces, and opportunities for outdoor recreation which
    stimulates the outdoor economy.
        When viewed through the lens of the importance of the American
    outdoor recreation industry, the LWCF State Assistance Program has, for
    more than four decades, achieved a proven return on investment (ROI)
    demonstrated by the fact that $4 billion in Federal support has been
    matched and leveraged to provide more than $8 billion in total public
    investment. But the benefits of this program, don't stop there, as the
    State Assistance Program has not only provided a ROI, but has also done
    a tremendous job of providing an outstanding ``return on objective''
    for the American taxpayer by ensuring access for all to nearby public
    spaces, in perpetuity.
        Not everyone has the ability to visit one of our treasured national
    parks, and even those who do so are unable to on a regular basis. Their
    visits are often destination vacations or once-in-a-lifetime trips. To
    the average American, however, the neighborhood park--down the street,
    open and accessible to the public, and without an admission fee--is the
    most important public space in their lives. The State Assistance
    Program has played a critical role in the creation of these important
    places, with more than 40,400 grant projects covering nearly every
    county across America.
        The LWCF State Assistance Program is dedicated to ensuring that
    Americans have access to close-to-home public recreation opportunities.
    It is a means by which the subcommittee can provide investment to
    critically important local park infrastructure, including: a new soccer
    field at Sisterhood Park in Anchorage, Alaska; enhancements at
    Bluewater Lake State Park near Perwitt, New Mexico; and an accessible
    playground at Fall Creek Falls State Park in Spencer, Tennessee. Each
    of the aforementioned communities benefited from State Assistance grant
    funding since 2013.
    LWCF State Assistance Provides Health and Environmental Benefits:
        In addition to creating jobs and ensuring access for all, the LWCF
    State Assistance Program delivers tangible health benefits,
    contributing to the physical, mental and overall social health and
    well-being of Americans. The CDC reports obesity is now a leading cause
    of chronic disease and identifies increased access to parks, green
    space, and recreation opportunities is essential to becoming a
    healthier Nation and reducing unsustainable healthcare costs.
        The LWCF State Assistance Program also significantly contributes to
    protecting the environment and promoting environmental stewardship.
    LWCF State Assistance projects have a historical record of contributing
    to reduced and delayed storm water runoff volumes, enhanced groundwater
    recharge, storm water pollutant reductions, reduced sewer overflow
    events, increased carbon sequestration, urban heat island mitigation
    and reduced energy demands, resulting in improved air quality,
    increased wildlife habitat, and increased land values on the local
    level.
    Maintaining The Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Competitive Grant
            Program:
        While the LWCF has indeed benefited virtually every community in
    the country, many of our Nation's cities and urbanized counties face
    distinct challenges that require additional resources. Recognizing this
    fact as well as the importance of public parks and recreation to larger
    urban renewal and community development efforts, Congress established
    the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) to provide
    matching grants directly to localities in metropolitan areas. Over the
    course of two decades UPARR provided $272 million for nearly 1,500
    projects in 380 communities. This enabled neighborhoods across the
    country to restore both outdoor and indoor recreation facilities;
    support innovative recreational programming and enhance delivery of
    services and programs that provided constructive alternatives to at-
    risk youth. Despite its successes, UPARR has not been funded since
    fiscal year 2002, yet many of the urban open space and recreation
    challenges still exist today.
        With UPARR now dormant for over a decade, we appreciate greatly
    your recognition for the need to target some State Assistance dollars
    to assist our most underserved, urban communities. Your support has led
    to the development of what is now known as the Outdoor Recreation
    Legacy Partnership (ORLP) program. This national competitive grant
    program complements the traditional State Assistance formula grants
    program by focusing on national priorities, specifically helping urban
    communities to acquire or develop land to create or reinvigorate public
    parks and other outdoor recreation spaces in ways that significantly
    improve local communities and encourage people to connect (or re-
    connect) with the outdoors.
        NRPA is pleased to have worked with NPS to help develop the pilot
    for this initiative and believes it will prove successful in
    highlighting the innovative projects and partnerships the State
    Assistance Program provides across America. This year, NPS intends to
    award as many as 40 ORLP grants to support the revitalization and
    protection of close-to-home parks and recreation opportunities in
    underserved areas.
        We ask that you maintain funding for the ORLP at $12 million for
    fiscal year 2018. Also, as this program is included as part of the
    overall funding for the State Assistance Program, we ask the
    subcommittee to ensure that any continued funding for the ORLP does not
    negatively impact the total amount provided to the critical formula
    grants to the States for conservation and outdoor recreation.
        Madam Chair and Members of the subcommittee, few programs can
    address so many national priorities as effectively as the LWCF State
    Assistance Program. This subcommittee and Congress have the rare
    opportunity to achieve national goals, all without costing the
    individual American taxpayer a penny, and can do so by adopting three
    simple recommendations: Allocate a minimum of 40 percent of total LWCF
    funding to the State Assistance Program; and continue the innovative
    ORLP grant program to help address the need for improved recreational
    infrastructure in larger metropolitan communities. Finally, we call
    upon the subcommittee to find a permanent solution for fully funding
    the LWCF with a minimum of 40 percent of annual support going to the
    State Assistance Program.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to share NRPA's recommendations
    and your consideration of our request.

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

        Prepared Statement of the National Tribal Contract Support Cost
                                   Coalition
        This testimony is offered on behalf of the National Tribal Contract
    Support Cost Coalition. The Coalition is comprised of 21 Tribes and
    Tribal organizations situated in 11 States. Collectively, they operate
    contracts to administer almost $500 million in Indian Health Service
    (IHS) and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) programs on behalf of over 250
    Native American Tribes.\1\ The Coalition was created to assure that the
    Federal Government honors the United States' contractual obligation to
    add full contract support cost funding to every contract and compact
    awarded under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
    Act. Our Counsel litigated the Supreme Court Cherokee and Arctic Slope
    cases against the Indian Health Service, and co-litigated the Ramah
    class action case against the Bureau of Indian Affairs, all of which
    held that IHS and BIA contracts with Indian Tribes are true, binding
    contracts which must be paid in full no less than any other government
    contract.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The NTCSCC is comprised of the: Alaska Native Tribal Health
    Consortium (Alaska), Arctic Slope Native Association (Alaska), Central
    Council of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes (Alaska), Cherokee Nation
    (Oklahoma), Chickasaw Nation, Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's
    Reservation (Montana), Choctaw Nation (Oklahoma), Confederated Salish
    and Kootenai Tribes (Montana), Copper River Native Association
    (Alaska), Forest County Potawatomi Community (Wisconsin), Kodiak Area
    Native Association (Alaska), Little River Band of Ottawa Indians
    (Michigan), Pueblo of Zuni (New Mexico), Riverside-San Bernardino
    County Indian Health (California), Shoshone Bannock Tribes (Idaho),
    Shoshone-Paiute Tribes (Idaho, Nevada), Southeast Alaska Regional
    Health Consortium (Alaska), Spirit Lake Tribe (North Dakota), Tanana
    Chiefs Conference (Alaska), Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation
    (Alaska), and Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board (43 Tribes in
    Idaho, Washington, Oregon).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Over the past year, both IHS and BIA have worked closely with
    Tribes and Tribal organizations on finalizing and publishing new CSC
    policies setting forth internal guidelines for calculating and
    reconciling CSC payments. Many Tribes across the country submitted
    comments, and some are reflected in the final results. In this respect,
    Tribal consultation worked, and both agencies are to be applauded for
    their inclusive processes. But the agencies' results differ
    substantially, and it is on this difference that we wish to focus,
    especially the unnecessarily restrictive and complex approach taken by
    IHS.
        On the one hand, you have the BIA Manual revisions. The Coalition
    applauds the BIA approach, which genuinely embraced the Committee's
    instructions to be simple and straightforward, and to streamline the
    process for determining and reconciling contract support cost
    requirements. Tribes and agency personnel, alike, can easily understand
    the BIA's new policy, and the BIA's simple approach will lead to
    accurate CSC estimates over time. It also does not require extensive
    training, and therefore has already led to improved agency business
    practices.
        On the other hand, you have the IHS. While IHS deserves genuine
    praise for consulting extensively with Tribes beginning last spring,
    the ultimate result was both complex and controversial. Despite
    compromises reached with Tribes on most issues, the agency's adherence
    to certain legal positions that the Office of General Counsel prefers
    to litigate left two large issues in dispute. As a result, the new IHS
    policy adopts the agency's position on the ``duplication'' and
    ``allocation'' issues, and notes the Tribal position in footnotes.
    IHS's intransigence on these issues has left their resolution to the
    courts, and there are now at least three ongoing cases against IHS
    involving one or both of these issues.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ In one case, the Federal district court last September ruled in
    favor of the Tribal position on both issues. IHS's reaction was
    unfortunate: instead of revising the CSC policy accordingly, IHS
    declared it will appeal the decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of
    Appeals.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The final IHS policy also remains terribly over-complicated: not
    only does it refer to the statute instead of explaining key concepts in
    plain language, but it also contains several complex calculations,
    requires Tribes to submit additional documentation to the agency each
    year, and necessitates two separate CSC negotiation processes each
    year. Indeed, the policy is so complicated that the agency has only one
    staff person across the entire country that can answer policy questions
    and guide the agency's interpretation of its new policy. This person is
    currently serving a dual role as an Acting Director at Headquarters,
    further delaying decisions and complicating negotiations for individual
    Tribes. The agency's approach to training on the new policy is quite
    telling--instead of partnering with Tribes that asked to be involved in
    any agency training programs, the agency instead developed and released
    a series of YouTube videos that completely ignore the Tribal position
    on the ``duplication'' and ``allocation'' issues.
        The policy is so complicated that IHS personnel have been unable to
    get a firm grasp on CSC calculations. We understand that in 2017, IHS
    misstated the total CSC requirement across Indian country by over $90
    million. We believe the actual total CSC need for IHS in 2017 is around
    $703 million, not the $800 million included in the President's budget
    for that year and defended by IHS throughout 2016. We believe the total
    CSC need in fiscal year 2018 will be about $725 million, still far
    below the agency's prior estimate.\3\ Clearly, the agency's failure to
    simplify the CSC calculation process is impacting IHS, too.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ We caution that our own estimate for 2018 will vary depending
    on where this Committee decides to make increases, since most CSC
    calculations are a function of the size of the IHS programs the Tribes
    administer.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        IHS's overly complex CSC policy isn't just impacting CSC
    calculations and estimates; it is also overly complicating what IHS
    calls the post-year reconciliation process. Since the adoption of the
    updated policy, IHS has gone back to Tribes to ``reconcile'' CSC
    calculations for 2014, 2015 and 2016. In some instances IHS is
    demanding that Tribes repay millions of dollars--including dollars that
    were spent years ago--while other Tribes are still waiting to be paid
    the full CSC they were promised as much as 3 years ago. If the new
    policy remains unchanged, IHS must do a better job of committing the
    necessary staff to work with Tribes to perform these calculations on a
    timely basis and to resolve matters quickly.
        In sum, while both agencies have made real progress in improving
    their management of their CSC accounts, we respectfully urge the
    subcommittee to repeat its instructions to IHS to further simplify its
    calculation and reconciliation processes, and to instruct the agencies
    not to seek to reduce Tribal contract support cost entitlements.
        To further simplify and streamline contracting activities, we also
    respectfully suggest that the subcommittee urge the agencies to explore
    using multi-year arrangements for fixed rates or fixed lump-sum amounts
    subject to inflationary adjustments.
        We also respectfully suggest that the subcommittee remind both
    agencies to interpret and apply the Act's CSC provisions liberally in
    favor of the Tribes. After all, that is the law, both as stated in
    section 108 of the Indian Self-Determination Act and in two Supreme
    Court decisions.
        On another note, we thank the subcommittee for removing the
    ``notwithstanding'' clause from the 2017 appropriation addressing
    certain earmarked funds, including substance abuse and suicide
    prevention initiative (SASP) funds and domestic violence prevention
    initiative (DVPI) funds. Between 2008 and 2012, IHS agreed to award
    these funds through Self-Determination Act agreements, and to calculate
    contract support cost requirements on those funds. But starting in 2012
    IHS reversed course, refusing to calculate CSC requirements and
    demanding that these funds be awarded through separate grant
    instruments. This change caused Tribes to cut vital program operations
    to fund the administrative costs of these programs, including for grant
    administrators, while adding extraordinary complexity through the
    parallel grant funding and reporting process. Nationwide, IHS's change
    in position reduced behavioral health program funding amounts by 25
    percent.
        IHS relied on the old ``notwithstanding'' clause to force Tribes
    into grant instruments and to dodge the Indian Self-Determination Act's
    mandate to add contract support costs to these program funds. We hope
    that in 2017 and beyond, the elimination of that clause will lead IHS
    to return to its former pre-2012 practice. We respectfully suggest that
    the subcommittee ask IHS to report on its progress in eliminating the
    grant funding mechanism and in adding contract support costs to
    administer these precious funds.
        The National Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition thanks the
    subcommittee for this opportunity to testify.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of the
    subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to present the National
    Trust for Historic Preservation's recommendations for fiscal year 2018
    appropriations. My name is Tom Cassidy and I am the Vice President of
    Government Relations and Policy. The National Trust is a privately-
    funded nonprofit organization chartered by Congress in 1949. We work to
    save America's historic places to enrich our future.
        The Nation faces a challenging fiscal environment. The National
    Trust recognizes there is a need for fiscal restraint and cost-
    effective Federal investments. However, funding levels proposed in the
    administration's budget request threaten to sharply curtail the ability
    of Federal agencies to fulfill their responsibilities to manage
    preservation, conservation and recreation programs on Federal lands. We
    look forward to working with this subcommittee as you address the
    ongoing needs for investments to sustain our Nation's rich heritage of
    cultural and historic resources that generate lasting economic and
    civic vitality for communities throughout the Nation.
        National Park Service: Historic Preservation Fund. The Historic
    Preservation Fund (HPF) is the principal source of funding to implement
    the Nation's historic preservation programs. The Committees have done
    remarkable work to provide strong funding levels to further the
    purposes of the Historic Preservation Fund in recent years, and we look
    forward to working with you to continue this progress. We urge you to
    reject the administration's proposed cut of $29.8 million from the HPF.
    This would result in the lowest funding level for SHPOs since 2009 and
    the lowest funding level for THPOs since 2011, when there were 118
    THPOs compared to approximately 175 today. In addition, the elimination
    of four separate competitive grant programs funded last year would
    result in a sharp decrease in the delivery of preservation services and
    projects throughout the Nation.
        We support maintaining at least the fiscal year 2017 enacted level
    of $80.91 million for the Historic Preservation Fund, including a
    minimum of $47.9 million for State Historic Preservation Officers
    (SHPOs) and $10.4 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
    (THPOs). We also urge you to maintain at least level funding of $13
    million for competitive grants to preserve the sites and stories of the
    Civil Rights movement, $4 million for grants to Historically Black
    Colleges and Universities, and continue to fund $500,000 for the
    successful competitive grants program for the survey and nomination of
    properties associated with communities currently underrepresented in
    the National Register of Historic Places and National Historic
    Landmarks. Recent studies have documented that less than 8 percent of
    such listings identify culturally diverse properties. We also support
    continuation of the Save America's Treasures program, which received $5
    million in fiscal year 2017.
        The National Park Service distributes HPF grants that are matched
    by State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic
    Preservation Offices (THPOs). Inadequate HPF funding limits support for
    preservation activities such as survey, nomination of properties to the
    National Register of Historic Places, public education, project review
    required by the National Historic Preservation Act and for the Federal
    Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC). The HTC is the largest
    Federal investment in historic preservation. It has catalyzed
    rehabilitation of more than 42,250 buildings. Since its creation more
    than 30 years ago, the HTC has created more than 2.4 million jobs and
    leveraged more than $131 billion in private investment.
        National Park Service: Operation of the National Park System. The
    National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for 413 units of the
    National Park System ranging from the battlefields where our ancestors
    fought and died to recent additions like the Birmingham Civil Rights
    National Monument and the Reconstruction Era National Monument. Over
    the past 20 years, more than 40 new parks have been added to the park
    system, many of which preserve historic places and themes that have
    been underrepresented within the system. We strongly oppose the
    President's proposed budget cuts for National Park Service Operations.
    The administration's request of $2.225 billion--a cut of nearly $200
    million from fiscal year 2017--would result in decreased stewardship of
    historic and cultural resources and reductions in visitor services at a
    time when our national parks are more popular than ever. We encourage
    the subcommittee to provide at least level funding from fiscal year
    2017 of $2.45 billion.
        National Park Service: Deferred Maintenance. The National Park
    Service is responsible for maintaining a system comprised of more than
    84 million acres that tells the stories of remarkable people and events
    in our country's history. Unfortunately, after 100 years of operation
    and inconsistent public funding, the National Park System faces a
    deferred maintenance backlog estimated at almost $12 billion, of which
    47 percent is attributed to historic assets. Deferred maintenance in
    our national parks puts historic and cultural sites at risk of
    permanent damage or loss, and in the absence of funding, the condition
    of these assets will continue to deteriorate and become more expensive
    to repair and preserve in the future.
      --Construction. We concur with the recommendation in the President's
            budget blueprint ``that the National Park Service assets are
            preserved for future generations by increasing investment in
            deferred maintenance projects.'' Similarly, we support the
            administration's budget request for a $7.2 million increase
            over fiscal year 2017 enacted for the Line Item Construction
            program, which addresses the deferred maintenance for the NPS'
            highest priority non-transportation assets with projects larger
            than $1 million.
      --Repair and Rehabilitation; Cyclic Maintenance. We strongly oppose
            the administration's proposed reductions for Repair and
            Rehabilitation and Cyclic Maintenance. These investments
            support a service-wide deferred maintenance strategy that
            directs funds to high priority mission critical and mission
            dependent assets required to maintain historic structures and
            that are essential to abate the continued growth of the
            deferred maintenance backlog. After years of level funding or
            modest increases for both Repair and Rehabilitation and Cyclic
            Maintenance, we were pleased to see increases for fiscal year
            2016 and fiscal year 2017 and thank the Committee for its
            commitment to addressing the deferred maintenance backlog.
            Additional investments will contribute to the successful
            preservation of historic sites and other resources in the
            National Park System.
        Finally, we strongly support the creation of a reliable, dedicated
    Federal funding source distinct from annual appropriations to address
    the deferred maintenance backlog, as outlined in bipartisan legislation
    introduced (S. 751/H.R. 2584) in the Senate and House.
        National Park Service: Leasing Historic Structures in National
    Parks. We appreciate the Committees' strong support of expanded use of
    historic leasing authorities by the NPS. We look forward to working
    with the subcommittee and the Service as it completes the report called
    for in last year's Omnibus.
        National Park Service: National Heritage Areas. We recommend
    funding for the Heritage Partnership Program and our National Heritage
    Areas (NHAs) at the fiscal year 2017 enacted level of $19.8 million.
    The administration's proposal to eliminate NHA funding would severely
    impair the sustainability of the program and render many NHAs unable to
    function.
        National Park Service: Philanthropy and Partnerships. The National
    Trust supports the Centennial Challenge, which provides Federal funding
    to match donations for signature National Park Service projects and
    programs, and urge the Committee to consider funding this initiative at
    least at the fiscal year 2017 enacted level. This funding will allow
    the NPS to leverage private contributions to enhance visitor services
    and improve cultural and natural resources across the parks in the
    Service.
        As part of our commitment to assist the NPS reduce the maintenance
    backlog of historic properties, the National Trust launched the HOPE
    (Hands-On Preservation Experience) Crew initiative in 2014 to train
    young adults in preservation skills while helping protect and restore
    historic sites. Youth and veterans are trained in the preservation
    skills necessary to perform preservation work in the parks and other
    Federal lands through a cooperative agreement between the NPS, other
    Federal land management agencies, and several NGOs including the
    Student Conservation Association and The Corps Network. Since 2014,
    HOPE Crew has trained over 600 young people and veterans at 100
    projects nationwide, resulting in 80,000 hours and $14.3 million in
    preservation work to protect places that are significant to their
    communities, including rehabilitating structures at Martin Luther King,
    Jr. National Historic Site, Little Big Horn Battlefield National
    Monument, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and Shenandoah National
    Park. Projects like these help reduce the maintenance backlog while
    providing job skills and education for the next generation of stewards
    of America's most important historic sites.
        Bureau of Land Management: Cultural Resources Management. The
    cultural resources program funds National Historic Preservation Act
    (NHPA) Section 106 review of 13,000 land-use proposals each year,
    compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
    Act and Government-to-Government consultation with Indian Tribes and
    Alaska Native Governments. We recommend $17.3 million, a modest
    increase of $1.2 million above the fiscal year 2017 enacted level. This
    account has been level funded for years. Increased funding is necessary
    to fulfill BLM's statutory requirements for Section 106 reviews of land
    use proposals and NHPA's Section 110 requirements for inventory and
    protection cultural resources. The increase would support surveys of
    sensitive areas, site protection and stabilization projects for sites
    vulnerable to unauthorized activities and damage due to fire, erosion
    and changing water levels. Funding would also support updated
    predictive modeling and data analysis to enhance the BLM's ability to
    address large-scale, cross-jurisdictional land-use projects.
        The BLM oversees the largest, most diverse and scientifically
    important collection of historic and cultural resources on our Nation's
    public lands, as well as the museum collections and data associated
    with them. Since fiscal year 2003, the cultural resources program has
    lost 19 FTEs while the demand for Section 106 compliance has remained
    even or increased. The loss of personnel has diminished the BLM's
    ability to review land proposals like transmission lines, energy
    development and recreation permits. The administration's proposed
    overall reduction of 1,062 FTE from BLM would sharply erode the
    agency's capacity to fulfill its mission and responsibilities. We urge
    the Committee to reject this proposed dramatic reduction in staffing.
        Bureau of Land Management: National Landscape Conservation System.
    The BLM's National Landscape Conservation System (National Conservation
    Lands) includes 36 million acres of congressionally and presidentially
    designated lands, including National Monuments, National Conservation
    Areas, Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, National Scenic and Historic
    Trails, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. We encourage the Committee to
    provide $50.6 million to the base program for the National Landscape
    Conservation System, an increase of $13.8 million above the fiscal year
    2017 enacted level. The increase in base funding will prevent critical
    damage to the resources found in these areas, ensure proper management
    and provide for a quality visitor experience. This funding level would
    enable BLM to hire essential management and law enforcement staff,
    monitor and protect natural and cultural resources, close unauthorized
    routes that damage fragile cultural sites and undertake needed
    ecosystem and species restoration projects. We also support maintaining
    funding for wilderness management of at least $18.2 million and
    providing level funding of $779,000 for national monument management on
    Oregon and California Grant Lands. We urge you to reject the
    administration's proposed cuts to these programs, which would result in
    reduced visitor services, decreased maintenance and care of trails, and
    fewer educational and interpretive resources.
        As the Nation's newest system of protected lands, the National
    Conservation Lands encompass some of our country's most significant
    historic and cultural resources, yet the BLM's ability to steward these
    resources is undermined by insufficient funding. The National
    Conservation Lands are just one-tenth of BLM managed lands but they
    host one-third of all BLM's visitors. Without sufficient funding, the
    BLM struggles to complete essential resource protection, such as
    signing trails, inventorying and protecting cultural sites from looting
    and vandalism.
        Department-Wide: Land and Water Conservation Fund. The National
    Trust supports robust funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF), and we urge the Committee to reject the drastic cut proposed
    for the program in the administration's budget request. We encourage
    the Committee to restore funding to the fiscal year 2016 enacted level
    of $450 million, which is just half of the $900 million from offshore
    mineral leasing revenues dedicated to LWCF annually. Many of the
    Nation's most significant historic and cultural landscapes have been
    permanently protected through LWCF investments, including Martin Luther
    King Jr. National Historic Site, Canyons of the Ancients National
    Monument and Harpers Ferry National Historic Park. In total, more than
    $550 million has been invested to acquire historic sites and 137,000
    acres in 162 NPS units. Within LWCF funding, we encourage the Committee
    to provide at least level funding of $10 million for the American
    Battlefield Protection Program.
        Independent Agencies: National Endowment for the Arts and National
    Endowment for the Humanities. We urge the Committee to reject the
    administration's proposed elimination of funding for the National
    Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and National Endowment for the Humanities
    (NEH) and instead maintain the fiscal year 2017 enacted level of $149.8
    million for each program. NEA and NEH funding is critical to
    communities around the country. It supports efforts by the National
    Trust's Historic Sites and others to tell a fuller American story and
    engage visitors with history in compelling ways. For example, support
    from the NEA has created programs like Art and Shadows at the Shadows-
    on-the-Teche in Louisiana that put regionally-based artists in
    residence at the site, resulting in programming that attracted new
    audiences and served as a prototype for broader arts-focused
    programming that now draws people from around the country to the town's
    downtown commercial district. NEH support has brought teachers from
    around the country to learn about history in the places that it was
    made and carry those experiences back to their classrooms, such as
    exploring the intellectual underpinnings of the Constitution at James
    Madison's Montpelier or discovering the rich, but largely unknown,
    African American history in the President's neighborhood at Decatur
    House.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present the National Trust's
    recommendations for the fiscal year 2018 Interior, Environment and
    Related Agencies appropriations bill.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Native Village of Eyak
        The Requests of the Native Village of Eyak (Eyak) for the fiscal
    year 2018 Indian Programs Appropriations and our comments are as
    follows:
      --CSC Funding.--Continue to fund Contract Support Costs at 100
            percent and appropriate funding on a permanent and mandatory
            basis;
      --Sequestration.--Shield the IHS/BIA from sequestration and provide
            advance appropriations to Native programs;
      --VBC Funding.--Direct the IHS to fully fund Village Built Clinic
            (VBC) leases, make it a line item in the budget and allocate
            $17 million to IHS for VBC leases;
      --Joint Venture Program.--Increase funding and reopen the Joint
            Venture application program in 2018;
      --Natural Resource Funding.--Increase funding for Tribal natural
            resource management programs; and
      --Tribal Court Funding.--Increase funding for Tribal courts located
            in Public Law 280 States.
        Thank you Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum and Members of
    the subcommittee for holding this hearing for public witnesess on
    Indian programs. Of course, we also thank our own House Natural
    Resources Committee, Chairman Emeritus Young for his advocacy with this
    subcommittee.
        My name is Mark Hoover and I am a Council Member on the Eyak
    Traditional Council, a Tribal government located in Cordova, Alaska. We
    are a federally recognized Tribe on the southeast shores of Prince
    William Sound in the North Gulf coast of Alaska. We emphasize self-
    determination as an avenue to improve the lives and health of our
    Tribal citizens by creating opportunities, strengthening partnerships
    and capacity, promoting our culture, and protecting our traditional
    land and resources..
        Contract Support Costs (CSC).--Eyak would first like to thank the
    subcommittee for its leadership in understanding the reason for and
    committing to fully funding the IHS and BIA contract support costs for
    fiscal year 2016, and fiscal year 2017, and making funding indefinite
    and also a separate account in the IHS and BIA budgets. For too many
    years, the IHS and the BIA have vastly underpaid contract support costs
    owed to Tribes and Tribal organizations and this transformation makes a
    tremendous difference in helping to ensure that the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) is fully funded and
    implemented as Congress so intended. We thank you for listening and
    responding to Tribes and our requests.
        Eyak requests that Congress continue to fully fund CSC and ensure
    appropriations are ultimately made permanent and mandatory. Under the
    ISDEAA, the full payment of CSC is not discretionary; it is a legal
    obligation affirmed by the United States Supreme Court. Eyak maintains
    its commitment to working with Congress on how to best achieve that
    goal.
        Sequestration.--Eyak requests the support of the Subcommittee in
    amending the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act to
    exempt Indian programs, such as the IHS and BIA budgets, from
    sequestration. While we support Congressional efforts to fully exempt
    Veterans Health Administration (VA) programs from sequestration and to
    limit State Medicaid grants and Medicare payments to a 2 percent
    reduction, Indian healthcare, as a Federal trust responsibility, should
    be afforded equal treatment to VA programs. A number of members of this
    Subcommittee and other members of Congress have voiced support for this
    position and have stated that it was an oversight that Indian budgets
    were not also included in the exempt category of the Balanced Budget
    and Emergency Deficit Control Act.
        Eyak is concerned that the current fiscal year 2018 funding cap for
    non-defense discretionary spending is lower than the fiscal year 2017
    spending cap. When put in the context of the President's fiscal year
    2018 budget proposal to raise defense spending by $54 billion and lower
    non-defense discretionary spending by a corresponding amount, we are
    worried that a significant sequestration of funds is likely to occur
    which would severely impact Tribal program budgets. Indian program
    budgets should be exempt from sequestration.
        Village Built Clinics.--Eyak would like to thank Congress for its
    appropriation of $11 million for Tribal health clinic leases in the
    fiscal year 2017 Consolidated Appropriations bill. These small
    chronically underfunded remote clinics serves as an essential lifeline
    for rural Alaskan villages where there is no road system to connect
    villages to urban centers. We sincerely appreciate your support and
    thank you for your leadership on this issue.
        Eyak also appreciates the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on
    Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs holding a hearing on Indian
    infrastructure needs in Indian Country, and the support and
    participation of Chairman Emeritus Young in the discussion that focused
    on the considerable unmet needs of Village Built Clinics. Many of the
    Village Built Clinics are in extreme disrepair and there is a
    considerable need for a reserve fund for upkeep and expansion of these
    essential facilities. In 2015, the Alaska Native Health Board estimated
    that an additional $14 million annual appropriation would be needed to
    fund a replacement reserve to tackle the clinic crisis. Eyak supports
    increased funding for Village Built Clinics and requests that funding
    be a separate line item in the IHS budget, recurring funding, and
    displayed in the Budget Justification to enable better planning and
    certainty for Tribes.
        The $11 million increase in fiscal year 2017 funding for Village
    Built Clinics was a major advancement, but that amount does not meet
    the full need. In 2015, the Alaska Native Health Board estimated that
    in addition to the existing $4.5 million base, $12.5 million is still
    needed to fund the Village Built Clinics. The fiscal year 2017 funding
    served as a supplement to the approximately $4.5 million already being
    provided to these essential village clinics. Without a separate line
    item for Village Built Clinics, much of the funding could be
    distributed to other types of facility leases, leaving the Village
    Built Clinics falling far short of the necessary funding.
        Joint Venture Program.--Eyak urges Congress to increase funding for
    the IHS Joint Venture (JV) program and respectfully requests that the
    application period reopen in 2018, so that new Tribes can join the
    program. The JV program leverages both Tribal and IHS funding to enable
    construction and staffing of safe and modern health facilities for
    Native people. This unique Federal-Tribal partnership allows the IHS to
    provide funding for staffing, equipping, and operations, while a
    participating Tribe covers costs of design and construction. Joint
    Venture projects have proven to be a successful and vital component of
    improving access to care and reducing health disparities throughout
    Indian Country. Eyak would like to invest in a new health facility in
    the near future and is ready to take this next step in our self-
    determination efforts as we continue to provide and expand quality and
    affordable community healthcare.
        Natural Resource Funding.--Eyak respectfully asks that Congress
    increase funding for Tribal natural resource management programs to
    assist Tribes in the management, development, and protection of Tribal
    natural resources. Tribal natural resource programs provide many
    benefits to a Tribe such as revenue generation, job creation, and the
    protection of cultural and traditional resources. It is a program that
    helps fulfill the Federal trust responsibility by allowing Tribes to
    manage their own natural resources in compliance with various
    regulations and requirements related to land and natural resource
    management. Increasing funding for these fundamental programs is
    essential.
        Tribal Court Funding.--Eyak welcomes the fiscal year 2017 increase
    for Tribal courts located in P 83-280 (Public Law 83-280) States and
    asks that this increase continue in fiscal year 2018. We see no greater
    need across Indian Country than to protect our Tribal citizens through
    public safety and justice initiatives. Eyak has a very active Tribal
    court, but like other Tribes who reside in Public Law 280 States, we
    consistently struggle with funding. As we work to build, maintain and
    improve our village infrastructure, a crucial part of that is a well-
    functioning Tribal judicial system.
        The BIA has had a long-standing and unjustified policy of not
    funding Tribal courts in Public Law 280 States. The fiscal year 2017,
    BIA Tribal Justice Support appropriation was $17.2 million, or about $7
    million over fiscal year 2016 levels and it would provide increases
    resources for Tribal courts in Public Law 280 States. The BIA fiscal
    year 2017, explanatory language for the Consolidated Appropriations Act
    explains: ``Funding for Tribal justice support is restored to
    $17,250,000, of which not less than $10,000,000 is to address the needs
    of Tribes affected by Public Law 83-280. The Committees remain
    concerned about Tribal court needs as identified in the Indian Law and
    Order Commission's November 2013 report, which notes Federal investment
    in Tribal justice in ``Public Law 280'' States has been more limited
    than elsewhere in Indian Country. The Committees expect the Bureau to
    work with Tribes and Tribal organizations in these States to fund plans
    that design, promote, sustain, or pilot courts systems subject to
    jurisdiction under Public Law 83-280. The Bureau is also directed to
    formally consult and maintain open communication throughout the process
    with Tribes and Tribal organizations on how this funding supports the
    technical infrastructure and future Tribal court needs for these
    jurisdictions.''
        Eyak sincerely thanks Congress and especially Senator Murkowski,
    for underscoring the significant financial need of Tribal courts in
    Public Law 280 States. We respectfully request that Congress increase
    funding for our Tribal courts to meet the substantial financial need
    and we also request that Congress continue to urge the BIA to fund
    Public Law 280 courts in order to promote safe and healthy Tribal
    communities.
        In conclusion, and on behalf of the Native Village of Eyak, we
    thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on some of the high
    priority needs regarding funding for Indian related programs. Eyak
    recommends: continued funding for Contract Support Costs at 100 percent
    on an indefinite and mandatory basis; exempt the IHS/BIA from
    sequestration and provide advance appropriations for Native programs;
    fully fund Village Built Clinic leases at $17 million and make it a
    line item in the budget; increase funding and reopen the IHS Joint
    Venture program; increase funding for Tribal natural resource programs;
    and increase funding for Tribal courts located in Public Law 280
    States. We appreciate your commitment to Native American people and
    thank you for your consideration of Eyak's concerns and requests.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Natural Science Collections Alliance
        The Natural Science Collections Alliance appreciates the
    opportunity to provide testimony in support of fiscal year 2018
    appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution and Department of the
    Interior. We encourage Congress to use 2017 enacted levels as the basis
    for 2018 funding decisions and to include new investments that address
    agency backlogs in the preservation and curation of scientific and
    cultural collections within Interior and the Smithsonian Institution.

            The Natural Science Collections Alliance is a non-profit
            association that supports natural science collections, their
            human resources, the institutions that house them, and their
            research activities for the benefit of science and society. Our
            membership consists of institutions that are part of an
            international community of museums, botanical gardens,
            herbaria, universities, and other institutions that contain
            natural science collections and use them in research,
            exhibitions, academic and informal science education, and
            outreach activities.

        Scientific collections, and the collections experts who make, care
    for, and study those collections, are a vital component of our Nation's
    research infrastructure. Whether held at a museum, government managed
    laboratory or archive, or in a university science department, these
    scientific resources contain genetic, tissue, organismal, and
    environmental samples that constitute a unique and irreplaceable
    library of Earth's history. The specimens, their associated data, and
    collections experts drive cutting edge research on significant
    challenges facing modern society, such as improving human health,
    enhancing food security, and understanding and responding to
    environmental change. Collections inspire novel interdisciplinary
    research that precipitates innovation and addresses some of the most
    fundamental questions related to biodiversity.
        The institutions that care for scientific collections are important
    research centers that enable other scientists to study the basic data
    of life; conduct modern biological, geological, anthropological, and
    environmental research; integrate across these diverse disciplines; and
    provide undergraduate and graduate students with hands-on training
    opportunities. In-house institutional staff expertise is vital to the
    development and deployment of this critical research infrastructure.
        According to the Federal Interagency Working Group on Scientific
    Collections, ``scientific collections are essential to supporting
    agency missions and are thus vital to supporting the global research
    enterprise.'' In recognition of the importance of collections, the
    Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a memo that directed
    Federal agencies to budget for the proper care of collections.
    ``Agencies should ensure that their collections' necessary costs are
    properly assessed and realistically projected in agency budgets, so
    that collections are not compromised.''
        Preservation of specimens and the strategic growth of these
    collections are in the best interest of science and the best interest
    of taxpayers. Existing scientific collections that are properly cared
    for and accessible are a critical component of the U.S. science
    infrastructure and can be readily integrated into new research on
    significant questions. Specimens that were collected decades or
    centuries ago are now routinely used in cutting edge research in
    diverse fields related to genomics, human health, biodiversity
    sciences, informatics, environmental quality, and agriculture.
        The Smithsonian Institution is a valuable Federal partner in the
    curation and research on scientific specimens. The scientific experts
    at the National Museum of Natural History care for an astounding 140
    million specimens and ensure the strategic growth of this national
    treasure. To increase the availability of these scientific resources to
    researchers, educators, other Federal agencies, and the public,
    Smithsonian is working on a multi-year effort to digitize its
    collections. That effort will substantially increase awareness of the
    availability of these collections via the Internet.
        Smithsonian has also been working to strengthen curatorial and
    research staffing and to backfill positions left open by retirements
    and budget constraints. The current staffing level is insufficient to
    provide optimal care for the collections. Future curatorial and
    collections management staffing levels may be even more in jeopardy
    given the proposed funding cuts at science agencies that support staff
    positions embedded at Smithsonian, such as the U.S. Geological Survey.
        Interior is an important caretaker of museum collections; the
    Department has an estimated 146 million items, comparable in size only
    to the Smithsonian Institution. Although many of the department's
    collections are located in bureau facilities, numerous artifacts and
    specimens are also housed by non-governmental facilities, such as
    museums and universities.
        In addition, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) furthers
    the preservation, inventory, and digitization of geological scientific
    collections, such as rock and ice cores, fossils, and samples of oil,
    gas, and water. The National Geological and Geophysical Data
    Preservation program helps States with collections management, improves
    accessibility of collections data, and expands digitization of
    specimens to ensure their broader use. One example of the pay offs of
    this program is the potash mineral deposit discovered in Michigan that
    is worth an estimated $65 billion. Rock samples from Michigan were
    entered into a national database, where private companies discovered
    their existence and are now assessing the potential for mining.
        Another USGS program is supporting public access to biodiversity
    information. The Biodiversity Information Serving Our Nation system is
    the only web-based Federal resource for finding species in the United
    States and contains 250 million records. It also serves as the U.S.
    connection to the Global Biodiversity Information Facility. USGS also
    supports the documentation and conservation of native pollinators
    through its Native Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab.
        Another USGS program that furthers the curation of and research
    with biological collections is proposed for elimination. USGS has more
    than a million specimens of birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles
    that are housed at the Smithsonian. This arrangement goes back to 1889,
    but is suggested for termination by the Administration. We urge
    Congress to continue this valuable program. For more on this program,
    see http://nscalliance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/nsca-
    usgs-smithsonian-report.pdf.
        The Bureau of Land Management has a large backlog of cultural
    resources to inventory on public lands. Presently, 90 percent of public
    lands have not been assessed for heritage resources. Such assessments
    need to be conducted before unique resources are lost to looting,
    vandalism, fire, or environmental change.
        The National Park Service needs to continue its investments in
    scientific collections, including cataloging of millions of museum
    objects. The Park Service curates a wide range of specimens and
    artifacts, from historical and cultural items to preserved tissues from
    protected species and living microorganisms collected from national
    parks. Several parks have made progress on addressing planning,
    environmental, storage, security, and fire protection deficiencies in
    museum collections, but much work remains to be done. The President's
    budget request would undo past progress, with the percentage of museum
    objects in `good' condition decreasing from 75 percent to 70 percent by
    the end of fiscal year 2018.
                                   conclusion
        Scientific collections are critical infrastructure for our Nation's
    research enterprise. Research specimens connect us to the past, are
    used to solve current societal problems, and are helping to predict
    threats to human health, methods for ensuring food security, and the
    impact of future environmental changes. Sustained investments in
    scientific collections are critical for our Nation's continued
    scientific leadership.
        Please support adequate funding for the Department of the
    Interior's Capital Working Fund, as well as programs within Interior
    bureaus and the Smithsonian Institution that will support these
    organizations' efforts to preserve scientific collections--a truly
    irreplaceable resource.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request.

        [This statement was submitted by Joseph Cook, Ph.D., President.]
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Nature Conservancy
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and Members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit recommendations
    for fiscal year 2018 appropriations. The Nature Conservancy is an
    international, non-profit conservation organization working around the
    world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and
    people. Our mission is to conserve the lands and waters upon which all
    life depends.
        As we enter the fiscal year 2018 Budget cycle and another year of a
    challenging fiscal environment, the Conservancy continues to recognize
    the need for fiscal austerity. The Conservancy also wishes to thank
    this subcommittee for the final fiscal year 2017 funding levels for
    Department of the Interior conservation programs. Our budget
    recommendations this year reflect a balanced approach with funding
    levels consistent with fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2016 funding
    levels. Of particular note, we wish to work with this subcommittee and
    the authorizing Committees on identifying permanent funding solutions
    for wildfire funding, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Payment
    in Lieu of Taxes Program and Secure Rural Schools. The Conservancy
    greatly appreciates the Committee's past support of a much-needed fire
    funding fix and more recent efforts to ensure wildfire suppression has
    supplemental funding above the 10-year average in fiscal year 2017.
    However, agencies continue to need a long-term solution to address the
    impacts of the increasing 10-year average on programs necessary to
    maintain our public lands. We respectfully request a bipartisan fire
    funding solution be included as part of the fiscal year 2018 Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies' appropriations bill. A fire funding
    solution must fund wildfires like natural disasters by 1) accessing
    disaster funding, 2) minimizing transfers, and most importantly, 3)
    address the continued erosion of agency budgets over time, with the
    goal of reinvesting in key programs that would restore forests to
    healthier condition. We also strongly support the emphasis on funding
    for sage grouse conservation in fiscal year 2017 and urge congress to
    continue support for ongoing sage grouse conservation efforts.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).--The fiscal year 2017
    Omnibus dedicated $400 million in discretionary appropriations for the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund. LWCF has strong bipartisan support
    and the Conservancy recognizes Congress's commitment to funding
    important on-the-ground conservation and recreation projects. The
    Nature Conservancy supports funding LWCF through a blend of current and
    permanent funding and looks forward to working with Congress to find a
    permanent funding solution for LWCF. Additionally, the Conservancy
    supports the balanced approach in the budget on both ``core'' and
    ``collaborative'' LWCF projects.
        Forest Legacy.--We support a minimum of $62 million for the Forest
    Legacy Program in current discretionary funding and the $38 million in
    permanent, mandatory funding, totaling $100 million for Forest Legacy
    Programs.
        Endangered Species.--The Conservancy supports continuing funding of
    at least $31 million, consistent with fiscal year 2017 levels, for the
    Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF), and requests
    the subcommittee consider additional funding level request for
    permanent funding. We also request your continuing support for Habitat
    Conservation Plan (HCP) funding, specifically HCP Land Acquisition
    Grants where the need has greatly outpaced available resources in
    recent years.
        State and Tribal Wildlife Grants.--The Conservancy supports the
    fiscal year 2017 Omnibus funding level of $62.5 million for this
    program. Strong Federal investments are essential to ensure strategic
    actions are undertaken by State, Tribal and Federal agencies and the
    conservation community to conserve wildlife populations and their
    habitats and to prevent species from being listed as threatened or
    endangered.
        Wildlife Conservation Programs.--The variety of wildlife
    conservation programs conducted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
    (FWS) continue a long and successful tradition of supporting
    collaborative conservation in the U.S. and internationally. We urge the
    Committee to continue funding such established and successful programs
    as the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA), Neotropical
    Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (NMBCA), the Migratory Bird Joint
    Ventures, FWS Migratory Bird Management Program and the FWS Coastal
    Program at no less than fiscal year 2017 Omnibus funding levels. We
    support, at a minimum, sustained funding for the Partners for Fish and
    Wildlife Program and the Cooperative Landscape Conservation and
    Adaptive Science programs. The latter will help support DOI in
    addressing large-scale conservation challenges across all ownerships,
    supporting collaborative problem solving for some of our nation's most
    challenging conservation issues. We also request strong funding this
    year for the National Fish Habitat Initiative.
        International Programs.--The international conservation programs
    appropriated annually within the Department of Interior are relatively
    small but are effective and widely respected. They encompass the U.S.
    Fish & Wildlife Service's (FWS) Multinational Species Conservation
    Funds, the FWS Wildlife Without Borders regional and global programs,
    and the U.S. National Park Service International Program. We urge that
    fiscal year 2018 levels for these programs remain equivalent to fiscal
    year 2017 Omnibus levels at a minimum.
        National Wildlife Refuge System.--The Conservancy supports stronger
    funding for the Refuge System's Operations and Maintenance accounts.
    Found in every U.S. State and territory, national wildlife refuges
    conserve a diversity of America's environmentally sensitive and
    economically vital ecosystems, including oceans, coasts, wetlands,
    deserts, tundra, prairie, and forests. The Conservancy requests $568
    million in for fiscal year 2018. This represents the funding necessary
    to maintain management capabilities for the Refuge System.
        Hazardous Fuels and Restoration.--Strategic, proactive hazardous
    fuels and restoration treatments have proven safer and more cost-
    effective in reducing risks to communities and forests by removing
    overgrown brush and trees, leaving forests in a more natural condition
    resilient to wildfires. The Conservancy recommends investing in the
    USDA Forest Service's Hazardous Fuels program at a $479 million level
    and DOI's Fuels Management program at a level of $178 million, in
    addition to investing $30 million into a new Resilient Landscapes
    program designed to restore and maintain fire adapted landscapes and
    habitats and repeating the Committee's fiscal year 2012 instructions
    for allocating funds to priority landscapes in both WUI and wildland
    settings. Additionally, the CFLR program must continue to be funded and
    expanded to $60 million and the Legacy Roads and Trails program funded
    at $50 million.
        Sage Grouse Conservation.--The Conservancy requests continued
    investment to support ongoing efforts to restore and conserve sagebrush
    habitat and the greater sage-grouse across Federal, State, Tribal and
    private lands. We support the continued support for sage grouse
    conservation provided through the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus. These
    resources are needed to implement on-the-ground projects and monitor
    habitat treatments, address rangeland fire and broader wildland fire
    prevention, suppression and restoration efforts, and support the
    partnership and science necessary for effective conservation. The BLM
    is facing perhaps the single most challenging effort in its history in
    conserving key sagebrush habitat, addressing identified threats to
    sage-grouse and promoting sustainable economic development across some
    165 million acres in coordination with State and local managers and
    private land owners. Additional resources for the FWS will be used,
    inter alia, for developing voluntary prelisting conservation agreements
    with private landowners who are ready and willing to undertake critical
    conservation work for the sagebrush steppe ecosystem on large blocks of
    private lands.
        BLM Land Management and Renewable Energy Development.--The
    Conservancy supports continued funding at fiscal year 2017 levels for
    BLM's initiatives to implement smart land management approaches, which
    include Rapid Ecoregional Assessments, Resource Management Planning,
    Regional Mitigation Planning, coordination with LCCs, and the
    Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy. Many BLM programs
    contribute to these cross-cutting initiatives including: National
    Landscape Conservation System--($50.65 million); Resource Management
    Planning program ($65.2 million); Wildlife and Fisheries management
    ($108.7 million request); and Threatened & Endangered species
    management ($21.6 million request). Additionally, the Conservancy
    supports continued funding for BLM's renewable energy development
    program at $29 million which includes implementation of the Western
    Solar Energy Program. Collectively, these efforts will help BLM manage
    its lands efficiently and effectively for energy development, species
    and habitat conservation, recreation, and other uses to maximize the
    public benefit from these lands.
        Environmental Protection Agency's Geographic Programs.--EPA's
    geographic programs, including the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative,
    Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, Long Island Sound, and Gulf of Mexico
    programs, make a significant contribution to protecting habitat and
    water quality in the large landscapes where they work. These programs
    have a proven record of supporting the States' voluntary restoration
    efforts, and the Conservancy urges the Committee to continue strong
    funding for these programs at the fiscal year 2017 appropriated levels.
        Colorado River Basin Recovery Programs.--The Upper Colorado River
    Endangered Fish Recovery Program and San Juan River Basin Recovery
    Implementation Program take a balanced approach to recovering four
    endangered fish species in the Colorado River basin. The Upper Colorado
    and San Juan recovery programs are highly successful collaborative
    conservation partnerships involving the States of New Mexico, Colorado,
    Utah, and Wyoming, as well as Indian Tribes, Federal agencies, and
    water, power and environmental interests. These programs provide
    critically important Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance for over
    2,450 Federal, Tribal, State, and private water projects across the
    Upper Colorado River Basin. Through these efforts, water use and
    development has continued in growing Western communities in full
    compliance with the ESA, State water and wildlife law, and interstate
    compacts. Implementation of the ESA has been greatly streamlined for
    Federal agencies, Tribes and water users. The Conservancy supports
    $1.532 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service for the Colorado River
    Basin recovery programs, including recovery funds for both the Upper
    Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and San Juan River
    Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as well as fish hatchery needs
    associated with the recovery plans.
        National Streamflow Network.--The National Streamflow Network
    provides continuous streamflow information at over 8,200 locations
    across the country and is managed within the U.S. Geological Survey's
    Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program. Water managers,
    scientists, and other decisions makers, including within the
    Conservancy, rely on data from the National Streamflow Network to plan
    for floods, droughts, and other extreme events; design infrastructure,
    including the operation of Federal reservoirs; facilitate energy
    generation; protect aquatic species and restore habitat; and manage
    Federal lands. The Conservancy supports funding in fiscal year 2018 to
    fully implement the National Streamflow Network.
        Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program.--Subtitle C of
    Title V of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014
    provides authority for low-cost credit that can leverage private
    investment for water infrastructure. The criteria include whether a
    project protects against extreme weather events or helps maintain the
    environment. The Nature Conservancy supports funding at EPA of
    $25,000,000 to carry out this program.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit The Nature Conservancy's
    recommendations for the fiscal year 2018 Interior, Environment and
    Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Nature Conservancy
                              usda forest service
        Thank you to Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members
    of the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit recommendations for
    fiscal year 2018 appropriations. The Nature Conservancy is an
    international, non-profit conservation organization whose mission is to
    conserve the lands and waters upon which all life depends.
        America's public forests have tremendous national importance but
    their health puts them at severe risk unless we invest in proper
    stewardship and forestry. America's forests store and filter more than
    half of our nation's water supply, provide jobs to nearly one million
    forest product workers, generate $13.6 billion in recreation based
    economic activity from USDA Forest Service lands alone, are habitat to
    thousands of forest-dependent wildlife and plant species, offer a
    million square miles to sportsmen and families for outdoor recreation,
    and are a major carbon sink that sequester 15 percent of all fossil
    fuel emissions in the U.S.
        However, megafires, pests, drought, and sprawl place forests at
    risk; an area larger than the State of Oregon is in immediate need of
    restoration to return forest health--and that is on USDA Forest Service
    lands alone. Unfortunately, forest restoration is significantly
    obstructed by ballooning fire suppression costs.
        The current wildfire suppression funding model and cycle of
    transfers and repayments has negatively impacted the ability to
    implement forest stewardship, among many other activities.
    Additionally, the increasing ten-year average to has not met annual
    suppression needs since before fiscal year 2002. We experienced once
    again how the ten-year average would not have been sufficient to meet
    the fiscal year 2016 suppression needs. Thankfully, Congress rightfully
    protected the agency (and the Department of the Interior) from
    transfers by allocating levels above the ten-year average. The
    Conservancy also appreciates Congress' efforts to ensure the USDA
    Forest Service and the Department of the Interior receive supplemental
    funding for suppression in fiscal year 2017. However, agencies continue
    to need a long-term solution to address the impacts of the increasing
    ten-year average on programs necessary to maintain our public lands.
        The Conservancy greatly appreciates the Committee's past support of
    a much-needed comprehensive fire funding fix, and respectfully request
    a bipartisan fire funding solution that would (1) access disaster
    funding, (2) minimize transfers, and most importantly and (3) address
    the continued erosion of agency budgets over time, with the goal of
    reinvesting in key programs that would restore forests to healthier
    conditions.
        Investing in the following Forest Service programs are critical to
    meeting forest restoration goals:
        Increase funding for Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
    (CFLR) to $60 million.--The CFLR program is demonstrating that
    collaboratively-developed forest restoration plans can be implemented
    at a large scale with benefits for people and the forest. This is a
    model approach that brings citizens, local government and Federal staff
    together to determine effective management that is locally appropriate
    and provides jobs, sustains rural economies, reduces the risk of
    damaging fires, addresses invasive species, improves wildlife habitat,
    and decommissions unused, eroding roads. The funding increase will
    guarantee the existing signature projects covering over 17 million
    acres can continue, and additional critical projects across America's
    forests can begin.
        Fund the Forest Service Hazardous Fuels programs at no less than
    $479 million.--Strategic, proactive hazardous fuels treatments have
    proven safer and more cost-effective in reducing risks to communities
    and forests by removing overgrown brush and trees, leaving forests in a
    more natural condition resilient to wildfires. Drought conditions
    increase the need for investment in this program to restore and
    maintain fire adapted landscapes and habitats. The Conservancy
    recognizes the Committee's continued support for this program through
    its increased funding levels, particularly over the last few years.
        The Conservancy additionally recommends funding for programs that
    support critical restoration programs on national forests. Effective
    and durable restoration requires integrated approaches that address
    threats and improve forest health and habitat values while supporting
    forest-dependent communities.
      --Wildlife & Fisheries Habitat Management maintained at a $140
            million funding level to restore, recover, and maintain
            wildlife and fish and their habitats on all national forests
            and grasslands.
      --Vegetation & Watershed Management funded at $185 million to promote
            restoration through watershed treatment activities, invasive
            plant species control, and reforestation of areas impacted by
            wildfire and other natural events.
      --Legacy Road and Trail Remediation (LRT) maintained at $50 million
            to restore river and stream water quality by fixing or removing
            eroding roads, while providing construction jobs, supporting
            vital sportsmen opportunities, and reducing flooding risks from
            future extreme water flow events.
      --Land Management Planning, Inventory and Monitoring funded at $201
            million, including consolidating the two previously separate
            budget items. Consolidation will be more efficient for land
            managers, while supporting the collaborative, community and
            science based planning featured by the Forest Service 2012
            Forest Planning regulation.
        Fund Forest Health programs at a total of $111 million ($63 million
    for Federal and $48 million for Cooperative).--Forest health protection
    programs work to protect forests by minimizing the impacts caused by
    invasive species. Across the nation large-scale, non-native insect,
    disease, and invasive plant outbreaks are damaging forest health. These
    programs help reduce invasions of non-native pests that destroy iconic
    American trees such as ash, hemlock, and California oaks.
        Fund State Fire Assistance (SFA) at $86 million.--SFA provides aid
    to communities for fuels treatments, firefighter capacity building,
    fire prevention education, and pre-fire planning. The SFA program is an
    important complement to the Hazardous Fuels program for Federal lands.
        Fund Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) at $24 million.--Through
    LSR, non-Federal lands have access for competitively selected projects
    that leverage State funding, restore forests of national importance,
    and, whenever possible, complement CFLR and other landscape scale
    restoration efforts.
        Fund Forest & Rangeland Research at $293 million.--Forest and
    Rangeland Research offers vital scientific basis for policies that
    improve the health and quality of urban and rural communities. This
    program is vital for the long-term health and utility of our American
    forests and rivers, particularly as we face an uncertain climatic
    future.
        Maintain funding for the Joint Fire Science Program at $7 million
    and maintain funding under Wildland Fire Management.--This key, yet
    small, program has proven a great success in supporting practical
    science that reduces fire risk and enhances economic, ecological, and
    social outcomes nationwide.
        Fund Forest Legacy at a minimum of $62 million for the Forest
    Legacy Program in current discretionary funding and the $38 million in
    permanent, mandatory totaling $100 million.--The Forest Legacy program,
    in partnership with States, supports efforts to acquire conservation
    easements and fee simple interests on privately owned forest lands from
    willing sellers. These acquisitions leverage non- Federal dollars and
    support long-term sustainable forestry while protecting other
    ecological, watershed and recreational values for local communities at
    risk of development or conversation to other uses.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share The Nature Conservancy's
    forest restoration priorities.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Navajo-Hopi Land Commission of the 23rd
                             Navajo Nation Council
    Requests:
        1.  Continue to provide necessary funding to complete relocation in
    an effective and timely fashion.
        2.  Provide additional funding to fulfill Congress' mandate to
    provide adequate infrastructure for relocatees.
        3.  Increase oversight of the relocation and rental payment
    processes.
        4.  Provide $20 million for critical needs in the Former Bennett
    Freeze Area.
        5.  Support incentives for private sector investment and the
    streamlining of regulations in the Former Bennett Freeze Area.
        6.  Expand BIA efforts to mitigate hardship in the Former Bennett
    Freeze Area, including establishing a DOI Task Force to assess
    opportunities to aid redevelopment.

        Introduction. Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and
    honorable Members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity
    to provide testimony on behalf of the Navajo-Hopi Land Commission
    (NHLC) of the 23rd Navajo Nation Council. My name is Walter Phelps,
    Chairman of the NHLC and a Council Delegate of the Navajo Nation. The
    NHLC is entrusted with addressing both the ongoing effects of the
    Federal relocation of 15,000 Navajo people off their ancestral lands
    and the realities of 12,000 Navajos living in the former Bennett Freeze
    area, where a strict 41--year construction freeze has left despair and
    desperate need for rehabilitation and reconstruction. It has been over
    40 years (or over two generations) since the Navajo Hopi Land
    Settlement Act of 1974. Relocation has left the Navajo Nation with a
    population of relocatees, a significant number of whom have yet to
    receive the full benefits Congress intended; a population within Hopi-
    Partitioned Lands that struggles living outside the jurisdiction of the
    Nation; and a population in the 1.6-million acre Former Bennett Freeze
    Area (FBFA) that remains severely economically depressed.
        A Special Thank You to this subcommittee. The Navajo Nation is
    deeply appreciative of the effort and the energy this subcommittee has
    put into addressing how to bring about a humane closure to relocation.
    The increased funding that the subcommittee has provided has
    dramatically accelerated the provision of benefits to Navajo families
    who have been waiting for years, if not decades.
                               navajo relocation
        Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR). After the
    passage of the relocation Act, ONHIR was established by Congress to
    carry out relocation activities pursuant to the Act, and operate as
    trustee and Federal land administrator to the Navajo Nation.
    Unfortunately the work of OHNIR proceeded at a glacial pace. The
    Department of Interior's (DOI) Office of Inspector General (OIG)
    published a report on ONHIR that identified two causes for the delay in
    completing relocation: (1) ONHIR's failure to complete eligibility
    determinations; and (2) the complicated and lengthy administrative
    appeals process. ONHIR's routine denials of applications and reliance
    on the adversarial process have historically diverted funds away from
    building homes for certified applicants.
        Now we look to ONHIR's future. The core principle that all parties
    have agreed upon is that every eligible Navajo should receive the
    benefits they were promised under the law. ONHIR is responsible for the
    delivery of these benefits and should operate, in some fashion, until
    its mission is completed. Nonetheless, the Navajo Nation has engaged in
    dialogue with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and OHNIR on what
    closure of OHNIR and the transition of remaining functions to the BIA
    may look like. Many of those functions could be transferred in the
    relatively near future as a part of phasing out ONHIR. The Navajo
    Nation, perhaps more than any other party involved, desires to bring
    closure to the relocation process, which has marked a sad chapter in
    American and Navajo history. However, we believe that the Federal
    Government has a responsibility to bring this closure about in a
    conscientious and compassionate manner and live up to the promise of a
    thorough and generous relocation.
        Completion of Promised Infrastructure. The Navajo Hopi Land
    Settlement Act required the Relocation Commission to prepare a report
    that includes a plan that shall ``assure that housing and related
    community facilities and services, such as water, sewers, roads,
    schools, and health facilities, for such households shall be available
    at their relocation sites . . . .'' (Public Law 93-581, Section 13). In
    1981 the Relocation Commission released its report and plan to
    Congress. In the ``Report and Plan,'' the Relocation Commission
    acknowledged its obligations:

            Congress was greatly concerned that relocation of Indian
            families be to areas where community facilities and services
            exist or will exist. The Commission's plan for relocation
            shall, ordered Congress: Assure that housing and related
            community facilities and services, such as water, sewer, roads,
            schools, and health facilities, for such households shall be
            available at their relocation sites. . . .

        (See Executive Summary, p. 4). Despite this commitment, the Report
    and Plan principally focuses on what facilities, services, and
    infrastructure may already exist (usually Navajo and BIA), without
    providing much detail about what the Relocation Commission would
    provide. Indeed, there is language that pushes off such Relocation
    Commission commitments to a later time. The Relocation Commission did
    not adequately address the requirements of the original Act in assuring
    ``that housing and related community facilities and services, such as
    water, sewer, roads, schools, and health facilities, for such
    households shall be available at their relocation sites. . . .'' These
    unfulfilled obligations are further compounded by the fact that the
    citizens and residents of the Navajo Nation are the most underserved
    communities in the United States of America with respect to
    infrastructure.
    Requests:
        1.  Continue to provide necessary funding to complete relocation in
    an effective and timely fashion.

        We recognize and appreciate the increased funding that ONHIR has
    received in recent years and request that OHNIR's funding is kept
    intact.

        2.  Provide additional funding to fulfill Congress' intent to
    provide infrastructure for relocatees.

        When Congress passed the relocation act it directed the Commission
    to ``[a]ssure that housing and related community facilities and
    services, such as water, sewers, roads, schools, and health facilities,
    for such households shall be available at their relocation sites. . .
    .'' (Public Law 93-581, Section 13). Unfortunately, two generations
    later many relocatees lack the most basic infrastructure, let alone
    what that they were promised at their relocation sites. Indeed, many of
    the relocatees are the most underserved populations in the country with
    respect to infrastructure. The Navajo Nation is currently reviewing
    what ONHIR constructed and what ONHIR should have constructed. We ask
    the subcommittee to adequately fund the infrastructure list that is
    being developed by the Nation to ensure that the infrastructure mandate
    is carried out ``with the same vigor as a sympathetic and generous
    Congress conceived it.'' (1981 Report and Plan to Congress, Executive
    Summary, p. 4).

        3.  Increase oversight of the relocation and rental payment
    processes.

        We are requesting report language encouraging DOI to conduct a
    study and furnish a report regarding lease payments due from the Navajo
    Nation to the Hopi Tribe (see formerly 25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-15(a)). The
    BIA delays for years in making these rental determinations, resulting
    in huge interest payment obligations on the part of the Navajo Nation.
                           former bennet freeze area
        The Former Bennett Freeze Area. The 40-year development freeze
    imposed by Commissioner of Indian Affairs Robert Bennett in 1966
    affected a 1.6-million acre area that encompasses nine Navajo Chapter
    communities in the western portion of the Navajo Nation. For the FBFA
    to recover and redevelop, there must be a sustained reconstruction
    program implemented over a decade or more. This would be consistent
    with the findings of this subcommittee's July 1993 field hearing. The
    nine Navajo chapters in the FBFA have extended lists of projects they
    need to adequately serve their communities, including housing and
    related infrastructure, solid waste transfer station facilities, fire
    departments, telecommunications infrastructure, assisted living centers
    for seniors, and community facilities such as cemeteries and recreation
    parks. Funding for road repair and maintenance is also an enormous
    challenge. Although the Federal Government bears great responsibility
    to the harm that those in the FBFA continue to suffer, the NHLC
    recognizes that full redevelopment ultimately lies in our own hands. In
    addition to seeking funds, we ask this subcommittee to the support
    private sector partnerships and incentives needed for transformational
    change.
    Requests:

        1.  Provide $20 million for critical needs in the Former Bennett
    Freeze Area.

        Critical needs of the FBRA include housing, safe drinking water,
    electricity, timely emergency response services, telecommunications
    infrastructure, and community facilities. We request the subcommittee
    allocate $20 million for housing and related improvements in the FBFA
    out of the BIA Trust Natural Resources Account (Natural Resources
    Subactivity).

        2. Support incentives for private sector investment and the
    streamlining of regulations.

        The NHLC asks the subcommittee to support new incentives to
    encourage private sector investment in the FBFA (and other relocation-
    impacted areas). Although legislation to advance incentives may not
    strictly fall within this subcommittee's jurisdiction, as efforts are
    made to advance and pass such legislation, this subcommittee may well
    be asked to be of assistance.

        3.  Expand BIA efforts to mitigate hardship in the relocation and
    redevelopment processes.

        We ask that the subcommittee direct the BIA to expand efforts to
    rehabilitate the former Bennett Freeze. Specifically, we request that
    the subcommittee include report language that would establish a DOI
    taskforce to undertake a review of Interior programs that would benefit
    the FBFA and assist the Navajo Nation in creating jobs and supporting
    workforce development with a goal of strengthening this area (as well
    as the relocation-impacted Navajo chapter communities). Such taskforce
    should include the BIA, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey,
    Fish and Wildlife Service, and Office of Surface Mining and should
    examine programs such as the Economics and Resource Planning Team and
    Rural Tribal Water Projects.
        Conclusion. All parties would agree that the relocation has gone on
    for far too long. Recent discussions regarding the closure of ONHIR and
    transition of remaining functions have given us the glimpse of an end
    to this sad and painful history. The NHLC is committed to working with
    you to find ways to bring about the end of the relocation era in a
    compassionate manner. Thank you for the opportunity to present this
    testimony.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Nez Perce Tribe
        Honorable Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, as Chairman of
    the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, I would like to thank you for
    the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Nez Perce Tribe
    (Tribe) as the Committee evaluates and prioritizes fiscal year 2018
    appropriations for Indian Health Service (IHS), Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Forest
    Service (FS), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in relation to
    the needs of Tribal nations.
        First, on behalf of the Tribe, I want to acknowledge and thank this
    subcommittee for your efforts on a longstanding, bipartisan basis to
    understand the needs of Indian Country and advocate for increased
    appropriations to the many programs in your jurisdiction that benefit
    our citizens, our Tribal governments, and all members of our
    communities.
        As with any government, the Tribe performs a wide array of work and
    provides a multitude of services to its Tribal membership as well as
    the community at large. The Tribe has a health clinic, a Tribal police
    force, a social services department, a comprehensive natural resources
    program that does work related to forestry, wildlife management, land
    services and land management, habitat restoration, air quality and
    smoke management, water quality and sewer service, and also has one of
    the largest fisheries departments of any Tribe in the Nation working on
    the recovery of listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
    The Tribe has a comprehensive administrative framework that provides
    extensive services on the Nez Perce Reservation. These programs are
    necessary and vital for a sovereign nation that preserves and protects
    the Treaty rights of the Nez Perce People and provides day-to-day
    governmental services to its members and surrounding communities. The
    Tribe has long been a proponent of self-determination for Tribes and
    believes our primary obligation is to protect the Treaty-reserved
    rights of the Tribe and our members. All of the work of the Tribe is
    guided by this principle. As a result, the Tribe works extensively with
    many Federal agencies and proper funding for those agencies and their
    work with, for, and through Tribes is of vital importance. This work
    cannot be accomplished unless the U.S. continues to affirm and follow
    through on its trust responsibility to Indian Tribes by properly
    funding programs. The Tribe supports the National Congress of American
    Indians' publication titled ``Investing in Indian Country for a
    Stronger America,'' a comprehensive guide on recommendations for fiscal
    year 2018 funding of Tribal programs.
                        environmental protection agency
        The Tribe has submitted comments on the budget request for programs
    within this subcommittee's jurisdiction for a number of years. We wish
    to note that although prior testimony has put funding for BIA and IHS
    first, this year, given indications that the fiscal year 2018 budget
    request will severely reduce EPA funding and given the breadth and
    array of our work with that agency, we place it first for your
    consideration.
        The Tribe works closely with EPA on a large number of programs that
    are essential to the health and safety of the 18,000 Tribal and non-
    Tribal citizens residing within the Nez Perce Reservation and that also
    protect the Treaty-reserved resources of the Tribe that the U.S. has a
    trust obligation to preserve. These programs include: the Clean Water
    Act 106 Program; the Clean Water Act 319 Program; Nonpoint Source (NPS)
    Pollution Prevention Program; the Indian General Assistance Program;
    the Brownfield Program; the Underground Storage Tank Program; the
    Delegation of Nez Perce Federal Implementation Plan; the Clean Air Act
    103 Grant-Nez Perce Tribe Air Quality Project; and the EPA Region 10
    Pesticide Circuit Rider Program. In total, the Tribe currently
    implements over $1.5 million in programmatic funding under these
    programs. The Tribe recommends the Indian General Assistance Program be
    funded at $75 million, the Tribal allocation under the Clean Water Act
    106 program be increased to 20 percent, $13 million for Tribal Air
    Quality Management, $80 million for the Brownfields program, and $13
    million be provided in lieu of the percent cap on Tribal funding for
    NPS pollutant control.
                             indian health service
        The Tribe currently operates Nimiipuu Health, a healthcare clinic
    on the Nez Perce Reservation. The main clinic is located in Lapwai,
    Idaho, with a satellite facility located 65 miles away in Kamiah,
    Idaho. Nimiipuu Health provides services to at least 3,950 patients
    each year. Annually, this computes to 40,000 medical provider visits
    which do not include pharmacy or laboratory visits. This workload is
    very costly. Our expenditure total for fiscal year 2016 was $14,418,561
    and Purchased/Referred Care (P/RC) costs for outpatient services for
    fiscal year 2016 totaled $4,028,595. The clinic spent an additional
    $331,133.67 on P/RC using monies received from settling IHS contract
    support cost litigation.
        For fiscal year 2018, the Tribe supports continuing the $5 billion
    in funding enacted for fiscal year 2017. This funding amount will allow
    Tribes to pay costs, maintain current services, and allow IHS, Tribal,
    and urban programs and facilities to keep up with medical and non-
    medical inflation and population growth. The Tribe recommends an
    increase of $51.9 million in funding for PR/C which will help to meet
    the PR/C spending needs of Tribal health facilities.
        The Tribe supports $800 million for fiscal year 2018 contract
    support costs as was provided in fiscal year 2017. In addition, because
    full funding of these obligations is so important to Indian Country,
    the Tribe supports reclassifying contract support costs for the BIA and
    IHS as mandatory and not discretionary beginning in fiscal year 2018.
    However, this change in funding should not be accomplished or be off-
    set by reducing other funding for these agencies that would adversely
    affect services or programs. Finally, this funding should not be
    unnecessarily reduced by excessive set-asides for administration. The
    Tribe also recommends permanent, mandatory funding of the Special
    Diabetes Program at $150 million per fiscal year.
                            bureau of indian affairs
        The Tribe supports funding for contract support costs of at least
    the $273 million provided for in fiscal year 2017 and as stated above,
    the reclassification of these costs from discretionary to mandatory, as
    well as a 5 percent increase in overall funding for the BIA. The Tribe
    also requests the fiscal year 2018 Interior appropriations bill include
    a ``Carcieri fix'' to address legal issues that have arisen related to
    the transfer of land into trust which has created uncertainty over the
    status of lands. This uncertainty only stifles and impedes economic
    development in Indian Country.
        In relation to the BIA Public Safety and Justice account, the Tribe
    advocates for at least the $353 million in funding for law enforcement
    and $31 million for Tribal courts that was enacted in fiscal year 2017.
    The Nez Perce Reservation spans 1,200 square miles covering five
    counties and has a mixture of Tribal and non-Tribal residents. The
    Tribe provides a full service law and justice program. The Tribe has a
    fully trained and staffed police force, a fully staffed Tribal court, a
    prosecutor, a public defender, and other personnel to perform related
    administrative functions. Currently, the Tribe contributes $1,797,467
    annually to cover the shortfall in BIA funding for the Tribe's law
    enforcement, $390,927 for judicial services/probation, $365,601 for
    prosecutorial services, $164,860 for public defender services and
    $300,000 for prisoner boarding. This supplemental funding is derived
    from Tribal taxes on goods and fuel and Tribal gaming revenues that
    would otherwise be used for other Tribal governmental services. The
    funding for these programs needs to be increased to account for
    shortfalls in funding the Tribe has to absorb in order to continue the
    operation of these vital services on the Reservation.
        In relation to education, the Tribe requests that funding for the
    Johnson O'Malley program be increased from the static levels of $14.8
    million provided in fiscal years 2016 and 2017, and total funding of
    $35 million be provided for Scholarships and Adult Education and
    Special Higher Education Scholarships. These increases will help
    address the rising costs of attending college. The Tribe also supports
    $2.5 million, if not an increase, for Tribal Education Departments
    along with increases for Tribal Colleges and Universities that support
    institutions like Northwest Indian College that operates a satellite
    campus on the Nez Perce Reservation.
        The Tribe also relies on the BIA for funding for our work related
    to endangered species and protection of the Tribe's Treaty resources
    including Chinook and steelhead salmon. The funding has also been used
    to supplement research efforts of the Tribe relative to other sensitive
    species. Particularly helpful and important to the Tribe is the BIA
    Endangered Species Program for which the Tribe recommends a $1 million
    increase. This account provides Tribes with technical and financial
    assistance to protect endangered species on trust lands. Also, the
    Tribe recommends an increase of $2.8 million for BIA Natural Resource
    Tribal Priority Allocations which will help increase Tribal land and
    management capabilities.
        In addition, the funding provided under the BIA Rights Protection
    implementation monies are critical to support the exercise of treaty
    reserved, off-reservation hunting and fishing for Tribes. The Tribe
    supports total funding in the amount of $40 million. BIA single-line
    dollars provide the foundation for core program administration and
    treaty rights protection activities, such as harvest monitoring. These
    efforts are central to the Tribe's fisheries management
    responsibilities as established by the Treaties and further delineated
    in court decisions regarding implementation of hunting and fishing
    Treaty rights. It is important to understand that this funding is not
    for equipment but is used for job creation.
        The Tribe also supports $15 million in funding for the BIA Wildlife
    and Parks Tribal Priority Allocations. As stated earlier, the Tribe has
    invested a significant amount of personnel and resources in the
    restoration of salmon through our fisheries programs. The States of
    Oregon, Washington and Idaho, as well as sports fisheries, directly
    benefit from this work. These programs have been successful with
    funding under the Tribal Management and Development Program which is
    critical for the Tribe's management of fish and wildlife. We support
    funding in the amount of $14 million for the Tribal Management and
    Development Program.
             u.s. fish and wildlife service and u.s. forest service
        The Tribe relies heavily on funding sources within the FWS and the
    FS. First, the operations of Kooskia National Fish Hatchery are funded
    by FWS. The Tribe manages this facility pursuant to the terms of the
    Snake River Water Rights Act of 2004 (Act). FWS requires full funding
    for the operations of this important facility to ensure the U.S. meets
    its obligations under this Act. Second, the FWS administered State and
    Tribal Wildlife Grants program is an important and cost effective
    expenditure for the government and is one of the few sources of funds
    Tribes can tap into for wildlife research. Since 2005, we have received
    five such grants that have allowed us to work on diverse issues such as
    gray wolf monitoring, bighorn sheep research, rare plant conservation,
    and Condor habitat research. Continued funding for the State and Tribal
    Wildlife Grant program will allow recipient Tribes to build capacity
    and maintain involvement in key conservation issues. The Tribe strongly
    urges this subcommittee to increase funding for these competitive
    grants to $66 million and increase the Tribal share by $2 million as
    they provide a large return for a small investment.
        Related to forest management, the Tribe supports the inclusion of
    language in the fiscal year 2018 Interior appropriations bill for
    wildfire disaster funding that treats wildfires like other natural
    disasters and emergencies to help prevent funds from having to be
    diverted from forest management. We thank the subcommittee for your
    efforts on this critical issue.
        The Nez Perce Reservation and its usual and accustomed areas are
    rich in natural resources and encompass 11 national forests. The Tribe
    works closely with each forest's administration to properly manage its
    resources on behalf of the Tribe. These range from protecting and
    properly managing the products of the forest to providing habitat for
    the vast wildlife in each one such as elk, deer, bighorn sheep and
    wolves. Increased funding is necessary so that the FS can meet these
    trust obligations and continue to work with Tribes on a government-to-
    government basis without being hampered by lack of funding to fill
    positions.
        With regard to management of bighorn sheep, the Tribe would like to
    note that the subcommittee has included report language over the last
    several years that encourages research related to disease transmission
    between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep. The Tribe encourages this
    type of research mandate to be restricted to laboratory settings and
    not be allowed to occur in the field where impact and harm would be
    more difficult to control. The bighorn sheep populations within the
    Tribe's aboriginal territories are too fragile and too important to be
    put at risk.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As you can see, the
    Tribe does a tremendous amount of work in a variety of areas. It is
    important that the U.S. continue to fund this work and uphold and honor
    its trust obligations to Tribes.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
        Chair Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member Tom Udall and Members of the
    subcommittee, for the record my name is Lorraine Loomis and I am chair
    of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). The NWIFC is
    comprised of the twenty Tribes that are party to United States v.
    Washington \1\ (U.S. v. Washington), which upheld the Tribes' treaty-
    reserved right to harvest and manage various natural resources on and
    off-reservation, including salmon and shellfish.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ United States v. Washington, Boldt Decision (1974) reaffirmed
    Western Washington Tribes' treaty fishing rights.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On behalf of the NWIFC, I am here today to speak specifically to
    our fiscal year 2018 natural resources management and environmental
    program funding requests for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These programs are necessary to
    meet the many natural resources management responsibilities required of
    the Tribes, including the management of Pacific salmon fisheries that
    contributes to a robust natural resource-based economy and the
    continued exercise of Tribal treaty rights to fish.

              SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2018 APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS

                            bureau of indian affairs
    Provide $56.5 million for Rights Protection Implementation (collective
    request)
            Provide $17.146 million for Western Washington Fisheries
            Management
            Provide $3.082 million for Washington State Timber-Fish-
            Wildlife
            Provide $4.844 million for U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty
            Provide $2.4 million for Salmon Marking
            Provide $5.442 million for Climate Change
    Provide $10.378 million for Hatchery Operations and Maintenance
    Provide $273.0 million for Contract Support
    Provide $30.355 million for Cooperative Landscape Conservation
    Provide $830,000 for Watershed Restoration
                        environmental protection agency
    Provide $96.4 million for General Assistance Program
    Provide $50.0 million for Puget Sound Geographic Program
    Provide $5.0 million for Beyond GAP

                           JUSTIFICATION OF REQUESTS

                            bureau of indian affairs
    Rights Protection Implementation Subactivity
        The 41 Tribes in the Great Lakes and Pacific Northwest with similar
    treaty-reserved rights have collectively identified that no less than
    $52.0 million for Rights Protection Implementation (RPI) is necessary
    to support essential Tribal treaty-reserved resource management. The
    NWIFC has also identified an additional need of $4.5 million for RPI
    Climate Change, bringing our total request for RPI to $56.5 million.
    The fiscal year 2017 enacted level provides $39.661 million for RPI.
        A summary of the accounts of interest to us within RPI is further
    identified below. However, please note that a breakdown of these
    accounts is not provided in the BIA's fiscal year 2018 Greenbook.
        Provide $17.146 million for BIA Western Washington Fisheries
    Management.--We respectfully request $17.146 million; an increase of
    $8.614 million over the fiscal year 2016 enacted level of $8.532
    million. Funding for this program supports the Tribes to co-manage
    their treaty-reserved resources with the State of Washington, and to
    continue to meet court mandates and legal responsibilities. For
    example, funding supports harvest planning, population assessments,
    data gathering for finfish, shellfish, groundfish, wildlife, and other
    natural resource management needs.
        Provide $3.082 million for BIA Washington State Timber-Fish-
    Wildlife (TFW).--We respectfully request $3.082 million; an increase of
    $346,000 over the fiscal year 2016 enacted level of $2.736 million.
    Funding for this program is provided to improve forest practices on
    State and private lands, while providing protection for fish, wildlife
    and water quality. This funding supports the Tribes' participation in
    the Timber, Fish and Wildlife Agreement--a collaborative
    intergovernmental and stakeholder processes between the State,
    industry, and Tribes.
        Provide $4.844 million for BIA U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty.--
    We respectfully request $4.844 million; an increase of $564,000 over
    the fiscal year 2016 enacted level of $4.28 million. The Pacific Salmon
    Treaty (PST) Act of 1985 charges the U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon
    Commission (PSC) with the responsibility for implementation of the PST,
    a bilateral treaty with Canada. Tribes assist the Federal government in
    meeting its obligations to implement the treaty, by participating in
    various fisheries management exercises including cooperative research
    and data gathering activities. This funding request will provide
    sufficient resources to support Tribes to continue effective
    participation in the bilateral PST process.
        Provide $2.4 million for BIA Salmon Marking.--We respectfully
    request $2.4 million; an increase of $1.332 million over the fiscal
    year 2016 enacted level of $1.068 million. Since 2003, Congress has
    required that all salmon released from federally funded hatcheries are
    marked for conservation management purposes and has provided funding to
    implement this mandate. This funding allows Tribes to mark salmon at
    Tribal hatcheries and to use these marked fish to scientifically
    monitor salmon populations in western Washington.
        Provide $4.5 million for BIA Climate Change.--We respectfully
    request $4.5 million for Climate Change for our member Tribes; an
    increase of $2.118 million over our fiscal year 2016 allocation. The
    fiscal year 2016 appropriations provided a collective (Great Lakes and
    Northwest) total of $5.442 million, of which our member Tribes received
    $2.382 million. Funding for this program will provide Tribes the
    capacity to identify, respond and adapt to the impacts of our changing
    climate. There is a need to assess the potential impacts to Tribal
    treaty-reserved resources in the face of climate change, which brings
    different challenges for every Tribal community. It is important that
    Tribes be provided the maximum flexibility to develop watershed and
    site-specific science-based activities to meet their particular needs.
    Fish, Wildlife & Parks Projects/Fish, Wildlife and Parks Subactivity
        Provide $10.378 million for Hatchery Operations and Maintenance.--
    We respectfully request $10.378 million specifically for Hatchery
    Operations and Maintenance; an increase of $2.0 million over the $8.378
    million provided for these programs in fiscal year 2016. Funding is
    provided to Tribal hatcheries to support the rearing and releasing of
    salmon and steelhead for harvest by Indian and non-Indian fisheries in
    the U.S. and Canada. Hatcheries are a necessary component of fisheries
    management because habitat degradation has greatly diminished natural
    spawning populations. As such, hatcheries are now essential for
    maintaining the treaty right to harvest fish. Without hatcheries,
    Tribes would lose their most basic ceremonial and subsistence fisheries
    that are central to our Tribal culture. Hatcheries also play a large
    role in recovering Pacific salmon, many of which are listed under the
    Endangered Species Act.
        Funding for Fish Hatchery Maintenance is provided to Tribes
    nationwide based on the ranking of annual project proposals. A
    comprehensive needs assessment study for our western Washington Tribes
    was conducted in fiscal year 2006 by the BIA at the request of
    Congress, which identified a need of over $48.0 million in necessary
    hatchery maintenance and rehabilitation costs.
    Other Subactivities and Accounts
        Provide $273.0 million for BIA Contract Support.--We respectfully
    request $273.0 million, which would maintain funding at the fiscal year
    2017 enacted level. We also support the reclassification of Contract
    Support Costs (CSC) as mandatory funding beginning in fiscal year 2018.
    Funding for this function is provided to Tribes and Tribal
    organizations to ensure they have the capacity to manage Federal
    programs under self-determination contracts and self-governance
    compacts. These funds are critical as they directly support our
    governmental functions, which allow us to fully exercise our right to
    self-govern.
        Provide $30.355 million for BIA Cooperative Landscape
    Conservation.--We respectfully request $30.355 million; an increase of
    $20.399 million over the fiscal year 2017 enacted level of $9.956
    million. Funding for this program will support Tribal capacity to
    participate in and provide input on climate change issues that impact
    fisheries and other treaty-reserved resources. It will also allow
    Tribes to provide their perspective on climate change adaptation and
    resiliency necessary to protect their treaty-reserved rights, which is
    informed by both traditional ecological knowledge and scientific
    research.
        Provide $830,000 for BIA Watershed Restoration.--We respectfully
    request $830,000 for the western Washington treaty Tribes. Funding has
    historically been contained in the Forestry Subactivity--Forestry
    Projects--Watershed Restoration account and supports our Salmon and
    Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment Program (SSHIAP). SSHIAP is
    a vital program to the western Washington Tribes, because it provides
    essential environmental data management, analysis, sharing, and
    reporting to support Tribal natural resource management. It also
    supports our Tribes' ability to adequately participate in watershed
    resource assessments and salmon recovery work.
                        environmental protection agency
        Provide $96.4 million for EPA General Assistance Program (GAP).--We
    respectfully request $96.4 million; an increase of $30.924 million over
    the fiscal year 2017 enacted level of $65.476 million. GAP is important
    because it provides the capacity for Tribes across the Nation to
    develop and operate essential environmental protection programs. These
    programs help our member Tribes address environmental issues such as
    water pollution, which impacts Tribal health and safety, as well as
    treaty-reserved resources.
        Provide $50.0 million for EPA Puget Sound Geographic Program.--We
    respectfully request $50.0 million; an increase of $22.0 million over
    the fiscal year 2017 enacted level of $28.0 million. This Geographic
    Program provides essential funding that will help protect and restore
    Puget Sound--an estuary of national significance. Funding for this
    program is essential for Tribes because it supports our participation
    in a broad range of Puget Sound recovery work, including, scientific
    research, resource recovery planning, implementation, and policy
    discussions on issues that affect our treaty rights.
        Provide $5.0 million for EPA ``Beyond GAP''.--We respectfully
    request $5.0 million for EPA ``Beyond GAP'' and accompanying
    legislative language that would specifically allow Tribes to use this
    funding for implementing Tribal programs. We also request an increase
    to the Tribal allocations in EPA CWA Sec. 104, Sec. 106 and Sec. 319,
    and CAA Sec. 103 and Sec. 105 programs to allow for media-specific
    implementation priorities. This ``Beyond GAP'' request would advance
    the EPA/Tribal partnership from solely funding capacity building to
    funding environmental programs capable of implementing a broad range of
    management activities necessary to protect health and safety, as well
    as treaty-reserved resources.

                                   CONCLUSION

        We respectfully urge the Subcommittee to continue to support our
    efforts to protect and restore our treaty-reserved rights that in turn
    will provide for thriving communities and economies. Thank you.

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

           Prepared Statement of the Norton Sound Health Corporation
        The requests of the Norton Sound Health Corporation (NSHC) for the
    fiscal year 2018 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as follows:
      --Continue support and funding for the IHS Joint Venture program,
            which should be expanded to allow behavioral health programs to
            participate, and provide increased funding for staffing and for
            the IHS facilities appropriation, as sufficient to help ensure
            Norton Sound can construct and fully staff a new Wellness and
            Training Center, which is needed for providing critical
            substance use disorder and behavioral health services.
      --Direct IHS to accept small ambulatory clinic funding applications
            for new health clinics that are construction-in-progress or
            consider negotiating staffing funds for new facilities.
      --Expand and streamline funding for sewer and water projects.
      --Make funding for Village Built Clinics recurring every year, which
            should be shown as a line item in the IHS budget and displayed
            in the Budget Justification.
      --Ensure full funding of contract support costs.
      --Increase funding for behavioral healthcare services.
      --Shield IHS funding from sequestration.
        The Norton Sound Health Corporation (NSHC) is the only regional
    health system serving Northwestern Alaska, along the Bering Strait
    Region. We are not connected by road to any other part of the State,
    and are 500 air miles from the City of Anchorage (roughly the distance
    from Washington, D.C. to Portland, Maine). Our service area encompasses
    44,000 square miles. The system includes a regional hospital, which we
    own and operate under an Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act (ISDEAA) agreement, and 15 village-based clinics.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ We serve the communities of: Brevig Mission, Council, Diomede,
    Elim, Gambell, Golovin, King Island, Koyuk, Mary's Igloo, Nome, St.
    Michael, Savoonga, Shaktoolik, Shishmaref, Solomon, Stebbins, Teller,
    Unalakleet, Wales, and White Mountain.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Remove Restrictions on Joint Venture Construction Projects To
    Include Behavioral Health Facilities, and Increase Funding For IHS
    Joint Venture and Facilities Construction Funding. Substance use
    disorders and the costs associated with substance use in NSHC's region
    is at a crisis level. Substance abuse is present in 95 percent of law
    enforcement calls and incarcerations, in 92 percent of child protective
    services cases, and in 95 percent of referrals to women's shelters. The
    related healthcare costs, not only for substance-related treatment, but
    also connected with school and vocational drop-outs, suicides, and lost
    productivity continue to skyrocket.
        While general outpatient services are a critical tool for
    addressing these concerns, many times patients need an even higher
    level of care in order to receive the deep clinical counseling required
    to combat a lifetime of substance abuse. In response to a community
    survey, in which NSHC's communities identified a significant need for
    addressing substance use and treatment options in a culturally
    sensitive manner, NHSC is developing a new Wellness and Training Center
    in order to provide a full continuum of treatment locally. The services
    will include detoxification, intensive outpatient services, day
    treatment and sober housing. Because people are literally dying in our
    region from addiction, this project is critical to help NSHC promote
    healing and to put the brakes on the rampant substance use in our
    region. This multipurpose building will also house our Health Aide
    Training Program, one of only four Health Aide Training sites in
    Alaska. Over seventy Health Aides are employed by Norton Sound Health
    Corporation and deliver nearly 70 percent of the healthcare in the
    region. Their training needs are comprehensive and must be maintained.
    This new training space will allow for increased classroom sizes to
    sustain the quality program.
        NSHC has finished designing the new Wellness and Training Center
    and is ready to begin site work and pad preparation this year, with
    construction to start in 2018. The Center will be located near the
    Norton Sound Regional hospital in Nome, Alaska. We have funded the
    design work and initial phases of the project through grant funding and
    donations, as well $1.9 million of NSHC's own funding. Although NSHC
    has pledged another $2.5 million toward construction, the total cost of
    the construction project remains at $11.8 million. NSHC has also with
    its own funds started construction of two ancillary health clinics in
    the villages of Savoonga and Gambell.
        It was understood that the Small Ambulatory Clinic Fund, if
    approved, would support construction funding for both Gambell and
    Savoonga health clinics. The IHS has now reneged on its funding for
    these projects, claiming that because construction has already started,
    the projects are not eligible for funding as small ambulatory clinic
    projects or joint venture construction projects under the Indian Health
    Care Improvement Act (IHCIA). IHS has also denied funding for the
    Wellness and Training Center because it would include a behavioral
    health component, even though the new Title VII to the IHCIA has
    emphasized the need for behavioral health components to Tribal health
    programs. There is nothing in the IHCIA that prohibits the IHS from
    funding these construction projects under applicable IHCIA authorities
    just because they have already been started, nor is there any
    limitation in the law that a Tribal wellness center may not include a
    behavioral health component. Behavioral health facilities, like any
    healthcare facility in Indian country, are in desperate need of
    additional funding for staffing and operating their programs.
        NSHC thus requests that the Subcommittees take up this issue with
    IHS regarding their restrictive policies on eligibility for the fiscal
    year 2017 funds, and include fiscal year 2018 report and/or statutory
    language requiring the IHS to fund these projects from fiscal year 2018
    funds provided to implement these IHCIA authorities. NSHC also asks
    that the Subcommittees continue to fund and support the IHS Joint
    Venture program, as it is critically important for helping to address
    the significant backlog of facilities needs that continues to exist
    throughout Indian country. We also request that staffing funds be made
    available for clinics built by Tribes and Tribal organizations, as
    recurring money for staffing would go a long way toward supporting
    Tribal efforts to construct and operate new facilities in place of
    aging ones. We also ask the Subcommittees to support increased funding
    for the IHS facilities appropriations, as the amount of funding being
    appropriated for facilities construction and for maintenance and
    improvement of existing facilities is not currently adequate to cover
    the very substantial facility requirements that exist in Indian country
    and throughout the Alaska Tribal health system. Without facilities in
    which to provide healthcare, we cannot meet our communities' needs for
    quality and available local treatment.
        Funding For Water & Sewer Projects. Five villages within the Bering
    Strait region are still to this day completely unconnected to any
    running water and sewer. Those villages are Diomede, Wales, Shishmaref,
    Stebbins and Teller. In three other of NSHC's communities, 30-50
    percent of the homes still lack such connections, and ongoing sewer and
    water upgrades and maintenance backlogs remain concerns in seven other
    of our communities.
        Multiple Federal programs help to fund water and sewer projects,
    including grant programs through the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as well as through the IHS.
    However, Federal funding streams must be coordinated in order to
    complete construction of a system in a community. For example, the
    EPA's Safe Drinking Water Act funding can only be used for community
    water facilities and water service lines, but not for interior
    plumbing. IHS housing support funds can be used for water and sewer
    facilities to non-HUD ``like new'' native owned/occupied homes, but
    regulations currently prevent connection to newer HUD-built homes. The
    regulatory structure is thus complex and makes for complicated planning
    and funding challenges.
        NSHC believes it would be beneficial to streamline and align
    Federal agency authorities through the IHS. Establishing a program
    within the IHS that would allow Tribes to enter into contracts with the
    private sector, use Federal sewer and water funding from multiple
    agencies to support the complete construction of running water and
    sewer in a community would lead to a clear path toward water and sewer
    development, rather than the piecemeal approach that exists today. We
    thus request the subcommittees' support for establishing such a program
    within the IHS, and for expanding the current funding within the IHS
    budget that is allocated toward water and sewer projects. In this day
    and age, we should not have communities, nor homes within communities,
    that are unconnected to safe water and sewer.
        Additionally, we want to bring to the Subcommittees attention that
    as we consider reforms to regulatory structure for water and sewer
    projects, we are experiencing in our communities in Alaska the very
    real problem of climate change. Increasing temperatures are changing
    Alaska: thawing permafrost and eroding costal and river shorelines are
    damaging and shortening the operating life of critical sanitation
    infrastructure in Native communities. The State of Alaska and the
    Federal General Accounting Office have identified 31 threatened Native
    communities, 12 of which are looking at relocating their villages.
    Funding for programs impacted by climate change, such as those related
    to addressing flooding and erosion, must not be cut, and we ask the
    Subcommittees to help encourage the Federal funding agencies to be more
    responsive to the need for research and development, in order to
    address the sewer and water needs in these communities that are
    threatened by climate change.
        Village Built Clinics. NSHC has testified for several years now
    about the chronic underfunding of our Village Built Clinics (VBCs). We
    cannot overstate the importance of the VBCs in Alaska. Anyone can try
    to imagine living in a very remote village with no roads and
    unpredictable weather, while a need for healthcare services arises, and
    can appreciate how the VBCs are necessary to ensure there is an
    available, local source of healthcare in such situations. We thus want
    to thank Congress for funding the $11 million increase for Tribal
    health clinic leases in the fiscal year 2017 Consolidated
    Appropriations bill. However, we now ask for the Subcommittees' support
    to make VBC funding recurring every year, and request that additional
    funding be provided. In 2015, the Alaska Native Health Board estimated
    that $12.5 million was needed in addition to the existing $4.5 million
    base. Accordingly, the $11 million increase in fiscal year 2017 was a
    major step forward, but still does not cover the full amount of need.
    In addition, without a separate line item for VBCs, much of the funding
    could be distributed to other types of facility leases, leaving the
    VBCs even more short on necessary funding. We thus also request that
    VBC funding be shown as a line item in the IHS budget and displayed in
    the Budget Justification in order to assist with planning and certainty
    for our VBCs.
        Funding For Contract Support Costs. We wish to express our
    gratitude for the Subcommittees' leadership in making funding of IHS
    contract support costs (CSC) for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 an
    indefinite amount, and for making CSC a separate account in the IHS
    budget. This has made a tremendous difference in our ability to
    implement our healthcare programs under the Indian Self-Determination
    and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA). Our objective, though, continues
    to be the indefinite appropriation of CSC funding as mandatory and
    permanent. Full payment of CSC is not discretionary; it is a legal
    obligation under the ISDEAA, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. NSHC
    remains committed to working together with the appropriate
    Congressional committees to determine how best to achieve this
    objective.
        Additional Issues. We have in the past testified in support of the
    Obama Administration's and the Senate Subcommittee's recommendation for
    $25 million for an IHS Behavioral Health Integration Initiative. The
    final bill does not contain that amount, although there is an overall
    fiscal year 2017 $12 million increase for the Mental Health Account
    (from $82 million to $94 million). We hope that fiscal year 2018
    funding will be provided to build on this Initiative. We have also
    several times in the past requested that the IHS budget from
    sequestration. We again ask the Subcommittees' support for this
    request.
        Thank you for your consideration of the concerns and requests of
    the Norton Sound Health Corporation.

        [This statement was submitted by Christopher Bolton, Chief
    Operating Officer.]
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Officers of the Environmental Council of the
                                     States
        Dear Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of the
    subcommittee:

        The undersigned Officers of the Environmental Council of the States
    (ECOS), on behalf of the organization, submit this testimony on the
    President's proposed fiscal year 2018 budget for the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA), and specifically regarding the Categorical
    Grants within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG Categorical
    Grants).
        States are collectively and independently reviewing the President's
    proposal. We appreciate the interactions and outreach by the
    Administration to seek State input on the budget to date, and look
    forward to further engagement on the budget with the administration and
    congressional delegations. It will be important that budget adjustments
    are made thoughtfully and with caution to assure sustained support to
    programs that advance the well-being of our communities and to the many
    partnerships we employ to deliver programs that drive critical
    environmental and public health protection.
        The administration's proposed funding of $597 million for the STAG
    Categorical Grants continues a national conversation about how to
    deliver environmental programs in our country efficiently and with a
    focus on results and outcomes.\1\ ECOS is committed to, with our
    Federal, State, and local partners, assessing how we, collectively,
    perform environmental protection work today in the most efficient,
    least duplicative, manner possible.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ECOS notes that some funding for States is contained in other
    parts of the EPA proposed budget. For purposes of this testimony,
    however, ECOS focuses on the STAG Categorical Grants.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         core state environmental work
        Through authorization and delegation over the last 45 years, States
    have become the primary implementers of Federal environmental statutes,
    today with 96 percent of the delegable authorities under Federal law.
    The STAG Categorical Grants fund core State environmental work, which
    include all aspects of operating delegated Federal programs such as
    issuing permits, conducting inspections, setting standards, collecting
    and managing data, bringing enforcement actions, providing compliance
    assistance and inspections, evaluating information submitted by
    regulated entities, citizen complaint response, external engagement and
    communication, developing regulations, drafting policies, classifying
    waterbodies, preparing for and responding to accidental or intentional
    releases of contaminants, and cleaning up and restoring sites. The STAG
    Categorical Grants make up on average 27 percent of State Environmental
    Agency Budgets.\2\ Decreases in STAG Categorical Grants will have
    impacts on State environmental agencies that must be thoughtfully
    considered.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.ecos.org/news-and-updates/green-report-on-status-
    of-environmental-agency-budgets/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       supercore stag categorical grants
        While all the STAG Categorical Grants are important to States, ECOS
    identified several STAG Categorical Grants as ``supercore'' because
    they directly support core State environmental responsibilities.
    Supercore STAG Categorical Grants sustain State performance of core
    legal obligations and health protection responsibilities. They are:
      --Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance (RCRA Core Funding)
      --Water Pollution Control (Clean Water Act Section 106)
      --State and Local Air Quality Management (Clean Air Act Sections 103,
            105, 106)
      --Nonpoint Source Control (Clean Water Act Section 319)
      --Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) (Safe Drinking Water Act
            Section 1443(a))
      --Environmental Information (E-Permitting, Modernization of Data
            Systems)
      --Multipurpose Grants (created in fiscal year 2016 Omnibus for State
            defined high priority activities)
        The new Multipurpose Grants are the type of flexible, State-
    priority informed funding that States have been seeking for a long
    time. In 2016 all 56 States, territories, and the District of Columbia
    accepted the share of the $19,800 million in Multipurpose Grants
    funding for which they were eligible. Projects undertaken included
    National Ambient Air Quality Standards implementation activities,
    process or system improvement efforts (many involving electronic data
    management systems), water pollution control, drinking water, and
    pesticides. Most importantly, the selected projects were important to
    the respective States, territories, and the District of Columbia.
                             state revolving funds
        We acknowledge the administration's clear signal in favor of water
    infrastructure investment, with level funding proposed for the STAG
    State Revolving Loan funds (SRF). States recognize the significant need
    for investment in clean and safe water infrastructure nationally; ECOS
    recently documented that just the top 20 ready to go in 2017 water and
    wastewater projects per State total over $14.4 billion.\3\ SRF funds
    are not cost-free to States--there is a 20 percent State match
    required. And while States can set-aside up to 31 percent of drinking
    water SRF funds to support State programs and activities to ensure safe
    drinking water, and 4 percent of clean water SRF funds for
    administrative costs, the overwhelming majority of SRF funds are
    distributed out to communities and are not for supporting the core
    State environmental work discussed above.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.ecos.org/documents/ecos-inventory-of-states-2017-
    ready-to-go-water-and-wastewater-projects/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  rescissions
        States have voiced concerns that funds must be dispersed in a
    timely manner to allow efficient and effective use by States. States
    are currently working with EPA to address this real issue and improve
    administrative processes. We urge Congress to consider this ongoing
    concern and work as a basis to not include rescissions of unobligated
    STAG funds in the fiscal year 2018 enacted budget. For rescissions
    which are necessary in future years, we suggest rescissions should be
    taken equitably across Federal and State grant accounts.
                         the importance of flexibility
        States are managing State level cuts to their budgets, and historic
    flat Federal STAG funding, by leaning business processes and by
    strategically applying practices that improve efficiency, such as
    targeting inspections to priority areas and implementing technological
    advancements. Within each State, needs and priorities can vary in part
    from priorities set by EPA at the Federal level. State commissioners
    require maximum flexibility to direct the Federal resources in ways
    that suit their unique needs and circumstances. While the States may
    agree with and appreciate funding for specific efforts, States need
    flexibility to budget for and implement work activities most
    effectively. Directed funding undermines State flexibility and needed
    support for on-going every day implementation of the Nation's
    environmental laws. The States, as co-regulators with EPA, wish to
    preserve and expand State flexibility to address State and regional
    priorities within EPA's national framework. Fewer funding directives
    and instructions help streamline State-EPA discussions about the work
    to be accomplished and allow States to move more quickly to turn
    appropriated Federal dollars into positive environmental and public
    health results.
                         epa's scientific research role
        State environmental agencies significantly value much of the
    research that EPA performs. States recently submitted to EPA for
    consideration a comprehensive inventory of current State research
    priorities.\4\ Ensuring that EPA has sufficient funding to directly
    assist States with key research needs is important, part of effective
    government, and much more efficient than multiple States seeking to
    answer common environmental science questions. ECOS hopes to work with
    the administration and Congress to see that appropriated EPA research
    dollars respond to identified State environmental agency research
    needs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.ecos.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ERIS-Survey-
    Summary-One-Pager.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    a call to revisit cooperative federalism
        The amount of Federal funding appropriate for environmental
    programs delegated to States is closely related to how we collectively
    view cooperative Federalism. States are committed to engaging the
    Congress, the administration, and all other parties and interests in
    how we can more fully define how cooperative Federalism today impacts
    policy, operations, and fiscal positions, and how we ensure effective
    public health and environmental protections. We believe that we can
    build on the foundations of national statutes, learn from the
    innovations and successes of State programs, and confidently meet the
    challenge of providing 21st century environmental protection with the
    best of 21st century methods and relationships.
                                   conclusion
        ECOS values our work with the Appropriations Committee and
    Subcommittee, and appreciates consideration of our views. We are
    confident the funding appropriated will be well used, and that States
    will continue their dedicated efforts to deliver the clean environment
    all Americans want and deserve in the most efficient, modern, and
    results-oriented way possible. We welcome the opportunity to answer any
    questions or provide any further information. Questions about our
    testimony can be directed to ECOS' office at 50 F Street NW, Suite 350,
    Washington D.C. 20001, via email to adunn@ecos.org.
        We thank you for the opportunity to share our perspectives, and are
    willing to provide the subommittee with any input in the future.

            John Linc Stine, Commissioner, Minnesota Pollution Control
            Agency, ECOS President.

            Todd Parfitt, Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental
            Quality, ECOS Vice President.

            Becky Keogh, Director, Arkansas Department of Environmental
            Quality, ECOS Secretary/Treasurer.

            Martha Rudolph, Director of Environmental Programs, Colorado
            Department of Public Health and Environment, ECOS Past
            President.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Oglala Sioux Tribe
                                    summary
        The Oglala Sioux Tribe requests:
      --An additional $200 million for BIA law enforcement, including
            officer training, Tribal court personnel, and construction and
            maintenance of Tribal detention facilities;
      --$85.3 million for substance use disorder programs;
      --$6.2 billion for the Indian Health System;
      --Funding for road construction;
      --$25 million for water infrastructure;
      --Funding for education and recreation facilities, youth safe houses,
            community centers, including $620,000 for juvenile detention
            education in BIA-funded facilities; and
      --Funding for child protective services.
                                  introduction
        Thank you Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of
    the subcommittee for your work on behalf of Indian Country. It is truly
    appreciated. While we know you have made progress through your hard
    work, the chronic underfunding of Indian Country programs and treaty
    obligations over the years is taking an enormous toll. It is quite
    literally costing lives as needs such as healthcare, behavioral health,
    and law enforcement go underfunded. Without adequate funding to operate
    fundamental government services, such as our court system and child
    protective services, we face the dilemma of how to continue
    administering these services ourselves. Underfunding, therefore,
    threatens our ability to exercise our rights to self-determination and
    sovereignty.
        The Sioux Treaty of 1868 promised certain benefits and annuities
    each year to the bands of the Great Sioux Nation. Congressional
    ratification of that treaty cemented into law the United States'
    obligation to make appropriations for the Oglala Sioux Tribe. We ask
    you to fulfill those treaty obligations.
                     law enforcement and the meth epidemic
        In May 2016, our Tribe declared a State of Emergency on the Pine
    Ridge Reservation because of the shortage of Tribal Police officers and
    law enforcement resources. This shortage has resulted in a sharp
    increase in crime and an inability of our Tribal Police to guarantee
    the health and safety of our citizens, which results in inter-
    generational cycles of trauma as children are exposed to high rates of
    violence and substance abuse. We understand that funding in the Office
    of Justice Service's account for criminal investigations and police
    services flows more heavily to criminal investigators rather than
    police officers. We need adequate funding for each of these important
    positions. Decades of underfunding Tribal public safety programs has
    fueled an unprecedented spike in violent crime and drug trafficking,
    consistent with the methamphetamine and heroin epidemic throughout the
    Great Plains Region. With only four officers covering our approximately
    3 million acres per 12-hour shift, our Tribe simply does not have the
    necessary resources for public safety purposes. Each officer is
    personally responsible for 700,000 acres, without adequate support or
    backup and at great personal risk. The BIA has acknowledged that we
    need a minimum of about 95 more officers, but funds are not available
    to address this need.
        Our criminal justice system is in critical need of funding. The
    Kyle Justice Center has been at the top of BIA's construction priority
    list for over 15 years. This short-term holding facility, court, and
    911 call center is desperately needed but sits 100 percent complete for
    design. It is shovel ready. Additionally, our Tribal Court is so
    severely lacking in funding that we fear facing the dilemma of whether
    we can continue to exercise this fundamental aspect of our sovereignty.
        A Tribe's ability to exercise its sovereignty and protect its
    citizens should not be dependent on its wealth. In order to fulfill
    these basic treaty rights, we request an additional $200 million for
    BIA law enforcement, including officer training, Tribal Court
    personnel, and the construction and maintenance of Tribal detention
    facilities. We also request $85.3 million for IHS substance use
    disorder programs.
                     indian health care in the great plains
        One of the United States' most sacred treaty obligations is
    providing for Indian healthcare. In the Great Plains, this moral and
    legal responsibility has been very nearly abandoned. Our citizens are
    among the poorest and most disenfranchised in the country. The
    ``Washington Post'' recently reported on a study that demonstrates that
    Oglala Lakota County has among the lowest life expectancy in the
    country.\1\ Last year the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held an
    oversight hearing and a field hearing on the poor quality of care
    received at IHS facilities in the Great Plains. Despite increased
    oversight and accountability efforts, our healthcare crisis continues
    to unfold. At the root of the Great Plains Health Care crisis is the
    glaring fact that IHS is only funded at about 60 percent of need. IHS
    must be able to recruit and retain high-quality employees, and that
    requires funding for salaries, housing, and training in addition to
    increased employee accountability. Additionally, there must be adequate
    facilities. Our Pine Ridge Hospital struggles with inadequate space to
    serve its user population. The IHS Service Unit profile States that the
    active user population exceeded the designed user population in 2000,
    and that the Service Unit currently services a user population of
    51,227 in a space that is already undersized to serve the Health
    Systems Planning estimated user population of 22,000 patients.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Joel Achenbach, ``U.S. Life Expectancy Varies by More Than 20
    Years From County to County,'' Washington Post (May 8, 2017); Laura
    Dwyer-Lindgren, et al. ``Inequalities in Life Expectancy Among US
    Counties, 1980 to 2014: Temporal Trends and Key Drivers,'' JAMA Intern.
    Med. (May 8, 2017).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                road maintenance
        Current funding, $24 million nationwide, for the BIA Road
    Maintenance program has been flat for over 22 years. This results in a
    compounding deferred maintenance backlog. In the Great Plains Region
    alone, a conservative estimate for deferred maintenance is $10.6
    million; nationally, it is $289 million. Funding levels for maintenance
    on the Reservation of $598 per mile are staggeringly low compared to
    the average $6,000 per mile that South Dakota spends on road
    maintenance. Further, snow and ice control can consume up to 50 percent
    of an annual budget, a financial dilemma our Tribe faces every winter.
    Funding is so tight that routine bridge maintenance is not performed
    until it reaches a state of emergency. Further, a specific road issue
    is the Allen Road between Allen and Highway 18. The Tribe paid to build
    this road, but it has no monies to maintain it. The State receives
    funding for the road, but it is not maintaining it. A private citizen
    has been plowing this road for free in an effort to keep it safe for
    school buses. This is unacceptable. The Tribe should be provided
    adequate funding so that we can maintain this road; we stand ready to
    do the work provided we have the funding.
                              water infrastructure
        Our Tribe is the lead sponsor of the Mni Wiconi Project, authorized
    by the Mni Wiconi Project Act of 1988, Public Law 100-516, as amended.
    The Project is a monumental clean drinking water project that provides
    Missouri River water to the Pine Ridge Reservation, the Lower Brule
    Sioux Reservation, Rosebud Sioux Reservation and the West River/Lyman-
    Jones Water District. Funding is needed to complete the necessary
    community systems upgrades on Pine Ridge. The Act provides that the
    Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply shall include the purchase,
    improvement, and repair of existing water systems. However, the Bureau
    of Reclamation, which funds the Project, will not accept the community
    systems into the Project until they are upgraded to a certain standard.
    Funding for these upgrades is necessary.
        The Tribe is working with several Federal agencies to implement its
    plan to complete the upgrades. The Tribe, however, needs almost $25
    million to upgrade 19 existing systems and transfer them into the Mni
    Wiconi Project, as intended by the Act. Once transferred they will be
    operated and maintained through authorized funding under the Mni Wiconi
    Project Act. Additional monies provided to the IHS's Sanitation
    Facilities Construction account as well as to the EPA's Revolving Funds
    are needed to allow for the IHS and EPA to better contribute and
    participate in the joint Federal agency effort to complete the upgrades
    of the systems in a timely manner so those on the Pine Ridge
    Reservation can finally receive the clean drinking water they were
    promised so long ago under the Mni Wiconi Project Act.
                      education facilities and programming
        Total replacement of the Wounded Knee and Little Wound Schools is
    required. The Wounded Knee School project has been on the BIA's Office
    of Facility Maintenance and Construction list for many years, and
    Little Wound was built in the 1950s. School replacement and repairs
    must include adequate funding for operations and maintenance, necessary
    components of school infrastructure, so that the investment in
    construction can be safeguarded and our students can be safe in their
    learning environment. Currently, these crucial components are funded at
    less than 50 percent of the need.
        Our youth need safe houses where they can go and where they can get
    assistance identifying physical and mental health resources available
    to them. They also need youth centers as safe places to congregate and
    build a sense of community. Children also need places to play.
    Currently, our children ask to be driven all the way to Rapid City just
    so they can play in the park. Our communities need playgrounds, skate
    parks, and other community spaces. Thus, we request funding for the
    construction, operation, maintenance, and personnel of youth safe
    houses, youth centers, and recreational facilities (such as skate
    parks, athletic fields, basketball courts, art centers, music centers,
    etc.) to provide spaces where youth can be secure outside their homes.
        Also, $620,000 is needed for juvenile detention in BIA-funded
    facilities. This essential funding provides critical educational
    services to detained and incarcerated youth. From 2012 to 2016, this
    need was not funded, and we thank you for supporting the reinstatement
    of this much-needed source of funds for the education and
    rehabilitation of some of our most vulnerable youth.
                                    housing
        Pine Ridge has a terrible housing shortage. Many of our citizens--
    infants, elders, veterans, families--live in conditions that no
    American should have to endure. Families live packed into two-bedroom
    homes or families of six try to survive in a one-bedroom. Overcrowding
    affects the physical, social, and mental state of our people, and it is
    often impossible to study, to be healthy, and to maintain a strong
    family unit in such environments. We also have difficulty recruiting
    and retaining quality IHS staff because of our housing shortage. We
    currently need 4,000 new units and 1,000 homes repaired. Many homes are
    also in desperate need of repair, with citizens living in conditions
    that are not only overcrowded but also unsafe. Our citizens depend on
    the Housing Improvement Program (HIP), which assists families under 150
    percent of the Department of Health and Human Services Poverty
    Guidelines that live in substandard housing and have no other resource
    for housing assistance. HIP funds are separate from the Native American
    Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) and are not
    used on homes built by the Department of Housing and Urban Development
    (HUD). These essential HIP funds are used to build new or replacement
    homes and to renovate homes for our people who have nowhere to go.
    Also, expanding the Tiwahe Initiative so we may be included is
    important not only for its comprehensive approach to social services,
    but also because HIP targets housing improvements at established Tiwahe
    sites.
                           child protective services
        The Child Protection Services (CPS) and Indian Child Welfare Act
    (ICWA) Program perform an integrated child and family services system
    to address child welfare and comprehensive family support services for
    the families on the reservation. The program administers a Social
    Security Act, Title IV-B grants through block grants and Title IV-E
    through the State/Tribal Agreement and the Social Security Act. There
    are 16 full-time positions funded by the State through the State/Tribal
    Agreement. With the number of cases and the backlog of pending cases,
    we need four more full time support staff with an annual rate of
    $38,000 plus fringe benefits for a total of $162,640 for personnel
    services. CPS is funded through the BIA and currently funds only one
    full-time director with fringe benefits. CPS needs funding for an
    administrative staffer. Foster care payments received are welfare
    assistance funds. With the increase in client caseloads, we need at
    least $100,000 for foster care payments. The program also has an unmet
    need for operating costs and staff training for both CPS and ICWA. The
    total for child welfare services including maintenance payments for
    foster care, guardianship, and adoption is projected to cost $402,600
    annually. The ICWA program funds three full-time employees with fringe
    benefits, with no funding for operating costs, including staff travel.
    Further, there is an unmet need of $75,000 for our cases as we
    anticipate an average of 17 children served every quarter. These are
    enrolled Tribal members throughout the United States for which
    intervention takes place.
        CPS also needs funding for four additional program vehicles with an
    average cost of $20,000 each. Currently, we only have three vehicles
    that the staff share. With the constant repairs and maintenance for
    these older vehicles, we need more new vehicles as staff is on-call
    staff 24/7.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
        The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) is concerned about
    continuing reductions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
    (EPA) Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program (CWSRF) and is
    requesting that appropriations for this program be increased to at
    least $2 billion in fiscal year 2018. The CWSRF is an effective loan
    program that addresses critical water infrastructure needs while
    benefitting the environment, local communities, and the economy.
        OWRC was established in 1912 as a trade association to support the
    protection of water rights and promote the wise stewardship of water
    resources statewide. OWRC members are local governmental entities,
    which include irrigation districts, water control districts, drainage
    districts, water improvement districts, and other agricultural water
    suppliers that deliver water to roughly 1/3 of all irrigated land in
    Oregon. These water stewards operate complex water management systems,
    including water supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and hydropower
    production.
                        fiscal year 2018 appropriations
        We recognize that our country is facing difficult economic times
    and that we must make strategic investments with scarce resources. The
    CWSRF is a perfect example of the type of program that should have
    funding increased because it creates jobs while benefitting the
    environment, and is an efficient return on taxpayer investment. Oregon
    is facing record levels of unemployment and the CWSRF funded projects
    provide much needed construction and professional services jobs.
    Moreover, as a loan program, it is a wise investment that allows local
    communities to leverage their limited resources and address critical
    infrastructure needs that would otherwise be unmet.
        Nationally, there are large and growing critical water
    infrastructure needs. In EPA's most recent needs surveys, ``The Clean
    Watersheds Needs Survey 2012: Report to Congress and Drinking Water
    Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: Fifth Report to Congress'',
    the estimated funding need for drinking water infrastructure totaled
    $384 billion (in 2011 dollars) and wastewater infrastructure needs
    totaled $271 billion (in 2012 dollars). Appropriations for water
    infrastructure, specifically CWSRF, should not be declining but
    remaining strong in order to meet these critical needs. In 2015
    appropriations for the CWSRF program was approximately $1.448 billion
    and declined to $1.394 billion in fiscal year 2016. We are concerned as
    we see this negative downward trend continuing while the infrastructure
    needs only become more critical.
        We also continue to be highly supportive of expanding ``green
    infrastructure,'' in fact, irrigation districts and other water
    suppliers in Oregon are on the forefront of ``green infrastructure''
    through innovative piping projects that provide multiple environmental
    benefits, which is discussed in greater detail below. However,
    continually reducing the amount of funds available for these types of
    worthwhile projects is counterproductive to the Administration's desire
    and has created increased uncertainty for potential borrowers about
    whether adequate funding will be available in future years. CWSRF is
    often an integral part of an overall package of State, Federal and
    local funding that necessitates a stronger level of assurance that loan
    funds will be available for planned water infrastructure projects.
    Reductions in the CWSRF could lead to loss of grant funding and delay
    or derail beneficial projects that irrigation districts have been
    developing for years.
        Additionally, OWRC is pleased that EPA continues ``strategic
    partnerships'' with the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Services
    (NRCS) and other Federal agencies to improve water quality and address
    nonpoint source pollution. Oregon had two priority watersheds eligible
    for funding through the National Water Quality Initiative in 2014 and
    anticipates that additional watersheds will be included in the future.
    As Oregon is a delegated State, OWRC also feels strongly that the
    Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is best situated to
    develop and implement activities to improve these and other impaired
    waterways in the State. DEQ and its administration of the CWSRF has
    been an extremely valuable tool in Oregon for improving water quality
    and efficiently addressing infrastructure challenges that are otherwise
    cost-prohibitive.
        OWRC was very satisfied to see the passage of the Water
    Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN) by Congress in
    December last year. An integral piece of the funding puzzle for our
    member districts was reinstated by this act, irrigation district
    eligibility for principal forgiveness. The CWSRF is often an integral
    part of an overall package of State, Federal and local funding that
    necessitates a stronger level of assurance that loan funds will be
    available for planned water infrastructure projects. Irrigation
    districts are often located in rural communities and have a small
    number of farmers with limited capacity to take on loan debt. Even a
    small reduction in the principal repayment obligations can make the
    difference in whether or not a district can move forward with a
    project. Reductions in eligibility for principal forgiveness in the
    CWSRF could lead to loss of grant funding and delay or derail
    beneficial projects that irrigation districts have been developing for
    years.
                                  cwsrf needs
        The appropriations for the CWSRF program over the past few years
    has been far short of what is needed to address critical water
    infrastructure needs in Oregon and across the Nation. This has led to
    fewer water infrastructure projects, and therefore a reduction in
    improvements to water quality. DEQ's most recent ``Proposed Intended
    Use Plan Update #1--State fiscal year 2017,'' lists 15 projects in need
    of a total of $86,148, 504 in Oregon alone. The Federal capitalization
    grant funding awarded fiscal year 2016 will total $14,974,000, which is
    wholly inadequate to address and complete these much needed projects.
        Unfortunately, due to recent cutbacks and lack of availability
    principal forgiveness for irrigation districts (which was recently
    reinstated with the passage of the WIIN Act), only two irrigation
    districts submitted applications for funding in 2017: Middle Fork
    Irrigation District (MFID), and Central Oregon Irrigation District
    (COID). MFID requested $20,000,000 for the design and construction of
    multiple projects to improve water quality and quantity associated with
    its irrigation diversions in the Middle Fork Hood River watershed. COID
    requested $1,140,000 for design and construction to pipe approximately
    3,000 linear feet of open canal and to upgrade their fish screen at the
    inlet on the Deschutes River. OWRC is hopeful that with an increase in
    money available, more districts will apply for funding to complete
    projects that will not only benefit the environment and the patrons
    served by the water delivery system, but also benefit the economy.
                         cwsrf and irrigation districts
        OWRC and our members are highly supportive of the CWSRF, including
    promoting the program to our members and annually submitting Federal
    appropriations testimony to support increased funding for the CWSRF. We
    believe it is an important funding tool that irrigation districts and
    other water suppliers are using for innovative piping projects that
    provide multiple environmental and economic benefits.
        Eight OWRC member districts have successfully received loans from
    the CWSRF over the last several years and many more will apply if
    eligible to receive some principal forgiveness. Numerous irrigation
    districts and other water suppliers need to pipe currently open canals,
    which reduces sediment and water temperature and provides other water
    quality improvements as well as increasing water availability for fish
    and irrigators by reducing water loss from the delivery system. In
    2009, four irrigation districts received over $11 million funding in
    Oregon from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) through
    the CWSRF for projects which created valuable jobs while improving
    water quality. These four projects were essential to DEQ not only
    meeting but exceeding the minimum requirement that 20 percent of the
    total ARRA funding for the CWSRF be used for ``green'' projects.
    Without the irrigation district projects, it is likely that Oregon's
    CWSRF would not have qualified for ARRA funding.
             the importance and success of local watershed planning
        Oregon's success in watershed planning illustrates that planning
    efforts work best when diverse interests develop and implement plans at
    the local watershed level with support from State government. Oregon
    has recently revised their CWSRF rules; thus making conservation easier
    and its benefits to be better achieved in the State. As the national
    model for watershed planning, Oregon does not need a new Federal agency
    or Executive Branch office to oversee conservation and restoration
    efforts. Planning activities are conducted through local watershed
    councils, volunteer-driven organizations that work with local, State
    and Federal agencies, economic and environmental interests,
    agricultural, industrial and municipal water users, local landowners,
    Tribes, and other members of the community. There are over 60
    individual watershed councils in Oregon that are already deeply engaged
    in watershed planning and restoration activities. Watershed planning in
    Oregon formally began in 1995 with the development of the Oregon Plan
    for Salmon Recovery and Watershed Enhancement, a statewide strategy
    developed in response to the Federal listing of several fish species.
    This strategy led to the creation of the Oregon Watershed Enhancement
    Board (OWEB), a State agency and policy oversight board that funds and
    promotes voluntary and collaborative efforts that ``help create and
    maintain healthy watersheds and natural habitats that support thriving
    communities and strong economies'' in 1999.
                                   conclusion
        In conclusion, we applaud the CWSRF program for allowing Oregon's
    DEQ to make targeted loans that address Clean Water Act issues and
    improve water quality but also help incentivize innovative water
    management solutions that benefit local communities, agricultural
    economies, and the environment. This voluntary approach creates and
    promotes cooperation and collaborative solutions to complex water
    resources challenges. We respectfully request the appropriation of at
    least $2 billion for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean
    Water State Revolving Loan Fund for fiscal year 2018.

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

           Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
        The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) is writing to express
    its strong support for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries
    Restoration Irrigation Mitigation Act (FRIMA) Program and is requesting
    that appropriations for this program be increased to $15 million in
    fiscal year 18, which is what FRIMA was originally authorized for. The
    FRIMA program is an essential costshare funding program that helps
    water users and fishery agencies better protect sensitive, threatened,
    and endangered fish species while ensuring water supply delivery to
    farms and communities.
        OWRC was established in 1912 as a trade association to support the
    protection of water rights and promote the wise stewardship of water
    resources statewide. OWRC members are local governmental entities,
    which include irrigation districts, water control districts, drainage
    districts, water improvement districts, and other agricultural water
    suppliers that deliver water to roughly 1/3 of all irrigated land in
    Oregon. These water stewards operate complex water management systems,
    including water supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and hydropower
    production.
                        fiscal year 2018 appropriations
        The FRIMA program meets a critical need in fishery protection and
    restoration, complimenting other programs through the U.S Fish and
    Wildlife Services (FWS). Fish passage and fish screens installations
    are a vital component to fishery protection with several benefits:
      --Keeps sensitive, threatened and endangered fish out of canals and
            water delivery systems.
      --Allows fish to be safely bypassed around reservoirs and other
            infrastructure.
      --Eliminates water quality risks to fish species.
        There are over 100 irrigation districts and other special districts
    in Oregon that provide water supplies to over one million acres of
    irrigated cropland in the State. Almost all of these districts are
    affected by either State or Federal Endangered Species Act listings of
    Salmon and Steelhead, Bull Trout or other sensitive, threatened or
    endangered species. The design and installation of fish screens and
    fish passage to protect the myriad of fish species is often cost-
    prohibitive for individual districts to implement without outside
    funding sources.
        Oregon irrigation districts anticipate no less than $25 million in
    funding will be required to meet current fish passage and fish screen
    needs. Limited cost-share funds are available from the Oregon Watershed
    Enhanced Board (OWEB) program in Oregon, but the primary cost-share for
    fish screen and fish passage projects has been provided by the
    districts and their water users. Project needs include both
    construction of new fish screens and fish passage facilities as well as
    significant upgrades of existing facilities to meet new requirements
    (new species, new science) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service and the FWS. Upgrades are often
    needed to modernize facilities with new technologies that provide
    better protection for fish species as well as reduced maintenance and
    increased lifespan for the operator.
       background of the fisheries restoration irrigation mitigation act
                                (frima) program
        FRIMA, originally enacted November 2000, created a Federal
    partnership program incentivizing voluntary fish screen and fish
    passage improvements for water withdrawal projects in Idaho, Oregon,
    Washington and western Montana. The funding goes to local governments
    for construction of fish screens and fish passage facilities and is
    matched with non-Federal funding. Irrigation districts and other local
    governments that divert water for irrigation accessed the funding
    directly, while individual irrigators accessed funding through their
    local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), which are local
    governments affiliated with the Natural Resources Conservation Service
    (NRCS).
        FRIMA was reauthorized as part of the Water Infrastructure
    Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN) of 2016 for only $18 million,
    well short of the estimated $500 million in fish screening and passage
    needs in the Pacific Northwest alone. The original legislation in 2000
    (Public Law 106-502) was supported and requested by the Pacific
    Northwest Partnership, a coalition of local governmental entities in
    the four Northwest States. As one of the members of that coalition, we
    appreciate and strongly support your efforts to reauthorize the FRIMA
    program. The FRIMA legislation authorized $25 million annually, to be
    divided equally among the four States from 2001 to 2012, which was when
    the original authorization expired. The actual funding appropriated to
    the FRIMA program (through congressional write-ins) ranged from $1
    million to $8 million, well short of the $25 million it was authorized
    for and far short of what is needed to address fish passage and
    screening needs across the region. However, that small amount funding
    was used to leverage other funds and assisted the region in making
    measurable progress towards addressing fish screens and fish passage
    needed to protect sensitive, threatened, and endangered fish species.
        FRIMA funding was channeled through FWS to State fishery agencies
    in the four States, distributed using an application and approval
    process based on a ranking system implemented uniformly among the
    States, including the following factors: fish restoration benefits,
    cost effectiveness, and feasibility of planned structure. All projects
    provided improved fish passage or fish protection at water diversion
    structures and benefitted native fish species in the area, including
    several State or federally listed species. Projects were also subject
    to applicable State and Federal requirements for project construction
    and operation.
                                program benefits
        FRIMA projects provide immediate protection for fish and fills a
    large unmet need in the Pacific Northwest for cost-share assistance
    with fish screening and fish passage installations and improvements. A
    report by FWS covering program years fiscal year 2002-2012 provides
    State-by-State coverage of how the congressional provided funding has
    been used in the program. Compared to other recovery strategies, the
    installation of fish screens and fish passage infrastructure has the
    highest assurance for increasing numbers of fish species in the Pacific
    Northwest. Furthermore, the installation of these devices have minimal
    impacts on water delivery operations and projects are done
    cooperatively using methods that are well accepted by landowners and
    rural communities.
        The return of the FRIMA program will catalyze cooperative
    partnerships and innovative projects that provide immediate and long-
    term benefits to irrigators, fishery agencies, and local communities
    throughout the Pacific Northwest. This program is also a wise
    investment, with past projects contributing more than the required
    match and leveraging on average over one dollar for each Federal dollar
    invested. FRIMA provides for a maximum Federal cost-share of 65
    percent, with the applicant's costshare at 35 percent plus the on-going
    maintenance and support of the structure for passage or screening
    purposes. Applicants operate the projects and the State agencies
    monitor and review the projects.
                           oregon's project benefits
        Twenty-six fish screens or fish passage projects in Oregon were
    previously funded using FRIMA for part of the project financing. These
    projects have led to:
      --Installation of screens at 17 diversions or irrigation pumps.
      --Removal or modification of 12 fish passage barriers.
      --Three-hundred sixty-five miles being re-opened to fish passage.
        In addition, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has
    used some of the FRIMA funding to develop an inventory of need for fish
    screens and passages in the State. Grants ranged from just under $6,000
    to $400,000 in size with a local match averaging 64 percent of the
    project costs, well over the amount required under the Act (35
    percent). In other words, each Federal dollar invested in the FRIMA
    program generates a local investment of just over one dollar for the
    protection of fish species in the Pacific Northwest.
        The following are examples of how Oregon used some of its FRIMA
    money:
        Santiam Water Control District Project: Fish screen project on a
    large 1050 cubic feet per second (cfs) multipurpose water diversion
    project on the Santiam River (Willamette Basin) near Stayton, Oregon.
    Partners are the Santiam Water Control District, ODFW, Marion Soil and
    Water Conservation District, and the City of Stayton. Approved FRIMA
    funding of $400,000 leveraged a $1,200,000 total project cost. Species
    benefited included winter steelhead, spring Chinook, rainbow trout, and
    cutthroat trout.
        South Fork Little Butte Creek: Fish screen and fish passage project
    on a 65 cfs irrigation water diversion in the Rogue River Basin near
    Medford, Oregon. Partners are the Medford Irrigation District and ODFW.
    Approved FRIMA funding of $372,000 leveraged a $580,000 total project
    cost. Species benefited included listed summer and winter steelhead,
    coho salmon, and cutthroat trout.
        Running Y (Geary Diversion) Project: Fish screen project on a 60
    cfs irrigation water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near Klamath
    Falls, Oregon. Partners are the Wocus Drainage District, ODFW, and
    Jeld-Wen Ranches. Approved FRIMA funding of $44,727 leveraged a total
    project cost of $149,000. Species benefited included listed red-band
    trout and short-nosed sucker.
        Lakeshore Gardens Project: Fish screen project on a 2 cfs
    irrigation water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near Klamath
    Falls, Oregon. Partners are the Lakeshore Gardens Drainage District and
    ODFW. Approved FRIMA funding of $5,691 leveraged a total project cost
    of $18,970. Species benefited included red-band trout, short-nosed
    sucker and Lost River sucker.
                                   conclusion
        Increasing appropriations for FRIMA will fill a vital funding gap
    for fish screens and fish passage projects that are needed to better
    protect sensitive, threatened, and endangered fish species, which also
    benefits the economy, local communities, and the environment we share.
    FRIMA funds projects that are ready to be constructed and will provide
    immediate improved protections for fish and immediate jobs for the
    construction of the projects. Dollar-for-dollar, providing screening
    and fish passage at diversions is one of the most cost-effective uses
    of restoration dollars, creating fishery protection at low cost, with
    low risk and significant benefits. The return of the FRIMA program will
    catalyze cooperative partnerships and innovative projects that provide
    immediate and long-term benefits to irrigators, fishery agencies, and
    local communities throughout the Pacific Northwest. We respectfully
    request the appropriation of at least $15 million for U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service Fisheries Restoration Irrigation Mitigation Act
    program for fiscal year 2018.

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

      Prepared Statement of the Partnership for the National Trails System
        Madame Chairwoman and Members of the subcommittee:

        The Partnership for the National Trails System appreciates your
    support over the past 20 years, through operations funding and
    dedicated Challenge Cost Share funds, for the national scenic and
    historic trails administered by the National Park Service. We also
    appreciate your increased allocation of funds to support the trails
    administered and managed by the Forest Service and for the trails in
    the Bureau of Land Management's National Landscape Conservation System.
        2018 will be the 50th year since Congress established the National
    Trails System as a bold experiment in public/private collaboration for
    public benefit. While most of the trail making is done by tens of
    thousands of citizen stewards increased funding is needed to close gaps
    in these trails. To continue the progress that you have fostered and to
    begin the next 50 years with an increased investment in the National
    Trails System, the Partnership requests that you provide annual
    operations funding for each of the 30 national scenic and historic
    trails for fiscal year 2018 through these appropriations:
      --National Park Service: $16.233 million for administration of 23
            trails and for coordination of the long-distance trails program
            by the Washington office. Construction: $357,200 for the Ice
            Age Trail and $250,000 for the Pacific Crest Trail.
      --USDA Forest Service: $85 million for trails construction and
            maintenance (CMTL) with $7.796 million of it to administer 6
            trails and $1.3 million to manage parts of 16 trails
            administered by the NPS or BLM. $600,000 for Iditarod Trail
            construction and maintenance.
      --Bureau of Land Management: $2.812 million to administer three
            trails and for coordination of the National Trails program and
            $7.14 million to manage portions of 13 trails administered by
            the Park Service or the Forest Service and for operating five
            National Historic Trail interpretive centers. Construction:
            $300,000 for the Iditarod Trail. Maintenance: $300,000 for the
            Iditarod Trail and $250,000 for the Pacific Crest Trail.
      --We ask you to create a $1.5 million National Trails System
            Challenge Cost Share Program for the National Park Service.
      --We ask you to restore the Bureau of Land Management's Challenge
            Cost Share Program with $3 million and allocate $500,000 of it
            for the national scenic and historic trails.
        We ask you to appropriate $900,000,000 from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund and allocate $54,832,000 of it to these agencies to
    purchase 72 tracts along five national scenic and seven national
    historic trails described in the National Trails System Collaborative
    Landscape Planning proposal:
      --Bureau of Land Management: $2,895,000
      --U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $12,719,000
      --U.S. Forest Service: $18,331,000
      --National Park Service: $20,887,000.
                             national park service
        The $16.233 million we request for Park Service operations includes
    increases for some of the trails to continue the progress and new
    initiatives made possible by the additional funding Congress provided
    several years ago. An increase of $570,000 for the Old Spanish Trail
    will enable the Park Service to begin implementing the Trail's new
    Comprehensive Administrative Strategy working with the Old Spanish
    Trail Association to increase volunteer participation in signing,
    interpreting, and educating the public about the trail. The Park
    Service will be better able to collaborate with the Bureau of Land
    Management in administering the trail and to consult with other
    agencies to protect the cultural and natural resources along it from
    destruction by energy projects.
        We request an increase of $660,000 to expand Park Service efforts
    to protect cultural landscapes at more than 200 sites along the Santa
    Fe Trail, to develop GIS mapping, and to fund public educational and
    community outreach programs of the Santa Fe Trail Association.
    Increases of $313,224 for the Oregon Trail and $255,192 for the
    California Trail will enable the Park Service to work with the Oregon-
    California Trails Association to develop digital and social media to
    connect with youth in the cities along these trails providing
    information about their many layers of history and to better protect
    the historical and cultural heritage sites and landscapes along them
    from destruction by energy development in the West. We request an
    increase of $300,000 to $833,000 for the Ala Kahakai Trail to enable
    the Park Service to work with E Mau Na Ala Hele, the Ala Kahakai Trail
    Association, and other community organizations to care for resources on
    the land and with the University of Hawaii to conduct archaeological
    and cultural landscape studies along this trail.
        The $1,020,000 we request for the 4,200 mile North Country Trail
    will enable the Park Service to provide greater support for the
    regional GIS mapping, trail building, trail management, and training of
    volunteers led by the North Country Trail Association. The $1,278,000
    we request for the Ice Age Trail includes a $443,000 increase to build
    partner and citizen capacity for building new and maintaining existing
    trail, protecting the natural and cultural resources on the lands
    purchased for the trail, and to provide the Park Service with a planner
    to accelerate planning of the land protection corridor for the trail.
        Construction: We request that you provide $357,200 for the Ice Age
    Trail to build 30 miles of new trail and several trailhead parking lots
    and $250,000 for the Pacific Crest Trail for trail construction
    projects.
        Challenge Cost Share programs are one of the most effective and
    efficient ways for Federal agencies to accomplish a wide array of
    projects for public benefit while also sustaining partnerships
    involving countless private citizens in doing public service work. We
    request that you restore the Bureau of Land Management Challenge Cost
    Share program, appropriate $3 million to fund it, and allocate $.5
    million of that to fund projects along the national scenic and historic
    trails. We ask you to create a National Park Service National Trails
    System Challenge Cost Share program with $1.5 million funding to
    continue the steady progress toward making these trails fully available
    for public enjoyment as a wise investment of public money that will
    generate public benefits many times greater than its sum.
                              usda--forest service
        We ask you to appropriate $85 million for trails construction and
    maintenance (CMTL) to begin to address the considerable maintenance
    backlog on the trails in the National Forest System. Within this
    appropriation we request that you provide $7.796 million as a separate
    budgetary item specifically for the Arizona, Continental Divide,
    Florida, Pacific Crest, and Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trails
    and the Nez Perce National Historic Trail within the over-all
    appropriation for Capital Improvements and Maintenance for Trails.
    Recognizing the on-the-ground management responsibility the Forest
    Service has for 1024 miles of the Appalachian Trail, more than 650
    miles of the North Country Trail, and sections of the Ice Age, Anza,
    Caminos Real de Tierra Adentro and de Tejas, Lewis & Clark, California,
    Iditarod, Mormon Pioneer, Old Spanish, Oregon, Overmountain Victory,
    Pony Express, Trail of Tears and Santa Fe Trails, we ask you to
    appropriate $1.3 million specifically for these trails.
        The Partnership's request of $7.796 million includes $1.5 million
    to enable the Forest Service and Florida Trail Association to continue
    trail maintenance, to control invasive species, do ecosystem
    restoration, and otherwise manage 4,625 acres of new Florida Trail
    land. The $7.996 million request also includes $2.1 million for the
    Pacific Crest Trail, $2 million for the Continental Divide Trail, $1
    million for the Pacific Northwest Trail, $826,000 for the Nez Perce
    Trail, and $570,000 for the Arizona Trail. Some of the additional funds
    requested will enable the Forest Service to develop Comprehensive
    Management Plans for the latter three trails. We also request $600,000
    of additional funding for construction and for maintenance of sections
    of the Iditarod Trail.
                           bureau of land management
        Although considerably more money is needed to fully administer the
    National Conservation Lands System and protect its resources, we
    request that you appropriate $84 million in base funding for the
    System. We ask that you appropriate as new permanent base funding
    $250,000 for National Trails System Program Coordination, $1,000,000
    for the Iditarod Trail, $230,000 for El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro
    Trail, $1,332,000 for the Old Spanish Trail, and $4,000,000 for the
    Bureau to manage 4,645 miles of thirteen other national scenic and
    historic trails. We request $300,000 to construct new sections of the
    Iditarod Trail and to maintain these trails: Iditarod Trail--$300,000
    and Pacific Crest Trail--$250,000. We also request $3,140,000 to
    operate five historic trails interpretive centers.
        To promote greater management transparency and accountability for
    the National Trails and the whole National Landscape Conservation
    System (NLCS), we urge you to request expenditure and accomplishment
    reports for each of the NLCS Units for fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year
    2018 and to direct the Bureau to include unit-level allocations within
    major sub-activities for each of the scenic and historic trails, and
    wild and scenic rivers--as the Bureau has done for the national
    monuments, wilderness, and conservation areas--within a new activity
    account for the National Landscape Conservation System in fiscal year
    2019. The Bureau's lack of a unified budget account for National Trails
    prevents the agency from efficiently planning, implementing, reporting,
    and taking advantage of cost-saving and leveraging partnerships and
    volunteer contributions for every activity related to these national
    resources.
                        land and water conservation fund
        The Partnership strongly supports full funding of the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund at the authorized $900 million for the
    component Federal and State programs funded under LWCF. Within this
    amount we request that you appropriate $54,832,000 for the National
    Trails System Collaborative Landscape Planning proposal to acquire 72
    parcels along these 12 national scenic and historic trails:
    Bureau of Land Management: $2,895,000  12 parcels
            1,845 acres
        Nez Perce National Historic Trail (ID) $2,295,000 to protect
    riparian ecosystems and migratory corridors with habitat for sage
    grouse, pronghorn antelope, and elk, and historic and cultural
    resources.
        Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (OR) $600,000 for trail and
    resource protection within the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument in
    Southern Oregon.
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $12,719,000  7 parcels
             6,462 acres
        Appalachian National Scenic Trail (PA) $1,800,000 for protection of
    a keystone habitat for bog turtles, black bear, Indiana bats, northern
    flying squirrels, and bald eagles along the Kittatinny Ridge.
        California National Historic Trail (ID) $1,570,000 to protect the
    largest breeding concentration of Sandhill Cranes and a haven for other
    waterfowl near Grays Lake NWR from agricultural development;
        Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (VA)
    $8,500,000 to preserve and provide access to the site of a historic
    encounter between John Smith and indigenous peoples and protect a major
    eagle and migratory bird stopover habitat at Fones Cliff in the
    Rappahannock NWR;
        Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (WA) $849,000 to preserve a
    wealth of unique ecosystems and enhance ecosystem connectivity between
    State-protected lands and the Steigerwald NWR.
    U.S. Forest Service: $18,331,000  41 parcels  8,704
            acres
        Appalachian National Scenic Trail (NC, TN, VA, VT) $7,626,000 to
    protect the largest remaining inholding of the Green Mountain NF,
    relocate trail segments, preserve trail viewsheds, and provide
    ecological connectivity and watershed protection near or adjacent to
    the Pisgah NF State-protected lands;
        Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (MT, CO) $1,065,000 to
    protect alpine headwaters of the Rio Grande River and high-altitude
    habitat for Elk, deer, and Canada Lynx within the Helena National
    Forest;
        Florida National Scenic Trail (FL) $90,000 to fill trail gaps and
    provide connectivity between protected areas along the Withlacoochee
    River and adjacent to Suwannee River State Park;
        Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (CA, WA) $9,550,000 to protect
    inholdings of the Shasta-Trinity NF, maintain public access to at-risk
    trail segments along riparian corridors, and preserve iconic viewscapes
    at Pine Mountain.
    National Park Service: $20,887,000  12 parcels  7,466
            acres
        Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail (HI) $6,000,000 to protect 444
    archaeological sites at an ancient coastal indigenous gathering area
    that hosts a wealth of native plants and wildlife both above and below
    ground in lava tubes;
        Appalachian National Scenic Trail (MA, NY, ME) $5,657,000 to
    protect the remaining 8 miles of shoreline and enable public access for
    Bald Mountain Pond, to enable multiple trail re-routings, to preserve
    delicate habitats for threatened and endangered species, to support
    connectivity of riparian and forest habitats, and to preserve iconic
    scenic viewsheds;
        North Country National Scenic Trail (MI, WI) $5,900,000 to fill
    over nine miles of trail gaps, protect over 2,500 acres along the
    Sturgeon River downstream from the Ottawa National Forest, and to
    preserve public access to a 3,000-ft pristine shoreline of Lake
    Superior that provides critical habitat for endangered and migratory
    species;
        Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail (TN) $330,000 to
    protect the historically significant Shelving Rock Encampment Site,
    preserve original trail roadbed, and facilitate interpretation;
        Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail
    (NY) $3,000,000 for preservation of a Revolutionary War-era supply
    depot site and cemetery.
             private sector support for the national trails system
        Public-spirited partnerships between private citizens and public
    agencies have been a hallmark of the National Trails System since its
    inception. These partnerships create the enduring strength of the
    Trails System and the trail communities that sustain it by combining
    the local, grass-roots energy and responsiveness of volunteers with the
    responsible continuity of public agencies. They also provide private
    financial support for public projects, often resulting in a greater
    than equal match of funds.
        The private trail organizations' commitment to the success of these
    trail-sustaining partnerships grows even as Congress' support for the
    trails has grown. In 2016 the trail organizations fostered 1,029,569
    hours of documented volunteer labor valued at $24,256,645 to help
    sustain the national scenic and historic trails. The organizations also
    raised private sector contributions of $13,184,886 for the trails.

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

               Prepared Statement of the Performing Arts Alliance
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the subcommittee, we
    thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the
    Performing Arts Alliance (PAA). We urge the subcommittee to appropriate
    $155 million to the National Endowment for the Arts for fiscal year
    2018. PAA member organizations include the following national
    associations:
      --Alternate ROOTS
      --American Composers Forum
      --Association of Performing Arts Presenters
      --Chamber Music America
      --Chorus America
      --Dance/USA
      --League of American Orchestras
      --National Alliance for Musical Theatre
      --National Association of Latino Arts and Cultures
      --National Performance Network
      --Network of Ensemble Theaters
      --New Music USA
      --OPERA America
      --Theatre Communications Group

        The Performing Arts Alliance (PAA) is a national network of more
    than 33,000 organizational and individual members from the
    professional, nonprofit performing arts fields. We envision a United
    States in which the diverse ecology of the performing arts is deeply-
    valued and supported, adequately and equitably resourced, and where
    participation is accessible to all. The National Endowment for the Arts
    plays a key role in achieving this vision, and we submit this testimony
    to highlight the importance of Federal investment in the arts.
        The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) holds a significant
    Federal leadership role for the arts and culture in America. Through
    partnerships with State arts agencies such as the North Dakota Council
    on the Arts in Bismarck, North Dakota and direct grants awarded to
    nonprofit arts organizations and local arts agencies such as the
    Yoknapatawpha Arts Council in Oxford, Mississippi, NEA funding reaches
    every congressional district. Grants support programs, projects, and
    collaborations that are helping people experience high-quality artistic
    presentations, access arts education and opportunities for artistic
    development, and are helping communities unite.
        The following examples of recent NEA grantees within the PAA
    network are a sample of the significant ways performing arts
    organizations are serving their communities with NEA support.

    -- NEA support helps arts organizations provide broad access to high-
    quality arts experiences.

        Alberta Bair Theater in Billings, Montana received fiscal year 2017
    Challenge America support to present the classical music duo Black
    Violin and the renowned Dance Theatre of Harlem to rural communities
    throughout south central Montana and northern Wyoming. The theater
    offered mainstage performances, public discussions, school matinees,
    and master classes. Challenge America funding extends the reach of the
    arts to underserved populations, including those whose opportunities to
    experience the arts are limited by geography, ethnicity, economics, or
    disability.
        Also with the support of fiscal year 2017 Challenge America
    funding, Carnegie Hall, Inc. in Lewisburg, West Virginia celebrated the
    cultural history of Southern traditional music through multi-
    disciplinary exhibitions. TA member of Chamber Music America, the
    organization served rural audiences in Greenbrier County with two
    exhibitions: the Music Makers Foundation's ``We Are The Music Makers''
    and the West Virginia Music Hall of Fame's ``Music of the Coalfields.''
    The project included live performances, classes and a film screening.
        Chattanooga Symphony and Opera Association in Chattanooga,
    Tennessee is offering sensory-friendly concerts that are making
    classical music accessible for families and children who are
    differently-abled both intellectually and physically. With fiscal year
    2017 Art Works support, the symphony collaborates with certified music
    therapists to design and present these performances for community
    members with autism and Down syndrome.

    -- NEA funding supports lifelong learning in the arts which includes
    outreach programs, teacher training, and university partnerships.

        Chamber Music America member Community Music Works in Providence,
    Rhode Island received fiscal year 2016 Art Works support for an ongoing
    outreach program that provides free lessons in instrumental music,
    music theory, and improvisation to local at-risk children and youth.
    The organization also provides leadership development and performance
    opportunities for advanced students.
        Portland, Oregon-based Network of Ensemble Theaters (NET) received
    fiscal year 2016 Art Works support for its ongoing ``Intersection:
    Ensembles + Universities'' symposium. NET's national symposium is
    connecting colleges, universities, and training programs with
    professional ensembles to seed new opportunities for sharing resources,
    learning, collaborations, and performance, building up the field of
    ensemble theater artists.
        The Kentucky Center for the Performing Arts in Louisville, Kentucky
    is collaborating with Morehead State University and the Kentucky
    Department of Education to provide arts-based professional development
    to classroom teachers and school administrators in the rural eastern
    part of the State. A member of the Association of Performing Arts
    Professionals, the Kentucky Center received fiscal year 2017 Art Works
    support to help educators and administrators create curriculum, lesson
    plans, and assessment strategies. It is also training educators to use
    a virtual teaching platform to video record lessons and instructional
    feedback.

    -- NEA grants support projects that provide valuable opportunities for
    artistic development.

        One of the guiding principles of the NEA's Art Works program is
    ``art is work for the artists and arts professionals who make up the
    field.'' Opportunities for training and creating work are important to
    artists at all stages of their careers as well as artists who are still
    students.
        Oregon Ballet Theatre (OBT) in Portland, Oregon received fiscal
    year 2017 Art Works support for its Choreography XX residency program.
    It supported three North American female choreographers with a four-
    week intensive residency to create world-premiere ballets with OBT
    dancers. The new ballets were presented free of charge to the public at
    Portland's Rose Garden ampitheatre.
        Young composers are able to train with established professionals
    during this year's Santa Fe Chamber Music Festival in Santa Fe, New
    Mexico. The Festival is offering a week-long composition workshop for
    young artists with the FLUX String Quartet with fiscal year 2017 Art
    Works support. In addition, Young artists present their talents to the
    community in a professional setting during the Kauffman Center for the
    Performing Arts' Future Stages Festival. Located in Kansas City,
    Missouri, the free community festival is supported by fiscal year 2017
    Art Works funding.
        The Old Globe Theatre's New Voices program and Festival supports
    the development of new works by both established and emerging
    playwrights. Based in San Diego, California, The Old Globe Theatre's
    program is supported by fiscal year 2017 Art Works funding. The project
    will commission new works from artists and offer developmental readings
    and workshops. The program includes a specific focus on Latinx artists
    and communities to promote Latin-American stories and experiences.

    -- NEA funds support the development of works that address social
    issues and create safe spaces for community dialogue.

        Cornerstone Theater Company is addressing food insecurity in its
    production of ``The Hunger Bridge Show.'' The Los Angeles-based company
    received fiscal year 2017 Art Works support for this project which will
    be informed through discussions with community members about their
    needs, fears, and hopes, around issues of hunger and food.
        Sandglass Theatre in Putney, Vermont received fiscal year 2017 Art
    Works support for ``Babylon,'' an original work exploring the
    escalating global crisis of refugees and asylum seekers. The production
    has been developed through interviews with resettled refugees and looks
    at their relationship to their lost homelands, to their new homelands
    and languages, and to other migrants who are fleeing violence.
    Sandglass is a member of the National Performance Network.
        Working Classroom in Albuquerque, New Mexico is providing artists
    residencies in the Youth Arts Center where professional guest artists
    are collaborating with students from historically underserved
    communities, training them in the techniques and aesthetics of their
    practice. With fiscal year 2017 Art Works support, the project explores
    issues of social justice, education, and equity, and artists and
    students are co-creating mural art, theater works, and animated
    projects around these themes.

    -- NEA grants support projects that share a diversity of traditions,
    helping people connect across cultures and communities.

        The Bunnell Street Arts Center based in Homer, Alaska is presenting
    the ``Decolonizing Alaska'' tour of works by Alaskan artists with the
    support of fiscal year 2017 Challenge America funding. The touring
    exhibit features painting, dance, fiber art, and beading from the
    Inupiaq, Yu'pik, Denai'ana, and Athabascan Alaskan traditions. Artists
    on the tour are offering workshops and discussions to explore their
    work one-on-one with community members.
        Strathmore Hall Foundation in North Bethesda, Maryland is
    presenting Step Afrika! in community and main stage performances and
    in-school residencies with the support of fiscal year 2016 Art Works
    funding. Step Afrika! will share the history of stepping, the
    percussive movement tradition drawn from African cultures, in workshops
    serving local, low-income, African-American and Hispanic youth.
    Workshops and residencies aim to teach teamwork, discipline,
    motivation, and commitment.
        The artistic programming supported by the National Endowment for
    the Arts gives vitality to our Nation's communities in numerous ways
    beyond the examples provided here. Federal investment in the NEA places
    value on the role of arts and culture in our society, realizing
    significant returns that are both measurable and intangible. We
    celebrate the NEA's fiscal year 2017 budget increase and urge you to
    support $155 million in fiscal year 2018. Thank you for considering our
    request.

        [This statement was submitted by Amy Fitterer, Chair, and Cristine
    Davis, General Manager.]
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Poets & Writers
        With the NEA's sustained support, Poets & Writers has grown into
    the Nation's largest organization serving creative writers. Grants from
    the NEA helped to launch two of our key programs: Poets & Writers
    Magazine, which celebrates its thirtieth anniversary this year and
    which has over 100,000 readers; and our website, pw.org, which we
    launched in 1996 and which now draws over 140,000 visitors per month.
        Writers from Jonathan Franzen to Tracy K. Smith, Michael Cunningham
    to Claudia Rankine, Audrey Niffenegger to Ocean Vuong, have told us
    that Poets & Writers helped them get started, taught them how to submit
    work to literary journals, find an agent, or connect with others in the
    literary community through the resources we provide.
        We also help an ecosystem of literary organizations--small presses,
    literary magazines, reading series, writer's groups--that rely on Poets
    & Writers to reach their constituents. The poet Jane Hirshfield
    described Poets & Writers as ``a kind of Osmocote or Greensand slow-
    release fertilizer for America's literary landscape.''
        Without the consistent support the NEA has provided, our ability to
    provide trustworthy information and advice, to encourage writers, and
    to nurture the Nation's literary community would not be possible.
        I hope that the subcommittee will vote to increase support for the
    NEA. So much good is done with a relatively small amount of funding.

        [This statement was submitted by Elliot Figman, Executive
    Director.]
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Public Lands Foundation
    Madam Chairman:

        We thank you for this opportunity to present your committee with
    our views regarding the Department of the Interior (DOI) budget request
    for fiscal year 2018. Our comments focus primarily on the budget
    request as it may relate to the Bureau of Land Management. As a
    national, non-profit organization with more than 700 members, comprised
    principally of retired, but still dedicated, BLM employees, the Public
    Lands Foundation (PLF) has a unique body of experience, expertise and
    knowledge of public land management. As retirees, we believe we offer
    an objective and non-bureaucratic view of what is currently happening
    on the National System of Public Lands (NSPL). The PLF supports the BLM
    and its programs, but we are independent in our views and requests. We
    strive to improve the effectiveness of the BLM by (1) encouraging
    professionalism of its employees, (2) increasing the public's
    understanding of and support for the proper management of the NSPL, and
    (3) promoting scientific management of lands administered by the BLM.
    We are strong advocates for keeping public lands in public hands.
    Overview
        The BLM manages the most diverse landscapes in the Nation's
    portfolio; providing stewardship to more than 245 million acres of land
    and 700 million acres of mineral estate from the north slope of Alaska
    to Jupiter Inlet in Florida, and from tundra, to old growth forests, to
    desert landscapes. These lands consist of many attributes; habitat for
    thousands of species of plants and animals, clean water, cultural
    resources, scenic beauty, solitude, and special places. They also
    provide the opportunity to provide the Nation with wealth from its many
    resources including oil and gas, coal, renewable energy, non-energy
    minerals, all types of recreation, forage for livestock, timber, and
    wild horses and burros. The economic value of these lands to the
    American people is immense; according to the ``Department of the
    Interior Economic Contribution'' report of July 2014, these lands
    generate combined revenues in excess of $107 billon and over 446,000
    jobs. These lands are important economically to the United States as a
    whole; they are vital to the many rural communities throughout the West
    that are intermixed with these lands and whose citizens work and
    recreate on the lands. However, these uses and values can only be
    achieved when there is some balance in the programs to provide for the
    diversity of uses and maintenance of healthy, resilient landscapes.
    Budget Overview
        The PLF recognizes and appreciates the difficult decisions that
    must be made by the Congress and the administration to allocate scarce
    dollars to programs that generate the best economic and social returns.
    A large part of managing the Nation's public lands involves managing
    wildfire. Agencies in the Department of the Interior and the Forest
    Service do a great job of suppressing nearly all of the wildland fire
    starts, catching around 98 percent of the fires with initial attack.
    However, the one or 2 percent of fires that escape initial attack
    become very expensive and over the past several years have quickly
    consumed the agencies suppression budget requiring them to ``borrow''
    from other accounts. This transfer of funds, often in the hundreds of
    millions of dollars, diminishes the agencies capabilities to implement
    planned fuel reduction and projects in other program areas. The PLF
    supports the President's proposal to fund suppression at the full 10-
    year average for this fiscal year; however, we also support the on-
    going bipartisan efforts to develop a long-term solution to the
    wildland fire funding and severity issues and encourage this Committee
    to support passage of legislation that would reduce or eliminate fire
    borrowing.
        We support the requests for funding to provide vital energy needs
    from traditional energy sources and renewable energy sources.
    Environmentally sound development of the Nation's energy resources and
    the infrastructure to deliver the energy can contribute significantly
    to the country's energy independence. BLM has the experience and the
    procedures to streamline and increase energy permitting. However, we
    are concerned about the emphasis in the President's Budget Blueprint to
    reduce ``unproductive compliance efforts.'' Specific compliance efforts
    deemed to be unproductive are not identified. We hope oil and gas
    inspection and enforcement is not in this category. Following a GAO
    report in 2011, BLM began conducting inspection and enforcement
    activities on high risk oil and gas wells in order to ensure accurate
    reporting and payment of royalty fees. This program recovers more
    revenue than it costs, thereby ensuring a fair return to the American
    taxpayer and must be continued at its current level.
        The President's Blueprint proposes elimination of discretionary
    grants for mine hazard remediation that overlap with mandatory grants.
    We support the goal to eliminate redundancy. However, we must stress
    that continuation of mine hazard remediation is critical for BLM.
    Investing in hazard remediation not only saves lives, it also reduces
    expensive settlement and litigation that come with injuries of
    fatalities related to mine hazards. If the goal is a fair return on
    taxpayer investment, this program must be adequately funded.
        We are pleased to see the emphasis on partnerships. BLM has been
    successful for many years in generating partnerships, providing for on
    the ground work which otherwise would not be accomplished. BLM has a
    process to ensure projects support the Bureau's highest priorities. In
    addition, each dollar of challenge cost share money generates at least
    a dollar of matching funds.
        We are also gratified to see BLM specifically mentioned as a
    priority for infrastructure maintenance. Facilities contained on the
    245 million acres of BLM administered land are important to the
    taxpayer and need to be maintained. BLM has historically not always
    been included in meeting these maintenance needs. We would like to see
    infrastructure maintenance specifically include land restoration,
    forest thinning, brush control, weed control, etc. both as a means of
    improving resource conditions and stimulating local rural economies.
    These are the same lands that provide access to public land recreation.
    Adequate attention must be given to the value of public lands,
    especially rivers and trails as means to access our Nation's public
    lands.
        The President's Budget Blueprint fails to mention youth engagement.
    This has been a longstanding theme throughout several administrations.
    BLM has made great progress in its ``Engaging the Next Generation''
    program. The PLF supports efforts to get youth involved in the outdoors
    and to gain an appreciation for the resources the Nation offers. Many
    of the members of PLF gained an appreciation for land management either
    from working on ranches and farms or by involvement in activities, such
    as the ones proposed in this budget. We hope some of the participants
    in these programs may decide to go into careers in natural resource
    management and fill the jobs of the many employees nearing retirement.
        One of the biggest challenges that the BLM faces is finding a
    workable and acceptable solution to the Wild Horse and Burro problem.
    There is probably no BLM issue that receives more passionate input from
    the public and local governments than this program. The BLM has tried
    several approaches to resolve the problem of rapidly expanding horse
    populations yet continues to be stymied in finding and effectively
    implementing a solution that the public will accept. The budget
    proposes to continue research on more effective fertility control
    methods and other actions suggested by the National Academy of Science
    study, but results from these actions are years off and will involve
    study and preparation of lengthy National Environmental Policy Act
    documents and, likely, result in litigation. Meanwhile the herds
    continue to grow, doubling every four to 5 years. In addition, the cost
    to feed and care for these animals for their relatively long life
    consumes a major part of the program budget. The recent recommendation
    of the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board to allow euthanasia is an
    indication of how critical the situation is. The BLM needs support to
    make use of all the authorities and tools provided in the statutes in
    order to effectively manage this program. We urge congress to remove
    the prohibition on ``sale without limitation.'' This would at least be
    a step in the right direction.
        Finally we are extremely concerned over how a $1.6 billion
    reduction (11.7 percent) for the DOI would translate to BLM. BLM has
    been underfunded for its entire existence, spending only about $4 per
    acre to manage the vast amounts of public lands. A budget cut of this
    magnitude would severely impact BLM's ability to provide adequate
    service to American citizens and limit its ability to protect taxpayer
    investments.
        The PLF strongly supports the dedicated professional employees of
    the BLM and other agencies. The nature of the BLM mission is employee
    intense. Some of the work can be done by contractors, but much of it
    requires BLM employees that are professionally trained in their
    respective fields. These public employees enter these fields because of
    their commitment to the lands and resources. Over the years these
    committed public servants have done their best to implement the laws
    and policies of the administration and Congress, yet they are often
    maligned and even physically confronted by those that disagree with
    those laws and policies. We ask that this subcommittee do what it can
    within its powers to support the dedicated employees in the resource
    management agencies.
        Madam Chairman, we appreciate the hard choices that this
    subcommittee has before it. Perhaps the creation of a BLM Foundation
    would help leverage scarce budget dollars. The BLM is the only major
    land management agency without a congressionally chartered foundation
    in place to support its efforts. A BLM Foundation could help bring
    additional resources to key initiatives. We hope that our comments will
    be of help as you work through the fiscal year 2018 budget process.

        [This statement was submitted by Jesse J. Juen, President.]
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico
    Requests:
        1.  Full funding and parity for the IHS through an exemption from
    sequestration and budget cuts.
        2.  Increased funding for preventative health services to reduce
    incident rates of chronic illness.
        3.  $450,000 to maintain and repair 383.8 miles of roads on the BIA
    roads inventory.
        4.  $30 million for the construction, project management, and
    inspection of the Mesa Hill Bridge.
        5.  Increased Federal funding to maintain and construct Acoma
    Pueblo's irrigation infrastructure.
        6.  $8 million for the construction of a 35,000 square-foot
    innovative learning facility.
        7.  Maintain the $1 million set-aside for NAGPRA-related law
    enforcement going forward.
        Introduction. Thank you Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall,
    and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit outside
    witness testimony on the critical funding needs of American Indian and
    Alaska Native programs under the fiscal year 2018 Federal budget. Thank
    you for your hard work and for the dedicated efforts of your staff in
    advancing the interests of Indian Country within the Federal
    Government.
        My name is Kurt Riley and I am the Governor of the Pueblo of Acoma,
    located in north-central New Mexico. Our Pueblo has maintained
    independent political relationships with foreign governments since at
    least the 16th century, when we treated with the Spanish conquistadores
    during their early explorations of the southwest. The Spanish Crown and
    the United States each recognized the Pueblos' right to self-rule and
    declared that all Pueblos be presided over by Tribal Governors with
    full ownership of their land. In the spirit of this intimate and time-
    honored connection to our lands, I invite you to join me on a guided
    tour through Acoma Pueblo as I offer the following budget
    recommendations for fiscal year 2018.
        After following Interstate 40 an hour west of Albuquerque, we take
    Exit 100 and enter the sovereign territory of the Pueblo of Acoma. It
    is a land of turquoise skies, sunlit earth, and resilient people. The
    quiet of the plateau settles around you as we navigate down Veterans
    Boulevard to the Acoma-Canoncito-Laguna Indian Health Services Facility
    (ACL Hospital). Though we had to drive just a few miles from I-40 to
    reach the hospital, many Native patients must travel substantial
    distances to access an Indian Health Service (IHS) facility. It is our
    sense that the IHS has made a calculation that it is more economically
    efficient to fund a handful of centralized facilities than to maintain
    higher healthcare services and programs at the smaller facilities
    located in Native communities. Although that might be economical in the
    short-term, it comes at the long-term price of providing accessible
    quality care, thus creating one more hurdle on the path to wellness.
        The ACL Hospital provides critical healthcare services to the I-40
    corridor and surrounding Native communities; however, the quality and
    quantity of services being offered here has declined in recent years.
    The ability of Acoma Pueblo and our Federal partners to address the
    critical needs of the Acoma people is severely hindered by the lack of
    full funding for IHS programs. In 2015, for example, IHS spending for
    medical care per user was only $3,136, while the national average
    spending per user was $8,517--an astonishing 63 percent difference.
    Indian health programs also suffer from the cumulative effects of
    sequestration under the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25).
    The disruption and ongoing unmet needs correlates directly with the
    staggeringly high rates of diabetes, chronic illness, and premature
    deaths that haunt our communities. We request that Congress exempt the
    IHS from sequestration and provide full funding for the IHS in fiscal
    year 2018 to provide an expanded range of health services in Native and
    rural communities.
        As we walk through the corridors of the hospital, I welcome you to
    look inside the rooms. Each patient is a testament to the resiliency of
    the Native spirit. They draw on their identity as Pueblo people for
    strength in overcoming the generations of hardship that manifests
    itself today in the adverse health outcomes currently plaguing Indian
    Country, particularly in regards to behavioral and mental health. Acoma
    Pueblo strives to promote the physical, mental, and spiritual well-
    being of our people. To achieve this end, additional funding for
    preventative health services is needed to reduce future incident rates
    of serious illness in Native communities. It is our hope that the next
    time you visit ACL Hospital, these rooms will be empty thanks to the
    combined effect of improved access to quality care and preventative
    health services in Indian Country provided for in the fiscal year 2018
    budget.
        Before we leave the hospital grounds, I would like to direct you to
    Mockingbird Drive. This area contains additional treatment centers as
    well as a residential area for the medical professionals and
    administrative staff serving our people. The name of the road is all
    too appropriate, as we are unable to meet the housing needs of these
    individuals and their families. Only 40 housing units are available;
    the majority of the staff must struggle to find alternative local
    housing, which is further complicated by the critical housing shortages
    at Acoma Pueblo. Limited or non-existent housing opportunities impair
    our ability to recruit and retain qualified medical professionals. We
    urge Congress to provide sufficient funding for the renovation and
    construction of adequate housing units at IHS facilities.
        Take a right down Pueblo Road--one of our main thoroughfares--and
    we will make our way south, deeper into Acoma territory. Do you feel
    the bumps and buckling asphalt beneath your tires? The slight vibration
    in the steering wheel as we hit another divot in the road? Acoma Pueblo
    has approximately 662 miles of roadways within its exterior boundaries;
    however, only 363.8 miles are included on the BIA roads inventory. This
    means that almost half of our Tribal roads do not receive inventory-
    related funded from the BIA. Of those that do, the amount is
    insufficient to support the roads' maintenance needs. For fiscal year
    2016, we received $70,000 in BIA Tribal Program Allocation Funds (TAP)
    to maintain roads on the inventory, which translates into roughly $192
    per mile. An annual funding allocation of at least $450,000 is needed
    to maintain the entire 363.8 miles of Federal and Tribal roads included
    on the BIA inventory.
        Stop! With only minimal safety features in place, it is easy to see
    how you almost missed the level railroad crossing that bisects our
    Pueblo. While the endless sky of New Mexico makes for wonderful vistas
    from the mesas, down on the ground it poses significant threats to our
    Tribal members' safety. The flat terrain, misjudgments on the speed and
    distance of trains, and the lack of fixed schedules for freight trains
    all contribute to unsafe railroad crossings. Nonetheless, our people
    must face the daily challenge of traversing the tracks because our
    hospitals and business centers are located on the north side of the
    tracks while our community service facilities are located in the south.
    Despite the significant threat to public safety posed by this
    situation, we have been repeatedly denied funding to construct the
    proposed Mesa Hill Bridge across the tracks. This is a shovel-ready
    project for which we request $30 million to cover the costs of
    construction, project management, and inspection.
        As we cross the tracks--safely this time--the rich lands of our
    Pueblo unfold. We strive to maintain our traditional lifestyle while
    also incorporating innovative practices that benefit our community.
    Alongside the road, for example, you will see traditional dirt
    irrigation ditches. Hundreds of years ago, our ancestors engineered
    complex irrigation systems to support the permanent settlement of
    communities in an otherwise arid landscape. These remarkable networks
    have sustained local water delivery and agriculture for generations.
    However, the effects of time, human activity, and changes in the
    natural environment have resulted in the need for extensive repairs and
    new construction. Congress enacted the Pueblo Irrigation Infrastructure
    Act as Section 9106 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009
    to support the irrigation infrastructure of the Rio Grande Pueblos,
    including Acoma Pueblo. With funding through the Bureau of Reclamation
    under this Act, Acoma has completed a survey of all irrigation ditches
    and farming lands in our community. The estimated cost to line eight
    miles of traditional dirt irrigation ditches with concrete is
    $2,500,000. Substantial Federal funding is also needed to repair,
    construct, and restore an additional 36 miles of irrigation
    infrastructure at Acoma Pueblo.
        Acoma Pueblo is a rural, isolated community facing significant
    challenges stemming from the lack of economic development and a
    woefully inadequate municipal infrastructure. As we drive down
    Pinsbarri Drive (Indian Service Route 32), you will see the Acoma
    Community Center, Haaku Learning Center, and Sky City Community School
    where we strive to provide our Tribal members with the tools to
    overcome these tremendous barriers. Technological advances and the
    expansion of broadband connections are rapidly changing the educational
    landscape in rural communities. Acoma Pueblo, like much of Indian
    Country, lacks access to a reliable broadband network to take advantage
    of these life-changing opportunities. We request funding to support the
    design and construction of an Acoma Library and Tribal Education Center
    with the broadband infrastructure and on-site resources to connect our
    Tribal members with previously unheard-of access to continuing
    education in their home community. $8 million is needed for the
    construction of a 35,000 square-foot facility to include a library,
    state-of-the-art interactive learning center and outdoor learning
    facilities.
        Unlike our broadband network, the connection to our culture and
    identity as Acoma people is strong and unbroken. Along this journey,
    you have seen it in the ceremonial features of the land, heard it in
    the wisdom of our Tribal leaders, and felt it in the resonant power of
    our items of cultural patrimony. At the junction of Kaatsiima Drive and
    Indian Service Route 38 is the Haaku Museum. This 40,000 square-foot
    facility focuses on the preservation of Acoma history and cultural
    expression. The items on display transmit our worldviews and values
    from generation to generation. When these items are removed from the
    community through illegal trafficking or theft, an irreplaceable aspect
    of our cultural identity is lost as well.
        While you contemplate the profound beauty and complexity of the
    items on display, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you
    for providing expanded funding for NAGPRA-related law enforcement
    activities in the 2017 Omnibus. Because of the dedicated efforts of
    this subcommittee and other champions of Indian Country, we have made
    significant progress in protecting our cultural patrimony. BIA and
    Tribal officials will now have an enhanced capacity to combat and deter
    the trafficking of Tribal cultural patrimony. Acoma Pueblo is confident
    that the movement to protect cultural heritage that began with the
    PROTECT Patrimony Resolution will only continue to grow stronger going
    forward. We strongly encourage Congress to maintain the $1 million
    allocation for NAGPRA-related law enforcement activities in fiscal year
    2018 and beyond and to continue to support programs that protect and
    repatriate items of Tribal cultural patrimony.
        To complete our tour of Acoma Pueblo you will need to strap on your
    hiking boots. We will be climbing 365 feet up into the New Mexico
    firmament to visit Acoma Sky City, our ancestral home. The Acoma people
    have lived at this mesa-top settlement for at least 1000 years. It is
    the heart of our community--preserving and enriching our religious,
    cultural, and social life. As we climb the natural stairs to the top, I
    encourage you to feel the smooth, warm sandstone of the mesa beneath
    your hands; countless generations of Acoma people have worn handholds
    into the rock to stabilize and guide those that follow. With each step
    you take, you are shaping that same path today. While the climb is
    steep and challenging, together we can make it and the view from the
    top is an unforgettable reward.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on these
    important considerations for the fiscal year 2018 budget. We look
    forward to working with you, and we hope to have the opportunity to
    show you first-hand the magnificence of our lands as well as the
    challenges facing our community during a future visit to the Pueblo of
    Acoma. Da'wa'eh; thank you.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
        The Puyallup Tribe appreciates the opportunity to provide written
    testimony concerning the fiscal year 2018 appropriations for American
    Indian and Alaskan Native programs. The Puyallup Tribe is an
    independent sovereign nation having historically negotiated with
    several foreign nations including the United States in the Medicine
    Creek Treaty of 1854. This relationship is rooted in Article I, Section
    8, of the United States Constitution, Federal laws and numerous
    Executive Orders. The governing body of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
    is the Puyallup Tribal Council which upholds the Tribe's sovereign
    responsibility of self-determination and self-governance for the
    benefit of the 5,006 Puyallup Tribal members and the 25,000 plus
    members from approximately 355 federally recognized Tribes who utilize
    our services. The Puyallup Reservation is located in the urbanized
    Seattle-Tacoma area of the State of Washington. The 18,061acre
    reservation is a ``checkerboard'' of Tribal lands, Indian-owned fee
    land and non-Indian owned fee land. Our reservation land includes parts
    of six different municipalities (Tacoma, Fife, Milton, Puyallup,
    Edgewood and Federal Way).
                department of interior--bureau of indian affairs
        Public Safety & Justice: The Tribe's top priority remains public
    safety and justice programs. Funding for detention facilities is of
    great importance to the Puyallup Tribe. In fiscal year 2009, the
    Puyallup Tribe received a Department of Justice grant, in the amount of
    $7.9 million to construct a 28 bed adult corrections facility.
    Construction on the facility was completed in February 2014 and came
    online in May 2014. Over the past years the Puyallup Tribe has worked
    closely with the BIA-Office of Justice Services to identify the
    operating and staffing costs associated this facility. The agreed upon
    estimated cost of operating the facility was set at $2.6 million
    annually. The BIA base funding offered to the Tribe $704,198 or 27
    percent of actual need, with no increases to base funding in fiscal
    year 2016 or 2017. We are request support from the subcommittee to
    include committee report language that would direct Office of Justice
    Services to submit a plan for funding the staffing and operations of
    the detention facilities in Indian country. In light of glaring funding
    shortfalls, we are shocked the administration seeks to cut Public
    Safety funds.
        In addition, we operate a Tribal Court program through a Public Law
    93-638 contract with the B.I.A. In fiscal year 2015, our base funding
    was increased from $45,000 to $194,996 and remains this amount for
    fiscal year 2017. While this increase to our Tribal Court Base funding
    is appreciated, it does not equal the amount of Tribal funds necessary
    to fully operate the Tribal Court program. In fiscal year 2016, the
    Tribe has allocated $1.172 million of Tribal funds for the Tribal Court
    budget. The Puyallup Tribe greatly supports the $10 million in funding
    support for Tribal Courts in Public Law 280 States that Congress
    provided in fiscal year 2017. This funding will assist with the
    implementation of the Tribal Law and Order Act and the Violence Against
    Women Act for Tribes like Puyallup. We request similar funding for
    fiscal year 2018 and therefore oppose the administration's proposal to
    eliminate Tribal Court funds for Tribes in Public Law 280 States.
        Natural Resources Management: The Puyallup Tribe has treaty and
    governmental obligations and responsibilities to manage its natural
    resources for uses beneficial to the Tribal membership and the regional
    communities. Despite our diligent program efforts, the fisheries
    resource is degrading and economic losses are incurred by Native and
    Non-native fishermen and surrounding communities. Our resource
    management responsibilities cover thousands of square miles in the
    Puget Sound region of the State of Washington.
        For fiscal year 2018, a minimum funding level of $8.5 million is
    necessary for the Rights Protection Implementation--BIA Western
    Washington (Bolt) Fisheries Management program. However, we agree with
    the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and the National Congress of
    American Indians that an overall $52 million increase for the Rights
    Protection Implementation funding is necessary to ensure compliance
    with Federal court orders through effective Tribal self-regulatory and
    co-management systems. This increase in funding would provide new
    monies for harvest management, habitat protection, stock enhancement,
    shellfish, enforcement, wildlife and other natural resource management
    needs. As the aboriginal owners and guardians of our lands and waters
    it is essential that adequate funding is provided to allow Tribes to
    carry-out our inherent stewardship of these resources. The
    administration's 30 percent cut is unjustified.
        The Puyallup Tribe continues to operate a number of salmon
    hatcheries that benefit Indian and non-Indian commercial and sport
    fisheries in the Pacific Northwest/Puget Sound. We work cooperatively
    with the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, neighboring Tribes,
    Federal agencies and State fishery managers to insure the success and
    sustainability of our hatchery programs. The Tribe supports the
    Congress past funding of for Fish Hatcheries Operations and Fish
    Hatchery Maintenance, including the recent $1 million increase for fish
    hatchery operations.
        The Timber, Fish and Wildlife (TFW) Supplemental and U.S./Canada
    Pacific Salmon Treaty programs has allowed for the expansion of Tribal
    participation in the State forest practice rules and regulations and
    participation in inter-tribal organizations to address specific
    treaties and legal cases which relate to multi-national fishing rights,
    harvest allocations and resource management practices. We request that
    the subcommittee support the funding recommendations of the NWIFC for
    the fiscal year 2018 TFW Supplemental program and the U.S./Canada
    Pacific Salmon Treaty program.
        The Puyallup Wildlife Management program has been the lead agency
    in management activities to benefit the South Rainier elk herd since
    2004. The South Rainier elk herd is the primary stock of elk harvested
    by the Puyallup Tribe. The Tribe has not only established more reliable
    methods for population monitoring, but has also been proactive in
    initiating habitat enhancement projects, research and land acquisition
    to ensure sustainable populations of elk for future generations. Funds
    that are available to the Tribe have been on a very competitive basis
    with a limited amount per program via USFWS Tribal Wildlife grants and
    the B.I.A. Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights grant program. We
    request subcommittee support to provide base funding to the Tribes'
    Wildlife Management Program in the amount of $150,000 through the
    B.I.A. Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights program in fiscal year
    2018 appropriations.
        Education: The Puyallup Tribe operates the pre-K to 12 Chief Leschi
    Schools which included a School student enrollment of approximately 910
    students, including ECEAP and FACE programs. With an increasing number
    of pre-kindergarten enrollment, Chief Leschi Schools will exceed design
    capacity in the near future. Additional education facility space will
    be necessary to provide quality educational services to the students
    and Tribal community. Additionally, the cost of operation and
    maintenance of the Chief Leschi School facilities continues to increase
    in the areas of supplies, energy and student transportation costs.
        We greatly appreciate the $39 million increase for Bureau of Indian
    Education (BIE) that Congress was able to provide in fiscal year 2017,
    but more is needed. The Tribe will continue to work with Congress, BIE
    and the National Congress of American Indians to increase funding in
    fiscal year 2018, including; Tribal Grant Support Cost for Tribally
    Operated Schools--$78 million; Student Transportation--$73 million;
    School Facilities Accounts--$109 million in facilities operations and
    $109 million in facilities maintenance, Indian School Equalization
    Program (ISEP)--$431 million and Construction/Repair of BIE Schools-
    $263.4 million. The administration's proposed cuts to BIE funding of
    $105 million for fiscal year 2018 are most unwise and will further
    exacerbate the education disparities faced by Native American children.
        Operations of Indian Programs & Tribal Priority Allocations: Again,
    the Puyallup Tribe greatly appreciates Congress increases for B.I.A.
    Operations of Indian Programs. Within the Operations of Indian Programs
    is the Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA). The TPA budget functions
    include the majority of funding used to support on-going services at
    the ``local tribal'' level, including; natural resources management,
    child welfare, other education, housing and other Tribal government
    services. Nevertheless, these functions have not received adequate and
    consistent funding to allow Tribes the resources to fully exercise
    self-determination and self-governance. Further, the small increases
    ``TPA'' has received over the past few years has not been adequate to
    keep pace with inflation. We therefore oppose the administration's ill-
    conceived proposed reductions to OIP programs.
         department of health and human services--indian health service
        The inadequate funding of the Indian Health Service is the most
    substantial impediment to the current Indian Health system. The
    Puyallup Tribe has been operating healthcare programs since 1976
    through the Indian Self-determination Act, Public Law 93-638. The
    Puyallup Tribal Health Authority (PTHA) operates a comprehensive
    ambulatory care program to the Native American population in Pierce
    County, Washington. The current patient load exceeds 9,000, of which
    approximately 1,700 are Tribal members. For that reason, we cannot
    understand the administration's proposed reductions to IHS funding of
    $107 million for fiscal year 2018.
        There are no Indian Health Service hospitals in the Portland Area
    so all specialties and hospital care have been paid for out of our
    contract care allocation. The Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) allocation
    to PTHA remains inadequate to meet the actual need. In fiscal year
    2004, the Puyallup Tribe subsidized PRC with a $2.8 million-dollar
    contribution. Today, the Tribal PRC subsidy has grown to in excess of
    $6 million. Given that the PTHA service population is only comprised of
    17 percent Puyallup Tribal members, Tribal budget priorities in fiscal
    year 2011 thru 2016 has made continued subsidies to the PTHA
    financially difficult for the Puyallup Tribe. The Tribe greatly
    supports the $3.694 billion funded for IHS Indian health services in
    fiscal year 2017, including the $928 million for Purchased/Referred
    Care, a $14 million increase. Without similar funding increases for
    fiscal year 2018, we cannot see how our Tribe will meet increasing
    healthcare costs and expand healthcare services and programs for a
    growing population.
        As the first ISDA contracted health clinic in the country, we
    greatly appreciate Congress' strong support for fully funding Contract
    Support Costs at $800 million. The Puyallup Tribe fully supports
    funding increases for existing IHS programs and will work with Congress
    to continue efforts to increase funding for IHS and the critical
    programs administered by this Agency.
        For all of the above reasons, we urge the subcommittee to reject
    the administration's unwise proposed reductions to fiscal year 2018
    appropriations for Tribal programs and continue its bipartisan
    tradition to make informed decisions about Tribal needs based on well
    documented information.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc.
        Honorable Chairman and Committee members. I am Marlene Martinez,
    the President of the Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc. (RNSB). Ahe hee'.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide oral testimony for the
    consideration of the Congress. We have a relationship that extends back
    to 1970 (over 47 years) when the Founders of Ramah Navajo School Board,
    Inc. (``RNSB'') came before you to request your help to establish the
    first tribally controlled and operated school in the Nation. We are
    proud to inform you this day that the RNSB still operates and manages
    the Pine Hill Schools under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act.
        Our purpose here today is to report to you the dire condition of
    our school buildings that is nearing the end of its useful life. After
    nearly half a century, the BIA School facilities at the Pine Hill
    Schools (1) are aging and showing significant wear and tear; (2) have
    deteriorated beyond repair; (3) have inoperable and failed heating
    systems; (4) have dilapidated and unsafe water systems; and (5) are
    unusable because of dangerous mold conditions due to leaking roofs.
        In just the past 5 years, it has gotten to the point where the
    students have been sent home early during schools hours due to cold
    classrooms or a water line break on campus that causes no water or low
    water pressure situations. The lack of water or low water pressure is
    due to a dilapidated water system; it is corroded and near a total
    collapse. All the while the students are also exposed to a dangerous
    environment due to mold, cold classrooms, and leaking roofs in certain
    classrooms, or playing on a wet basketball court in the gymnasium, and
    walking on crumbling sidewalks. See Tab-1 ``Office of Inspector General
    Report of Findings''. The conditions at the Pine Hill Schools have been
    detrimental to student learning, scholastic achievement, and
    environmental safety. Valuable time for student instruction has been
    interrupted and lost, and those conditions are directly attributable to
    the underachievement for many of the students.
        An investigative report conducted in 2014 by an Albuquerque news
    channel, through Larry Barker, labeled the Pine Hill Schools as See
    Tab-2 ``The most dangerous school in America?'' This is absolutely
    unacceptable and contrary to congressional intent. That labeling came
    as result of an investigative report by the Office of the Inspector
    General (OIG) that cited the Pine Hill Schools with numerous facility
    violations, which if not corrected could have resulted in penalties
    against the RNSB or even the shutdown of the school. See Tab-
    1A"Corrective Action to OIG Findings Report''. Of the approximately 30
    findings RNSB has corrected and resolved 24 of them. Those that remain
    unresolved are the Library, Kindergarten, and Gymnasium buildings; and
    they require major work.
        RNSB established a priority projects list with a set timeline of 1
    year to resolve the leaking roofs and mold in the Library,
    Kindergarten, and Gymnasium buildings. This includes the installation
    of a new heating system in the High School building and an upgrade of
    the dilapidated water system.
        The estimated cost of conducting the improvements and repairs
    SeeTab-3 MAXIMO Priority Listing:

                       Priority Projects                     Estimated Cost

    1. Library Building Repair

       Mold abatement and Leaking Roof....................          $823,478

    2. Kindergarten Building Repair

       Mold Remediation, Leaking Roof, Replacements of              $298,407
     Windows, Bathrooms, Carpets, HVAC....................

    3. Gymnasium Building

       Mold Remediation, Repair of Leaking Roof,                  $1,230,901
     Replacement of Old Insulation, Floor, Showers, and
     Lockers..............................................

    4. Heating System in the High School Building.........          $450,000

       In September 2016 BIA committed to designing and
     installing a heating system at the Pine Hill High
     School by mid-December 2016 so that the students
     could enjoy warm classrooms for once. But that did
     not happen, and that makes it six (6) years in a row
     the heating system has been inoperable. Instead, the
     project was still in the design stage as of April
     2017; so very likely the construction may not be
     completed until late summer of 2017.
                                                           -----------------
    Total Buildings and Heating System....................        $2,802,786

    5. Water System Upgrade (Wells, Pumps, Waterlines,
     Tanks, Water Treatment) See Tab-4 ``Existing water
     system layout-blue line''

    Pre-Engineering Report................................         $ 150,000
    Design and Engineering................................           500,000
    Construction--Upgrade of Water System.................         3,500,000
                                                           -----------------
    Total Water System Upgrade............................        $4,150,000
                                                           =================
    Total Medium Term Funding Requested...................        $6,952,786

    6. New School 186,500 SF..............................       $40,012,500

    Tab-5 ``Conceptual Site Plan-New Building Layout &
     Cost"

    There is also the question of maintaining obsolete
     facilities that have surpassed its useful life.
     Therefore the reason and justification to build a new
     school is to re-invest in the long-term future of the
     children and youth of the Ramah Navajo Community.

    Long Term Solution
        The above first five (5) items are considered medium-term
    solutions. Whereas, the long-term solution (Item No. 6) that RNSB seeks
    is Congressional appropriation for a whole new replacement school. A
    modern up to date new educational facility that meets the standards
    that permits a high-quality educational and living environment where
    RNSB students can thrive and prepare themselves for a promising future.
    Considering all costs for planning, designing and engineering the cost
    for a whole new replacement school is estimated at $40,012,500.
        It is obvious and evident that RNSB cannot rely on BIA to perform
    any required repair and maintenance, nor live up to its Trust
    responsibility. Therefore, RNSB requests the commitment of the Congress
    once again through the BIA and BIE: (1) to correct the above mentioned
    deficiencies; and (2) initiate new congressional appropriations for the
    planning, design, and construction of new educational facilities as
    soon as possible.
    Summary
        RNSB request the US Congress to direct the BIA and BIE to complete
    repairs and mold remediation to the Library, Kindergarten, and
    Gymnasium buildings, the installation of a heating system for the High
    School, and the upgrade of the water delivery system at the Pine Hill
    Schools. Furthermore, RNSB request the Congress to appropriate
    sufficient funds for planning, design and construction of a new school
    at Ramah Navajo. Thank you for your time and RNSB looks forward to the
    Congress favorable consideration.
    Ahe hee'
        We look forward to working with the subcommittee on furthering the
    important work of our school and enriching our students. Thank you for
    the opportunity to submit testimony. Please contact me at
    marlene@rnsb.k12.nm.us if you have any questions.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Recording Academy
        My name is Neil Portnow, I am the President/CEO of the Recording
    Academy, an organization that represents 23,000 individual music
    creators and professionals--songwriters, performers, studio
    professionals, and others creatively involved in making music. I
    appreciate the opportunity to submit this written testimony to the
    Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies. The Recording Academy requests that
    the subcommittee funds the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for
    fiscal year 2018 at no less than $155 million.
        The NEA has been invaluable to the development of music creators
    across the country, while helping preserve America's rich music
    culture. Since 1966, the NEA has provided $423.8 million in funding to
    domestic music programs--from teaching kids how to play an instrument
    to supporting festivals of international acclaim. The NEA is an
    essential part of the American music culture, and it must be funded to
    ensure that all Americans, from inner cities to rural counties, can
    continue to enjoy and participate in our rich music heritage.
        As you consider funding levels for fiscal year 2018, I encourage
    you to first reflect on what music means to our Nation. From folks
    songs of centuries past, to the iconic American Jazz scene, to today's
    global pop stars, music is woven throughout our cultural tapestry. It
    binds us together as one Nation with the power to bridge racial,
    religious, and regional divides. Music represents our shared history,
    our common values, and our dedication to build for ourselves a more
    perfect union. In times of triumph and tragedy, we turn to the abiding
    power of music to lift our spirits, soothe our souls, and remind us
    that everything will be okay.
        Music and the arts give value to us as a Nation beyond defined
    borders, ensuring that America continues to be a beacon of innovation
    and hope for people here and all around the world. President John F.
    Kennedy summed it up best, ``The life of the arts is very close to the
    center of a Nation's purpose, and is a test of the quality of a
    Nation's civilization.'' His words remain true today; and for less than
    $1 per person, the NEA helps foster all of this and so much more.
        I understand that you are tasked with a difficult and important
    responsibility; but as you finalize government spending for the next
    year, please remember why the arts must be protected today, tomorrow,
    and in the future. American culture makes America strong. Music and the
    arts further the very priorities the budget seeks to enhance. Our
    creative economy, with a $26 billion trade surplus, serves as a
    powerful ambassador abroad; it teaches our shared values and history in
    compelling ways, and it connects us as a people and as a world.
        At a SXSW panel sponsored by the Recording Academy in 2014,
    Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul noted:

            ``Music can really make a difference in changing the attitudes
            and governance of some of these countries and really have a
            positive impact. While [drones] have been successful with high-
            value targets, they are not alone going to kill an ideology. .
            . . Music has a very strong role to play in diplomacy and in
            that soft power to try and change the world to make it a better
            place.''

        When we're talking about ``hard power'' as opposed to ``soft
    power,'' what we're really talking about is the difference between
    coercion and control versus persuasion and influence. That is where
    American culture and creativity excel. American music, art, theater,
    and dance liberate us, teach us to think and be strong, and are great
    ambassadors around the word.
        Simply put, we didn't win the Cold War with just missiles; we also
    won the Cold War with Elvis, tailfins, and Death of a Salesman. Earlier
    I quoted President Kennedy, whose leadership proved critical to the
    U.S. and the world during that divisive period in our history. In a
    speech just a month before his death, Kennedy said, ``I see little of
    more importance to the future of our country and our civilization than
    full recognition of the place of the artist.''
        That is why I implore you and your colleagues in Congress to fully
    fund the National Endowment for the Arts at a level of no less than
    $155 million for fiscal year 18. Help protect and renew America's
    commitment to the arts and to music. It's our collective responsibility
    to preserve what binds us and to ensure that the whole world continues
    to benefit from one of our most unique and economically and spiritually
    important assets--and exports: American music.
        It is an investment worth making.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians
        Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall, thank you and the
    other distinguished Members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to
    provide testimony on behalf of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians
    (``Red Lake''). Red Lake is a large Tribe with 12,000 members. Our
    840,000-acre Reservation is held in trust by the United States. While
    it has been diminished in size over time, our Reservation was never
    broken apart or allotted, nor subjected to the criminal or civil
    jurisdiction of the State of Minnesota. Thus, we are responsible for a
    large land area over which we exercise full governmental authority and
    control, in conjunction with the United States. Due in part to our
    remote location, there are few job opportunities available for Tribal
    members. While unemployment in Minnesota is only 3.9 percent, ours
    remains close to 50 percent. The lack of good roads, reliable
    communications systems, and other necessary infrastructure continues to
    impede economic development and job creation at Red Lake. The budget
    appropriation process is a major avenue through which the United States
    fulfills its trust responsibility and honors its obligations to Indian
    Tribes. To that end, we request that your subcommittee provide $6.7
    million in additional fiscal year 2018 funding for Red Lake programs as
    described below.
    Protect and Restore BIA and IHS Funding From Sequestration
        Sequestration has undermined specific Red Lake treaties that the
    United States Constitution considers the ``supreme law of the land.''
    Our Tribal government delivers core government services that were
    previously administered by Federal agencies, based on Federal treaty
    and trust responsibilities owed to Red Lake. Because it would be
    unthinkable for the United States to fail to fully comply with
    contractual obligations to other treaty parties without consequence,
    the United States must likewise fully honor its obligations to Indian
    nations, like Red Lake.
        In fiscal year 2013-2017, sequestration cut Red Lake's BIA annual
    funding levels by more than $900,000 each year forcing Red Lake's
    already underfunded BIA programs to suffer from huge reductions. The
    BIA is obligated to provide adequate funding to meet basic public
    safety needs on our Reservation, but the BIA has repeatedly failed to
    do so. Each of our public safety programs is understaffed and
    undersupplied relative to the BIA's own safety standards. In order to
    provide minimal public safety in fiscal year 2016, Red Lake had to
    spend $2.9 million more than BIA provided. To cover this shortfall, we
    had to shift funds from other critical BIA programs, which were also
    impacted by sequestration, cutback on staff, and reduce hours for law
    enforcement and other public safety services. This resulted in
    noticeable and dramatic cuts in service delivery.
        Sequestration has additionally taken over $750,000 each year from
    IHS-funded medical services at Red Lake. This has cost the Tribe
    several medical positions, made patients wait even longer for
    treatment, delayed patient follow-up care, reduced medical
    transportation, diminished supply stocks, and delayed replacement of
    outdated equipment.
        For Tribes like Red Lake who must rely on Federal funding for
    essential government services, sequestration has been a nightmare.
    Funding taken away by the draconian sequestration cuts of recent years
    should be restored in fiscal year 2018. We specifically ask for an
    addition of $1,650,000 to Red Lake's BIA and IHS base program funding
    in fiscal year 2018 to restore funds taken away by previous
    sequestration cuts, and we ask for another $2,957,850 to be added to
    our BIA law enforcement budget to help Red Lake finally meet our BIA
    public safety shortfall.
    Protect Indian Country Funding from Proposed 13 Percent Cut
        The President's fiscal year 2018 budget is simply terrible for
    Tribes. For at least a decade, BIA has fared poorly when Interior has
    internally allocated its budgeted funds among various agencies.
        Tribes have suffered terrible funding cuts to most government
    service programs. The cuts have caused a crisis for many Tribes. The
    cuts include a crippling 16 percent to Tribal Government Funding
    (formerly referred to as ``Tribal Priority Allocations'' or ``TPA'') in
    1996, most Tribes' base programs other than law enforcement have not
    increased in 20 years, Tribal programs were cut an additional 8 percent
    from the 14 separate, permanent rescissions enacted since 2000 to fund
    Federal deficit reduction, tax cuts, wars, and hurricanes. Tribal
    employee pay costs were only partially funded most of those years. As a
    result, Tribes' core service funding is far less, in real terms, than
    20 years ago. This has undermined the ability of Tribes to provide
    safety and security for people who struggle to survive under some of
    the worst living standards in America.
        Red Lake's critical government services programs are dangerously
    underfunded, and the BIA through which we receive our funding continues
    to be impacted by sequestration, rescissions, and inflation, despite
    the able work of this subcommittee to provide BIA funding increases in
    fiscal year 2014-2017 after 3 years of significant decreases in fiscal
    year 2011-2013.
    Fully Fund Pay Costs and Fixed Costs in fiscal year 2018 and Beyond
        Pay costs represent the only increase most Tribal programs receive.
    Since fiscal year 2001, the Interior Department, BIA, and Tribes, lost
    more than $800 million from the partial funding of Pay Costs and other
    Fixed Costs. This has resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs. The
    fiscal year 2017 budget request included $5.3 million for BIA Fixed
    Costs and Pay Costs--the lowest request in history (in fiscal year 2008
    BIA Fixed Costs were $41.3 million). Red Lake requests that you provide
    $8 million specifically for Tribes' Pay Costs in fiscal year 2018, and
    that you continue to tell OMB that Pay Costs must be fully funded in
    all future budget requests. We also ask that you fund $2.1 million in
    fiscal year 2018, the total cumulative amount Red Lake has been shorted
    from the failure to fully fund Pay Costs since fiscal year 2001.
    Protect and Fully Fund Tiwahe and Recidivism Reduction Initiatives
            (RRI)
        Tiwahe and RRI are positively impacting Tribes. The Tiwahe
    Initiative provides resources to assist Tribes in addressing the inter-
    related problems of poverty, violence, substance abuse, and associated
    outcomes like youth suicide. Tiwahe encompasses several BIA programs
    including Social Services, ICWA, Courts, Job Placement and Training,
    and Housing. These programs historically have seen few funding
    increases. The RRI is a BIA Public Safety and Justice program within
    its Law Enforcement Special Initiatives line, and which is now part of
    the broader Tiwahe Initiative. Through Tiwahe and RRI, Red Lake was
    able to finally open a juvenile facility that sat vacant for a decade
    due to lack of funding. We are now providing vital services to youth
    who truly need them. Troubled youth are screened for a variety of
    issues including mental health, substance abuse, domestic abuse, crime,
    and recidivism. A host of services are provided including mental
    health, trauma, and substance abuse treatment. We have recently
    established a juvenile healing to wellness court, and in conjunction
    with Red Lake Schools, we established a ``last chance'' school for
    youth who are on the verge of expulsion because of societal problems
    affecting them. Additionally, Our Tribal Health Wellness Program works
    in concert with IHS Behavioral Health staff and the schools. To date,
    they have provided over 8,631 inpatient visits. Because of these
    initiatives, we are proud to report that, in the last 16 months, for
    the first time in years, we have had zero youth suicides. This is an
    outcome we want to maintain.
        We've now confirmed our worst fears--the President wants to
    eliminate Tiwahe and RRI, just as we are beginning to make a difference
    in peoples' lives. Tiwahe actually impacts 61 Tribes in its current
    pilot phase (56 in Alaska), and it will eventually expand to positively
    impact all Tribes. On top of that, an additional $24 million in Tiwahe
    Social Services and IWCA funds were distributed to Tribes across the
    country. Red Lake has made real progress to address the needs of our
    youth and families, thanks to Tiwahe and RRI. We greatly appreciated
    your support for these initiatives in fiscal year 2015 and 2016, and
    for the additional $16 million you provided in fiscal year 2017. You
    are helping our children and families to have better lives and safer
    communities. We ask that you continue to fully fund and consider
    increases for Tiwahe and RRI in fiscal year 2018.
    BIA Justice Services Programs: Law Enforcement, Courts, and Community
            Fire Protection
        The Tribal Law and Order Act (``TLOA'') was intended to empower
    Tribal law enforcement with resources needed to combat crime. However
    since TLOA's implementation, BIA funding for Tribal law enforcement has
    decreased thus hindering the ability of Tribal law enforcement to
    reduce crime and protect Tribal members. Recent administration budget
    requests have furthermore failed to include any increases for Tribal
    law enforcement operations. We thank you for providing an additional
    $5.6 million for Tribal law enforcement in fiscal year 2017, this
    increase is sorely needed. We request an additional $10 million in
    fiscal year 2018 for Tribal law enforcement operations. Funding for
    Tribal Courts is grossly inadequate and remains a top priority of
    Tribes. We thank you for providing an additional $2.6 million in fiscal
    year 2017 for Tribal Courts in support of the Tiwahe Initiative, and we
    ask that you provide an additional $10 million in fiscal year 2018 for
    Tribal Courts. Community Fire Protection has also been neglected for
    decades. We are responsible for fighting fires on our Reservation and
    protecting peoples' lives, on a yearly BIA-funded budget of $42,500. We
    ask that you provide an additional $10 million for Community Fire
    Protection in fiscal year 2017.
    Housing Improvement Program
        The Housing Improvement Program (``HIP'') has provided Red Lake
    with many successes. Recently, we were able to build 8 new HIP homes
    for our poorest elderly and disabled members who were ineligible for
    assistance from other Federal agencies. HIP funding was cut from $19
    million to $8 million in recent years. The President's proposal to
    eliminate the Housing program is unacceptable. We thank you for
    providing a $1.7 million increase in fiscal year 2017 for Housing under
    the Tiwahe Initiative. To continue funding our initiatives, we request
    an additional investment of $10 million in fiscal year 2018.
    Trust Natural Resources--Additional $5 Million
        Thank you for providing an additional $9 million for Trust Natural
    Resources programs in fiscal year 2017. Many natural resources
    recurring base programs, which fund Tribes' day-to-day conservation
    responsibilities, have not been increased for years. As a result,
    Tribes have been unable to adequately manage their resources. On our
    Reservation, most resource management activities are funded under the
    BIA budget categories of Tribal Management Development, Natural
    Resources TPA, Wildlife and Parks TPA, and Forestry TPA. We urge you to
    increase funding for each of these programs by at least $5 million
    above the fiscal year 2017 enacted levels.
    Indian Health Service (IHS)--$7.1 Billion
        Thank you for providing $5.040 billion in fiscal year 2017 for IHS,
    an increase of $232.3 million over fiscal year 2016. There is a
    tremendous unmet need for IHS and Tribal health programs, stemming from
    years of chronic under funding. IHS mandatory increases for inflation,
    population growth, pay costs, and CSC surpass the requested increase.
    Per capita expenditures for IHS in 2015 were only $3,688 person,
    compared to $9,523 for the general population, a great disparity. For
    fiscal year 2018, the IHS Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup requested
    $7.1 billion for IHS, and we ask that you provide this amount.
    EPA Programs
        As Red Lake is home to the 6th largest natural, freshwater lake in
    the United States and approximately 60 percent of the Indian trust land
    in EPA Region 5, spanning a geographic area the size of West Virginia,
    water, wetlands, animals, and plants are vital to our Tribe. While we
    utilize various vital EPA programs, including: General Assistance
    (``GAP''), Clean Water Act Sections 106 Pollution Control and 319
    Nonpoint Source, Brownfields, and Clean Air Act Section 105, Red Lake
    only has funding to support 50 percent of the staff needed. To better
    support our environmental needs, Red Lake requests increases in funding
    for these programs. If funding is not at least maintained at current
    levels we will be forced to let staff go and the vital natural resource
    protection programs they manage will be eliminated.
    Dissuade the President's Signing Statement
        With respect to President Trump's signing statement, the language
    suggests the Trump administration is improperly applying an Equal
    Protection Clause analysis to funds for Native American housing and
    perhaps other funds. Tribes have a government-to-government
    relationship with the United States and, in the context of the Federal
    trust responsibility, the Federal courts have declared that Tribes are
    to be treated as a political class, not as a racial class, thus
    precluding any Equal Protection Clause analysis. Red Lake asks that
    this subcommittee help Indian Country dissuade the administration from
    its errant views on this issue.
        Thank you for allowing me to present, for the record, some of the
    most immediate needs of the Red Lake in fiscal year 2018, and for your
    consideration of these needs.

        [This statement was submitted by Honorable Darrell G. Seki Sr.,
    Chairman.]

                                     ______

                                Reeck Matt deg.
                        Prepared Statement of Matt Reeck
    Dear Senate Appropriations Committee,

        I am writing to you today to ask you to continue to support the
    NEA. Along with the NEH, the total amount of discretionary spending
    would amount to $300 million of the $1.1 trillion documented in the
    proposed 2018 budget.
        I would like to tell you how important translation and art remain
    for us today, and to share how important the NEA has been for me
    personally.
        I won the award to translate an Urdu novel by the Indian writer
    Paigham Afaqui. The award allowed me the degree of financial security
    needed to dedicate the large amounts of time needed for this work.
    Translation as a whole is an essential part of understanding other
    cultures, and while the United States dedicates just a fraction (3
    percent) of its total number of published books to translation, it is
    inconceivable to imagine growing up in an America without translation.
        If we think about the significant books that shaped our lives, and
    that shape the lives of hundreds of millions of fellow Americans, books
    translated into English will be at the top of the list. The New York
    Times bestseller list routinely has foreign works translated into
    English. Even The Bible is available to us only through translation.
    More broadly, translation is part of the vital creative history of
    human societies. This is made clear by the fact that when we travel
    abroad, we visit cultural places and we are interested in learning
    about the cultural histories that the creative arts produce.
        Translation is vital to us. Without it, we would not know the world
    as well as we do. Translation of creative works allows us to see past
    stereotypes that our ignorance creates. With translation of creative
    works, we appreciate the human dimensions of life that are shared
    across all geographic, linguistic, religious, or political divides.
    Translation represents one of the best ways to bridge the divides that
    continually risk separating humans. Translation effects considerable
    positive change in a world that needs more understanding, compassion,
    and sympathy.
        The NEA's historical role in supporting translation and the
    creative arts is a proud part of our American legacy. It recognizes
    that valuable human labor comes in many forms: not just in the
    corporate boardroom, in the factory, and in the fields, but translation
    and the creative arts are legitimate and important forms of
    intellectual and imaginative labor. People all over the world look up
    to America because of its creativity and intellectual vigor. Clearly
    the NEA plays a large role in supporting the arts and intellectual life
    that has historically marked America as being in a class apart and
    ahead of other nations.
        Personally, the grant I received has been a significant part of my
    life. My career as a translator was strengthened by the prestige that
    the award conferred upon me. Respected and dedicated men and women from
    across America choose the award's winners, and the award means instant
    recognition. It is a major award, and a major part of the professional
    pedigree that is essential for translators and creative artists. To
    take it away would mean decimating an important, historical profession.
        I am proud to be American. I am proud of our history of creativity
    in thinking and the arts. I am proud of our openness toward other
    societies and their ways of thinking and self-expression. The NEA
    safeguards these values as much as any organization I can think of.
        Please maintain funding for the NEA, a vital part of our American
    dream.

                Sincerely yours,

                Matt Reeck.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of Restore America's Estuaries
        Restore America's Estuaries is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
    organization that has been working since 1995 to restore our Nation's
    greatest estuaries. Our mission is to restore and protect estuaries as
    essential resources for our Nation. Restore America's Estuaries is an
    alliance of community-based coastal conservation organizations across
    the Nation that protect and restore coastal and estuarine habitat. Our
    member organizations include: American Littoral Society, Chesapeake Bay
    Foundation, Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, Save the Sound--a
    program of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Galveston Bay
    Foundation, North Carolina Coastal Federation, EarthCorps, Save The
    Bay--San Francisco, Save the Bay--Narragansett Bay, and Tampa Bay
    Watch. Collectively, we represent over 250,000 members nationwide.
        As you develop the fiscal year 2018 Interior, Environment and
    Related Agencies appropriations bill, Restore America's Estuaries and
    our members encourage you to provide the following funding levels
    within the Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    (USFWS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for core
    programs that significantly support coastal community and ecosystem
    resilience and local economies:

      --$15 million for USFWS Coastal Program
        (Interior: USFWS: Resource Management: Habitat Conservation:
            Coastal Program)
      --$26.723 million for USEPA National Estuary Program
        (USEPA: Water: Ecosystems: National Estuary Program/Coastal
            Waterways)

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

      --Partnered with more than 5,000 Federal, Tribal, State, and local
            agencies, non-governmental organizations, corporations, and
            private landowners.
      --Restored 557,790 acres of wetland and upland habitat and 2,625
            miles of stream habitat.
      --Protected more than 2.1 million acres of coastal habitat.
      --Provided technical assistance to a diverse range of conservation
            partners.

        Our coastal communities and ecosystems are on the front lines of
    changing coastal conditions and increasing extreme weather. Support for
    the USFWS Coastal Program helps interested communities and partners
    address the new set of challenges facing coastal communities. The
    Coastal Program is the USFWS's key conservation tool delivering on-the-
    ground habitat restoration and technical assistance. Despite the
    Program's relatively small cost, it has a tremendous impact. In 2015
    alone, the Coastal Program, along with 455 local partners, completed
    266 projects restoring or protecting more than 90,000 acres of wetlands
    and uplands and 194 miles of stream habitat. A recent estimate by USFWS
    Coastal Program staff shows that the program leverages, on average, $8
    non-Federal dollars for every Federal dollar spent. This makes the
    Coastal Program one of the most cost-effective habitat restoration
    programs within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        The Coastal Program stimulates local economies by supporting jobs
    necessary to deliver habitat conservation projects, including
    environmental consultants, engineers, construction workers, surveyors,
    assessors, and nursery and landscape workers. These jobs generate
    indirect economic activities that benefit local hotels, restaurants,
    stores, and gas stations. In total, the Coastal Program estimates that
    the average project supports 60 jobs and stimulates 40 businesses
    resulting in nearly thirteen dollars in economic returns for each
    dollar of Federal investment. Additionally, restoration jobs cannot be
    outsourced and $0.90 of every dollar spent on restoration stays within
    the State.
        In Puget Sound, Washington, the Coastal Program invested $20,000 to
    support a project to clean up and remove old and abandoned fishing gear
    from the water, resulting in a direct economic impact to the local
    economy of $51,000. Lost and abandoned fishing gear like nets, lines,
    crab and shrimp traps pose many problems for people, fish and marine
    animals. Each year, derelict crab pots are estimated to trap and kill
    372,000 Dungeness crabs, resulting in losses to the fishery of $1.2
    million--30-40 percent of the value of the annual commercial catch of
    Dungeness crab in Puget Sound. This project removed 84 gillnets--
    preventing the loss of approximately 370,000 crabs and returning an
    estimated value of well over $1.5 million to the crab fishery alone.
        In San Diego Bay, California, the Coastal Program provided funding
    and technical assistance to project partners to restore 300 acres of
    wetland, mudflat, and upland habitat to benefit more than 90 species of
    resident and migratory birds. Project partners transformed highly
    degraded salt ponds into lush habitat by breaching levees, regrading
    soils, and planting native vegetation. Just days after the completion
    of the project, tens of thousands of birds descended on the newly-
    restored habitat to rest, roost, and feed. Not only did this project
    restore a ``Globally Important Bird Area,'' as designated by the
    American Bird Conservancy, but it also created 130 jobs and generated
    $13.4 million for the local economy.
        At recent funding levels of approximately $13.4 million, the
    Coastal Program is able to provide technical assistance and support to
    partners, but can only provide limited project dollars. A modest
    increase over the amount included in the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus would
    help the Coastal Program increase their capacity to leverage willing
    and interested partners to deliver highly-effective and site specific
    habitat conservation and restoration programs that prevent Federal
    listing of species, promote species recovery, enhance coastal
    resilience, and boost local economies.

    Restore America's Estuaries urges your continued support and funding
    for the USFWS Coastal Program and asks that you provide $15 million for
    fiscal year 2018.

                         usepa national estuary program
        The National Estuary Program (NEP) is a non-regulatory network of
    voluntary community-based programs that safeguards the health of
    important coastal ecosystems across the country. The program utilizes a
    consensus-building process to identify goals, objectives, and actions
    that reflect local environmental and economic priorities.
        Currently there are 28 estuaries located along the Atlantic, Gulf,
    and Pacific coasts and in Puerto Rico that have been designated as
    estuaries of national significance. Each National Estuary Program
    demonstrates real environmental results through on-the-ground habitat
    restoration and protection and their efforts are tailored to the
    specific local environmental and economic realities. Collectively, NEPs
    have restored more than 1.5 million acres of land since 2000.
        NEPs work to ensure that Federal agencies work together with State,
    regional, NGO, and private partners to better manage ocean and coastal
    resources for the benefit of the Nation. Community partners are
    involved throughout the decisionmaking process to reduce conflicts,
    redundancies, and inefficiencies that waste time and money, and to
    ensure that restoration and conservation efforts are stakeholder-
    driven. NEPs play a key role in implementing national policies that
    result in better, more cost-effective coastal management that benefits
    States and local communities.

    Restore America's Estuaries urges your continued support of the
    National Estuary Program and asks that you provide $26.723 million for
    USEPA National Estuary Program/Coastal Waterways. Within this amount
    for fiscal year 2018, no less than $600,000 should be directed to each
    of the 28 NEPs in the field.

                                   conclusion
        Restore America's Estuaries greatly appreciates the support this
    Subcommittee has provided in the past for these important programs.
    These programs effectively accomplish on-the-ground restoration work
    which results in major benefits:

        1.  Economic Growth and Jobs.--Coastal habitat restoration creates
    between 17 and 33 direct jobs for each million dollars invested,
    depending on the type of restoration. That is more than twice as many
    jobs as the oil and gas sector and road construction industries
    combined. The restored area supports increased tourism and valuable
    ecosystem services, including flood mitigation, shoreline protection,
    and enhanced fisheries, among others.
        2.  Leveraging Private Funding.--In 2015, Federal investment in the
    USFWS Coastal Program leveraged non-Federal dollars at a ratio of 34 to
    1. The NEPs leveraged non-Federal dollars at a ratio of 15 to 1. In a
    time of shrinking resources, these are rates of return we cannot afford
    to ignore.
        3.  Resiliency.--Restoring coastal wetlands knocks down storm waves
    and reduces devastating storm surges before they reach the shore,
    protecting lives, property, and vital infrastructure for the nearly 40
    percent of Americans that live in coastal communities.

        We greatly appreciate you taking our requests into consideration as
    you move forward in the fiscal year 2018 appropriations process. We
    stand ready to work with you and your staff to ensure the health of our
    Nation's estuaries and coasts.

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

     Prepared Statement of Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health,
                                      Inc.
        Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health, Inc., located in
    Southern California, appreciates the opportunity to submit written
    testimony concerning the 2018 appropriations for the Indian Health
    Service.
        Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health, Inc. is a consortium
    of nine California Tribes located in Riverside and San Bernardino
    counties. Our member Tribes are the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians,
    the Cahuilla Band of Indians, the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians,
    the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Soboba Band of Luiseno
    Indians, the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, the Agua-Caliente
    Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, and the
    San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. We also serve members of three
    other local Tribes: the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, the
    Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, and the Augustine Band of Cahuilla
    Indians.
        Nearly two-thirds of our patient population is comprised of members
    from these local Tribes or other non-consortium Tribes who live in our
    two-county service area. Overall, we serve over 15,000 Native Americans
    and 3,000 related family members, and experience over 100,000 patient
    visits each year.
        Our consortium operates 7 health clinics at different locations
    under a self-governance compact with the Indian Health Service. We are
    proud to offer a broad range of services at our clinics, including
    medical, dental, optical, behavioral health, pharmacy, laboratory,
    environmental health, community health representative, outreach and
    health education services.
        We are thankful for the support of Congress and the funding
    provided to improve the health status of our people. We are especially
    thankful for your invitation to submit written testimony. In doing so
    you honor the Nation-to-Nation relationship between the Federal
    government and Indian Tribes. Thank you for taking so seriously IHS's
    mission to honor the government's trust responsibility to provide
    culturally-competent and high-quality healthcare for all Native
    Americans.
                 ensuring funds for tribally-operated programs
        This subcommittee has been a steady supporter of tribally-operated
    healthcare programs because tribally-driven healthcare works. The
    success of the IHS self-governance and self-determination contracting
    programs shows the monumental impacts Tribes have when they are able to
    take control of the healthcare system serving their members. Indeed,
    the programs that struggle the most in the IHS system are,
    unfortunately, those that are still operated by IHS.
        Despite the advances achieved through Tribal self-determination,
    history teaches that when budgets stay flat or drop, healthcare
    suffers--as occurred with the 2013 sequester. The same can happen when
    budget increases go to bureaucratic oversight or special IHS projects
    that never filter down to Tribes. This is the case with the Joint
    Venture Construction Program, which provides a boon for a few
    individual sites but provides no benefit to other Tribes. For example,
    California Tribes have submitted 50 applications to the Program over
    the past 10 years, but only 1 has been granted. In addition, there are
    no Capital Projects for any of the California Tribes on the National
    IHS Capital Project List. While we do not doubt that these projects are
    highly deserving, we ask the subcommittee to ensure that general
    healthcare increases are not ignored.
        Budgetary instability, coupled with excessive bureaucracy, is also
    a problem when IHS chooses to classify funds as ``non-recurring,''
    including such funds as ``grant'' funds. This designation forces Tribes
    to compete with one another and injects budgetary uncertainty from year
    to year. Worse yet, the unnecessary designation of funds as ``grants''
    forces us to follow an entirely separate award process and reporting
    mechanism whose only purpose seems to be to keep grant administrators
    employed.
        As this subcommittee knows, the Methamphetamine and Suicide
    Prevention Initiative (now called the ``Substance Abuse and Suicide
    Prevention program'') and Domestic Violence Prevention Initiative funds
    used to flow easily through our Self-Governance Compact. But 4 years
    ago former IHS Director Yvette Roubideaux unilaterally changed that
    nicely-working process, without any consultation and over Tribal
    objections. Now we work under extremely burdensome reporting
    conditions, IHS carves aside funds for bureaucratic oversight, and we
    too are forced to carve out funds to meet new administrative burdens
    instead of serving our community. Even desperately needed Special
    Diabetes funds are set aside to fund Area diabetes coordinators who do
    nothing to enhance our programs on the ground.
        We have seen a pattern in recent years where IHS reclassifies funds
    previously considered to be annually ``recurring'' monies, into the
    ``non-recurring'' categories. At first, IHS claimed this was necessary
    to provide full contract support cost funding in 2014 and 2015, which
    made no sense. But even long after Congress eased the burden on program
    funding by moving contract support costs into a separate appropriation,
    the agency continues its practice. The result is IHS seizes greater
    discretion over how it spends these funds to the detriment of the
    Tribes. As a result, Tribal budgets cannot grow to meet the increased
    needs of our members or even to keep pace with our expanding
    population. Worse yet, IHS denies us the contract support costs to
    which we are entitled to administer these funds, forcing us to divert
    more program dollars away from services.
        We ask this subcommittee to instruct IHS (1) to restore funds moved
    from the recurring to non-recurring category, (2) to direct that these
    and new funds shall be distributed as ``tribal shares'' through self-
    governance compacts and self-determination contracts (and not through
    grants or other non-recurring funding mechanisms), and (3) to direct
    IHS to pay contract support costs on these funds. This is especially
    important given Congress's removal this year of the ``notwithstanding''
    clause IHS had relied upon to argue that these funds were not subject
    to the requirements of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act (ISDA). The ISDA works; much of IHS's bureaucracy does
    not. IHS should not be permitted to undermine the ISDA--the best thing
    Congress ever did to improve the state of Indian health.
             prc funding formulas that account for geographic need
        We are grateful that Congress has recognized that ``IHS does not
    provide the same health services in each area'' and that ``[h]ealth
    services provided to a community depend upon the facilities and
    services available in the local area. . . .'' House Committee Report on
    Dep't of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations
    Act, 2017, H.R. REP. NO. , Division G, at *54, available at https://
    rules.house.gov/sites/republicans.rules.house.gov/files/115/OMNI/
    DIVISION%20G
    %20-%20INT%20SOM%20FY17%20OCR.pdf. We in California have never had
    access to a Tribal hospital and we lack access to the specialty
    services that come when such facilities are available in other IHS
    Areas. As a result, we spend far more dollars than we receive for
    Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) because we must refer our patients to a
    private provider for specialty care instead of, for example, sending
    them to an IHS-funded facility as exists in Phoenix or Anchorage.
        The IHS PRC distribution formula needs to be adjusted to address
    this location factor, so it favors Areas where Tribal and IHS specialty
    providers and hospitals simply do not exist. Today IHS uses a 3-tier
    system: Tier 1 is base PRC funding based on the prior year's
    allocation, and Tier 2 is for medical inflation and population growth.
    Although Tier 3 is for Areas lacking hospitals and for cost of living
    adjustments, in 7 of the last 15 years Tier 3 was never reached.
        We ask that the ``no access to hospitals'' factor be moved to the
    Tier 2 allocation category so that programs lacking access are not
    disproportionately impacted by PRC shortages. Two GAO reports have also
    recommended similar changes to make the formula more equitable.
                exempt ihs funds from any block grant proposals
        We understand that many health reform proposals being considered in
    Congress would transform the Medicare and Medicaid payments for Tribal
    health providers, or turn these programs and Federal grant programs
    into block grants to be provided to individual States. Our Tribes are
    sovereign and have a Nation-to-Nation relationship with the Federal
    government. No State should be placed in the middle of that
    relationship. Health reform funds for Tribal programs must be exempt
    from any block grants made to States.
              reauthorize the special diabetes program for indians
        Our patient population has a high incidence of diabetes and the
    Special Diabetes Program for Indians has been a great success for our
    organization. That said, this funding has consistently been in jeopardy
    due to the need for annual or bi-annual reauthorizations and separate
    appropriations. The Special Diabetes initiative has been one of the
    most successful of all Indian health programs. We therefore ask
    Congress to make the next reauthorization permanent and to increase the
    annual amount to $200 million.
        We thank the subcommittee for providing Riverside-San Bernardino
    County Indian Health, Inc. the opportunity to submit written testimony
    regarding fiscal year 2018 funding needs. The needs of the Indian
    health system are great, but Tribes have proven they can efficiently
    maximize the resources provided. We ask that you continue to increase
    funds for the IHS budget for fiscal year 2018, and reject the
    administration's proposed reductions to IHS appropriations, so that
    Native Americans one day will receive the same quality healthcare
    afforded to all other Americans.

                                     ______

                              Russell Lauren deg.
                      Prepared Statement of Lauren Russell
        I am writing in support of fully funding the National Endowment for
    the Arts (NEA) at the fiscal year 2017 level of $150 million. This year
    I was one of 37 poets awarded an NEA Creative Writing Fellowship. This
    was both a huge honor and an important charge. While providing some
    financial cushion that will allow me more freedom to write over the
    next couple years, the fellowship is also a big reminder that
    literature, and the people who make it, matter.
        In this same grant cycle, the NEA donated to small presses and
    community arts organizations all over the country. Though less than a
    drop in the bucket for the Federal Government, a grant of $10,000 or
    $15,000 can keep a small press or community theater going. These small,
    community-based organizations are essential to keeping art alive. As a
    poet, I feel this impact acutely. American poetry depends on the NEA's
    investment in small presses and nonprofit journals, since many
    mainstream publishers are unlikely to take a risk on publishing
    ``unmarketable'' contemporary poets. A threat to the NEA is truly a
    threat to poetry in America.
        The NEA is ensuring that people from diverse backgrounds have
    access to the arts. In fiscal year 2016, the NEA recommended more than
    2,400 grants in nearly 16,000 communities in every congressional
    district in the country. Forty percent of the NEA's grant making budget
    is awarded directly to the States through their State and regional arts
    agencies. The NEA designates that a portion of every State and regional
    partnership grant be allocated to serving underserved communities. The
    remaining 60 percent are awards made directly to organizations and
    individuals that apply through the NEA's funding categories. Forty
    percent of NEA-supported activities take place in high-poverty areas.
    Thirty-six percent of NEA grants go to organizations that reach
    underserved populations, including people with disabilities, people in
    institutions, and veterans. Thirty-three percent of NEA grants serve
    low-income audiences. Though the NEA's fiscal year 2016 appropriation
    of $147.9 million dollars made up only about .004 percent of the
    Federal budget, it has a huge impact on communities and individuals
    across the country. Please fund it fully.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Sac and Fox Nation
        On behalf of the Sac and Fox Nation thank you for the opportunity
    to present our requests for the fiscal year 2018 Budgets for the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Indian Health Service (IHS), and for
    Tribal Environmental Funding (EPA). The Sac and Fox Nation is home of
    Jim Thorpe, one of the most versatile athletes of modern sports who
    earned Olympic gold medals for the1912 pentathlon and decathlon.
        As a Self-Governance Tribe, the Sac and Fox Nation has been
    impacted by the Federal Government's refusal to pay full contract
    support costs (CSC) for contracted and compacted programs since the
    statue was enacted. In 2014 and 2015, the Supreme Court determined that
    Tribes were entitled to CSC. Under the new budget structure, CSC
    accounts for BIA and IHS were created in the appropriations bill
    specifically for 2016 and 2017 as well as language establishing an
    indefinite appropriation for CSC in both agencies. So far, the full CSC
    that Tribes are entitled is being paid and other programs will not be
    reduced if payments are underestimated in the President's budget.
    Tribes agree that this structure achieves the Nation's legal obligation
    to fully pay CSC without imposing any corresponding reduction in direct
    services to any Tribe. We continue to request full funding for CSC on a
    mandatory basis in fiscal year 2018-2021 and make it a permanent,
    indefinite appropriation.
        In general, all Tribal programs including BIA and IHS line items
    should be exempt from any budget recessions, sequestrations and
    unilateral budget reductions that are not equally assessed to other
    funding beneficiaries.

    1. TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS

        A. $20,000 Tribal General Assistance Program (GAP)--EPA.--
    Historically, EPA has not provided a nationally consistent approach for
    building Tribal environmental protection program capacity under General
    Assistance Program (GAP) or a mechanism to measure the progress Tribes
    are making toward their defined program development goals. The EPA has
    decided to enforce a new interpretation of the GAP which prohibits
    Tribal Nations from using any GAP money for labor, handling, sorting,
    weighting and transportation of waste and recyclables. This means that
    the Tribal Nations recycling programs are in jeopardy because there
    will no longer be funds to carry out these functions. This program
    benefits the Tribal Complexes but also provides for drop off points for
    members and the community along with special community outreach events
    dealing with waste and other recyclables. Specifically, we would like
    to ask for a reversal of this interpretation or a line item dedicated
    to funding recycling departments work to allow these programs to
    continue. For Sac and Fox, $20,000 would be sufficient to perform these
    services for our Tribal citizens.
        B. $4.95 million to Fully Fund Operations and Maintenance of the
    Sac and Fox Nation Juvenile Detention Center (SFNJDC)--Bureau of Indian
    Affairs--Public Safety and Justice--Office of Justice Services--
    Detention/Corrections Facility Operations and Maintenance Account.--The
    Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) requires the Department of the Interior
    (DOI) Indian Affairs (IA) to develop guidelines for approving
    correction centers for long term incarceration, as well as work with
    the Department of Justice on a long-term plan for Tribal detention
    centers. In the absence of appropriations to fully fund and fully
    implement the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA), the intent of Congress
    and the effectiveness and benefits of TLOA to Tribal courts, law
    enforcement and detention programs in Indian Country are less of a
    reality and more of what Tribes have experienced in the past--an
    unfulfilled trust obligation.
        In 1996, the Sac and Fox Nation Juvenile Detention Center (SFNJDC)
    opened its doors as the first regional juvenile facility specifically
    designed for American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/AN), as well as the
    first juvenile facility developed under Public Law 100-472, the Self-
    Governance Demonstration Project Act.
        At that time, the Bureau of Indian Affairs made a commitment to
    fully fund the SFNJDC operations; however this commitment was never
    fulfilled. Even though the Nation continues to receive and use Federal
    dollars to address the issue of juvenile delinquency and detention for
    Tribes in the Southern Plains Region and Eastern Oklahoma Region, it
    has never received sufficient funds to operate the facility at its
    fullest potential.
        Full funding would allow the Nation to provide full operations
    including (but not limited to):
      --Juvenile detention services to the 46 Tribes in Oklahoma, Kansas
            and Texas;
      --Rescue more of our at-risk youth and unserved youth in need of a
            facility like the SFNJDC;
      --Re-establish programs we have lost due to inadequate funding such
            as: On-site Mental Health Counseling; Transitional Living,
            Vocational Training, Horticulture, Life Skills, Arts and
            Crafts, Cultural Education and Activities, Spiritual Growth and
            Learning;
      --Offer job opportunities in an area that is economically depressed;
            and,
      --Fully staff and expand staff training to address high volume of
            staff turnover which will allow for continuity in operations
            and service delivery.
        The current funding level represents only approximately 10 percent
    of what is needed to fully fund the SFNJDC operations and maintenance.
    Additional funding in the amount of $4.95 million, over what Sac and
    Fox already receives in base funding ($508,000), would fully fund the
    facility at a level to address the need of juvenile delinquency in the
    tristate area and create opportunities for employment for more Tribal
    members.
        The SFNJDC is a 50,000+ square foot, full service, 24 hour, 60 bed
    (expandable to 120 beds) juvenile detention facility that provides
    basic detention services to all residents utilizing a classification
    system based on behavioral needs to include special management, medium
    and minimal security.
        Through a partnership with the local High School, students are
    afforded an education at the public school level, including a
    graduation ceremony and issuance of a certificate upon successfully
    achieving the State requirements. Additionally, the Sac and Fox Nation
    has an on-site Justice Center providing Law Enforcement and Tribal
    Court services and the Nation also operates an on-site health clinic
    which provides outstanding medical services that include contract
    service capabilities for optometry, dental and other health-related
    services.
        The lack of adequate funding from the BIA and decreases in base
    funding have mushroomed into underutilization and erosion of the
    programs our facility was built to offer. The SFNJDC has the facility,
    staffing, ability, commitment and capacity to provide superior
    detention and rehabilitation services to Native American youth, as well
    as any youth in the tristate area in need of our services. We do not
    understand the Federal Government's desire to fund the construction of
    more detention facilities while our beds remain empty.

    2. NATIONAL REQUESTS--BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

        A. Fully fund all provisions of the Tribal Law and Order Act that
    authorizes additional funding for law and order programs that affect
    Tribal nations
        B. Extend the Bureau of Prisons Pilot Project for Violent Offenders
        C. Public Safety and Justice
            a.  +$83 million to increases base funding for Tribal Courts
            including courts in Public Law 280 jurisdictions, and to
            incrementally move towards fully meeting the need for Tribal
            court funding;
            b.  +$200 million BIA law enforcement and detention including
            an increase in funds for officer recruitment and training and
            for Tribal detention facilities operations and maintenance.
        D. $620,000 Juvenile Detention Education these critical funds were
    reinstated in fiscal year 2016 at $500,000, reflecting the bipartisan
    support for funding to address juvenile justice issues. Funding the
    program at $620,000 level is essential funding that will be used to
    provide educational services to detained and incarcerated youth at BIA-
    funded juvenile detention facilities. One of the best methods to
    rehabilitate is through education, and eliminating this program creates
    additional costs by increasing the rate of criminal recidivism.
        E. Fully Fund Fixed Costs and Tribal Pay Costs.--Partially funding
    or failing to fund Pay Costs for Tribes has devastated Tribal
    communities by causing critical job losses. Over 900 Tribal jobs have
    been lost and an estimated 300 more jobs will be permanently lost on an
    annual basis if 100 percent Pay Costs is not provided. The Tribal
    losses are being further exacerbated by recent projections of costs
    that have been significantly underestimated.
        F. Increase Tribal Base Funding (instead of through grants).--
    Provide increases via Tribal base funding instead of through grants to
    Tribal governments. Grant funding, particularly inside the BIA, is not
    consistent with the intent of Tribal self-determination. Tribal leaders
    have grown increasingly frustrated by the increase in Indian Affairs
    funding offer through grants. Allocating new funds via grants
    marginalizes and impedes the Tribal Self-Determination and Self-
    Governance.
        G. Office of Self-Governance (OSG).--Provide increased funding to
    the OSG to fully staff the office for the increase in the number of
    Tribes entering Self-Governance.

    3. NATIONAL REQUESTS--INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

        A. +$314.9 million Mandatory Funding (maintain current services).--
    Provide an increase of $314.9 million over the fiscal year 2017 budget
    request. Current services calculate mandatory cost increases are
    necessary to maintain those services at current levels. These
    ``mandatories'' are unavoidable and include medical and general
    inflation, pay costs, contract support costs, phasing in staff for
    recently constructed facilities, and population growth.
        B. +$474.4 million Purchased and Referred Care (PRC).--Provide an
    increase of $474.4 million pays for urgent and emergent and other
    critical services that are not directly available through IHS and
    Tribally-operated health programs when: no IHS direct care facility
    exists, or the direct care facility cannot provide the required
    emergency or specialty care, or the facility has more demand for
    services than it can currently meet.
        C. +$6 million to restore funding for OTSG to implement the Self-
    Governance statute in IHS.--As of 2017, there are 354 Self-Governance
    (SG) Tribes. This represents slightly over 62 percent of all federally-
    recognized Tribes. The Self-Governance process serves as a model
    program for Federal Government outsourcing, which builds Tribal
    infrastructure and provides quality services to Indian people.
        Thank you for allowing me to submit these requests on these fiscal
    year 2018 Budgets.

        [This statement was submitted by Principal Chief Kay Rhoads, Second
    Chief Jacklyn K. King, Secretary Mary F. McCormick, Treasurer Jared A.
    King, and Committee Member Robert E. Williamson.]
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Santa Clara Pueblo
        Introduction. Thank you Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall,
    and Members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to offer outside
    witness testimony on the critically important topic of Federal funding
    for American Indian and Alaska Native programs in the Department of the
    Interior, National Forest Service, Indian Health Service, Bureau of
    Indian Affairs, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Indian country
    is appreciative of your hard work and the tremendous support you have
    provided for Native programs. My name is J. Michael Chavarria and I am
    the Governor of the Pueblo of Santa Clara, located in north-central New
    Mexico. As a Tribal leader, I have developed a deep understanding of
    our community's pressing needs, as well as of the immense potential of
    the Santa Clara People to succeed if given the appropriate level of
    resources and support. To further these twin objectives of progress and
    achievement, I offer the following fiscal year 2018 budget
    recommendations for the subcommittee.
        Federal Trust Responsibility and Tribal Consultation. The Federal
    budgeting process plays an essential role in fulfilling the Federal
    Government's trust responsibility to Indian Tribes by ensuring that
    critical programs and services receive adequate funding. A critical
    component of the Federal trust responsibility is the mandate to consult
    with Tribes whenever a Federal action may impact our communities.
    Indeed, as you well know, the programs we are gathered to discuss today
    are premised on the government-to-government relationship that exists
    between the Federal Government and Tribes, and are not based on the
    racial status of Indian nations and peoples.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ As the late Justice Antonin Scalia once wrote in an opinion he
    authored while serving on the United States Court of Appeals for the
    District of Columbia: ``As the Supreme Court has said in rejecting
    equal protection challenges to legislation affecting a group which . .
    . might otherwise qualify as a `suspect class': [T]he Constitution
    itself provides support for legislation directed specifically at the
    Indian Tribes . . . [T]he Constitution therefore `singles Indians out
    as a proper subject for separate legislation.' '' United States v.
    Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 649 n. 11 (quoting Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S.
    535, 552 (1974)) (emphasis added).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      i. public safety and law enforcement
        Closure of the Turning Points Rehabilitation Program in Yuma,
    Arizona. The Pueblo of Santa Clara is deeply alarmed by the overnight
    shutdown of the Emerald Corporation's Turning Point Program in Yuma,
    Arizona, on April 7, 2017. Our Pueblo--as well as other District III
    and District IV Tribes under the BIA Office of Justice Services--has
    seen many positive benefits from the program, including a
    rehabilitation rate of 76 percent for substance abusers participating
    in the program and a reduced crime rate of approximately 50 percent
    over the past 4 years. Yet, we received no advance notice of the
    shutdown. The unannounced closure has resulted in an immediate increase
    in detention costs and left our law enforcement officials and Tribal
    Court scrambling to find appropriate placements. Santa Clara requests
    sufficient funding to implement a similar rehabilitation program at an
    alternative center so these essential services can continue to be
    provided to our Tribal members. We also request greater Tribal
    involvement in the Office of Justice Services' budgeting process as it
    relates to incarceration and rehabilitation services.
        Dedicated Funding for the DOJ Tribal Access Program. The Tribal
    Access Program (TAP) administered by the U.S. Department of Justice
    provides Tribes with access to critical information systems and
    training for law enforcement purposes. Launched in August 2015, the
    program uses a collaborative partnership approach to enable Tribes to
    identify and share best practices regarding the use of national crime
    information databases to strengthen public safety. Over 50 Tribal
    governments have submitted letters of interest in joining the TAP;
    however, due to funding restrictions only 11 Tribes were able to
    participate in the initial phase of the program. We request a dedicated
    funding stream of $6 million in fiscal year 2018 to provide for the
    wider rollout and long-term viability of the Tribal Access Program to
    support Tribes in their public safety efforts.
                        ii. natural resources management
        Increased Support for the Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA).
    Effective natural resources management is key to both the economic
    well-being of Pueblo people and to their cultural survival. We are
    pleased to see that the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus provides increased
    funding for wildfire suppression and prevention, including full funding
    of the Interior and Forest Service's 10-year average for wildfire
    suppression costs. We believe that collaborative and effective forest
    management techniques are essential in preventing catastrophic fires
    and floods on Pueblo lands. The Tribal Forest Protection Act (Public
    Law 108-278) empowers Tribal governments to act as caretakers of both
    Tribal lands and adjacent Federal lands, and it advances Tribal and
    Federal interests in the development of land resource and management
    plans. We encourage increased Federal support for the TFPA to advance
    efficient and effective natural resources management.
        Self-Governance Compacting of National Park Service Functions.
    Santa Clara is a self-governance Tribe, meaning that we have assumed
    control of Federal programs and funds for many functions at our
    reservation. As a self-governance Tribe, we can similarly assume
    functions at National Park Service units. With the transfer of the
    Valles Caldera, which is adjacent to our reservation and holds many
    sites sacred to us, to the National Park Service we are interested in
    assuming certain National Park Service functions. Santa Clara urges the
    subcommittee to continue funding for compacting Tribal self-governance
    programs.
        Catastrophic Fire and Flood Mitigation Efforts. The stewardship of
    land, minerals, water and other natural resources is key to both the
    economic well-being of Pueblo people and to their cultural survival. As
    Tribal leaders, we strive to balance these interests through beneficial
    partnerships and the effective management of our natural resources.
    Nature, however, chooses her own course. In the summer of 2011, the
    Pueblo of Santa Clara was devastated by the Las Conchas Fire, at that
    time the largest wildfire in New Mexico history. When combined with the
    destructive effects of the Oso Complex Fire of 1998 and the Cerro
    Grande Fire of 2000, we have lost more than 80 percent of our
    forestlands and an immeasurable part of our heritage to the flames. The
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (along with numerous additional Federal
    agencies outside of this subcommittee's purview) played an essential
    role in coordinating the Pueblo's disaster mitigation efforts. We urge
    Congress to continue to support the Bureau of Indian Affairs programs
    that work with Tribes on disaster prevention and recovery efforts.
        Indian Environmental General Assistance Program at the EPA. EPA
    funding and grants enable the Pueblo of Santa Clara to administer or
    support an array of projects that improve the quality of life in our
    community and safeguard the natural resources that provide us with
    physical and spiritual sustenance. Without these funds our Pueblo would
    face tremendous hurdles in delivering essential services such as clean
    drinking water and hazardous waste management to our people. Among the
    most widely utilized EPA sources of funding is the Indian Environmental
    General Assistance Program (GAP), which assists Tribes in developing
    the capacity to manage their own environmental protection programs.
    Cuts to the GAP will directly impact front-line environmental staff
    working for Tribal governments and place our natural and cultural
    resources in unacceptable risk. We support the GAP's spirit of greater
    local control, cooperative Federalism, and exercise of Tribal self-
    determination in allowing Tribes to manage their resources. We strongly
    urge Congress to provide full-funding for the Indian Environmental GAP
    to assist Tribes in the development and implementation of sustainable
    environmental protection measures in Indian Country.
      iii. protection for tribal cultural patrimony ? thank you for your
                 support for cultural property law enforcement!
        Bureau of Indian Affairs Cultural Items Unit. Items of cultural
    patrimony are not simple tangible objects or works of art. They are
    living vessels of our cultural heritage, carrying the ceremonies and
    traditions of our people down through the generations. Trafficking in
    sacred cultural items removes those items from our communities and
    causes irreparable harm to our way of life. Led by the New Mexico
    Congressional Delegation, Congress adopted the PROTECT Patrimony
    Resolution on December 1, 2016, supporting efforts to stop the illegal
    trafficking of our cultural heritage. In the fiscal year 2017
    appropriations bill, and again in the fiscal year 2017 omnibus, this
    Committee successfully supported $1 million for Bureau of Indian
    Affairs law enforcement to address implementation of the Native
    American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and halt the
    illegal trafficking in sensitive cultural materials. This will make a
    huge difference in Tribal efforts to stop the looting and marketing of
    items of tremendous cultural importance that are not properly for sale,
    but rather our community property that needs to remain within a Tribe.
    We urge Congress to continue to support programs that protect our
    communities and work to bring these sacred items home and to maintain
    the $1 million funding for fiscal year 2018 and beyond.
        Historic Preservation. As Pueblo People, we are our culture. Tribal
    sacred sites are important to us as a people and as a nation. In recent
    years, an increasing number of Tribes have chosen to establish Tribal
    Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) to protect these sites for future
    generations. Federal funding for these programs has remained flat and
    tied to the on-reservation status of sacred sites, meaning that the
    same amount of funds is now spread thinly across far more recipients.
    As a result, it is difficult for THPOs to perform key duties and
    preservation compliance responsibilities. Tribes need funding to
    establish or expand THPOs equivalent to State programs under the
    National Historic Preservation Act. We request an increase in funding
    for the Tribal historic preservation programs and for protection of
    cultural sites in the Interior budget.
                   iv. healthcare and related infrastructure
        Like the veins and arteries of a human being that carry life-giving
    oxygen throughout the body, the healthcare facilities and related
    municipal infrastructure of a Tribe form the core of any vibrant and
    economically productive community. Yet, despite its major contributions
    to local and regional economies and cultures, Indian Country remains
    plagued by limited access to quality healthcare and antiquated
    infrastructure systems. Insufficient roads, eroding water supply
    systems, critical housing shortages, and facilities marred by
    environmental health hazards inhibit the ability of Tribal governments
    function properly and obstruct the provision of essential services to
    their people. We request that specific set-asides and increased support
    for Indian Country infrastructure development under the fiscal year
    2018 budget to strengthen our communities and build towards a more
    promising future.
        Adverse Health Outcomes Associated with Inadequate Housing. Access
    to affordable, structurally sound housing provides shelter from the
    proverbial storm and supports the physical and mental health of
    individuals and families. Reliable affordable housing reduces certain
    stressors that have been proven to contribute to negative health
    outcomes for low-income families by freeing up family resources for
    essential needs like education, food, and healthcare, as well as
    alleviating stressors associated with overcrowding--an endemic problem
    throughout Indian Country. Many of these languishing housing-related
    issues could be addressed by the reauthorization of the Native American
    Housing and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA); however, the legislation
    has been unjustly obstructed for over 5 years, despite wide
    Congressional support. Santa Clara requests that Congress provide
    increased funding to the Indian Health Service (IHS) to address the
    adverse health outcomes associated with critical housing shortages in
    Indian Country.
        Full Funding for the IHS. Indian health programs have suffered from
    annual budget cuts due to sequestration under the Budget Control Act of
    2011 (Public Law 112-25). While other critical healthcare agencies such
    as the VA were exempt from Federal sequestration in 2013, the IHS was
    not. The disruption in Federal funding resulted in a loss of over $219
    million from the IHS budget, which translates into immediate and long-
    lasting negative health impacts through lost resources for primary and
    preventative healthcare services, staff recruitment and training, and
    other programs serving Indian Country. These losses are exacerbated
    every year due to the lack of full funding for the IHS. We urge
    Congress to provide the IHS with full funding and parity with other
    healthcare agencies through an exemption from sequestration, as well as
    any other reductions or cuts to the Federal budget.
        Increased Support for Preventative Healthcare Services. Our
    Pueblo's healthcare infrastructure faces an array of challenges that
    pose significant threats to the safety and well-being our people:
    facilities are in critical need of maintenance and repair, equipment is
    outdated, access to telehealth services is severely limited, and
    professional medical staff are difficult to recruit and retain. We also
    face disproportionately high rates of chronic illness that are
    compounded by the limited access to care in our home communities.
    Concerted efforts are needed to address the root of our Tribal health
    problems by expanding the availability and delivery of preventative
    services in Indian Country, particularly in the fields of behavioral
    and mental health. Preventative care reduces future incident rates of
    chronic illness and promotes the long-term vitality of our people.
        We urge Congress to provide additional funding and support for
    expanded access to preventative care as a wise policy choice for Indian
    Country and for America.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony. The
    Pueblo of Santa Clara looks forward to working with you on addressing
    these complex, multi-faceted needs going forward.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Seattle Indian Health Board
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, Members of the Senate
    Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and
    Related Agencies, my name is Esther Lucero. I am the Chief Executive
    Officer for the Seattle Indian Health Board (SIHB). I am of Navajo and
    Latina descent. I strongly identify as an urban Indian, as I am the
    third generation in my family to live outside of our reservation. I
    appreciate the opportunity to present testimony today.
        The Seattle Indian Health Board is a contractor and grantee as an
    Urban Indian Health Program (UIHP) with the Indian Health Service (IHS)
    under authority of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) as
    well as a HRSA 330 funded federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). Our
    goal is to improve the health of American Indians and Alaska Natives
    (AI/ANs) living in cities through the provision of culturally relevant
    health and human services. The Health Board has been in continuous
    operation since 1970. We offer a comprehensive array of primary
    healthcare services including medical, dental, mental health, substance
    abuse, nutrition, pharmacy, and traditional health services to more
    than 4,000 AI/AN people annually who represent more than 250 different
    Indian Tribes. We operate the Thunderbird Treatment Center, a 65-bed
    residential treatment center, one of the largest in Washington State.
        Beyond our clinical services, the Health Board operates an AI/AN,
    ACGME accredited family medicine physician residency training program.
    We also manage the Urban Indian Health Institute (UIHI), one of the
    IHS' 12 Tribal epidemiology centers (TECs), and the only one with a
    focus on the health of urban Indians providing services to UIHPs across
    the Nation.
        I would like to thank the subcommittee for maintaining your
    commitment to receiving written testimony, particularly given the time
    constraints in expediting the fiscal year 2018 budget request. This
    opportunity to provide testimony regarding UIHPs is never taken for
    granted.
        I am acutely aware of the subcommittee's demonstrated commitment to
    improving the health and wellness of American Indian and Alaska Native
    (AI/AN) people. Last year was my introduction to this committee. I was
    taken aback by how you intently listened to some of the key issues in
    our community including; the 40 percent homelessness experienced by
    members of our elder program, and how the Opioid addiction crisis
    impacts Urban AI/AN communities in Seattle. I would especially like to
    thank you for the $232 million increase to the IHS budget, and for the
    $3 million increase for the UIHPs in fiscal year 2017. These increases
    will be beneficial in increasing the impact of IHS Hospitals, Tribal
    638 Clinics, and the Urban Indian Health Programs, which, together make
    up the I/T/U system of care for AI/AN people.
        Thank you for ensuring the completion of the Report to Congress
    entitled: New Needs Assessment of the Urban Indian Health Program and
    the Communities It Serves. Some of the highlights of this report
    include the suggestion that the percentage AI/AN living in urban
    environments is increasing beyond the 71 percent I cited in my
    testimony last year. It gives examples of increased collaborations
    between UIHPs and Tribal Communities, clearly an effort to bridge past
    resource allocation hardships, maximize current resources and leverage
    services to best meet the needs of AI/AN people. It also identified the
    need for expansion of the UIHP to meet the ever-growing urban AI/AN
    population. Still, this report would have been more impactful if it
    moved beyond demographics, health disparities, and program assessments
    to define clear recommendations and follow-up measures to be monitored
    by this committee to ensure that not only are we assessing UIHPs, but
    also taking clear steps to build upon their successes and minimize
    their struggles to reach and better the health outcomes of our AI/AN
    community.
        Despite the subcommittee's continued commitment to improve the I/T/
    U system of care, I am here today seeking your support for increased
    funding for the Urban Indian Health Program and the entire I/T/U,
    because even with the increases we have received over the last 3 years,
    the UIHP line-item is still less than one-percent of the overall IHS
    budget. We have an increasing need for services, and we are still
    trying to address a lifetime of a grossly underfunded system. This is
    of concern given the movement to repeal and replace the Affordable Care
    Act (ACA), which currently houses the IHCIA and the permanent
    reauthorization for UIHP funding, and names Tribal Epicenters as Public
    Health Authorities. The threats to our culturally relevant system of
    care grow exponentially with the targeted effort to reduce/eliminate
    funding for Medicaid and Medicaid Expansion, two resources that have
    provided supplemental revenue for UIHPs that are lucky enough to also
    be FQHCs. For us, Medicaid dollars allowed us to launch a pilot Opioid
    Addiction program that includes 5 waivered primary care providers to
    prescribe Suboxone, mental health professionals to conduct group mental
    health visits, provide increased access to outpatient chemical
    dependency treatment, and offer access to traditional health services.
    A $10 million increase in fiscal year 2018 would bring us to a place
    where $5 million would bring us closer to meeting the growing need for
    services and another $5 million to meet capacity and infrastructure
    demands to meet that need. This increase, coupled with protections from
    sequestration, might provide UIHPs with some sense of stability. In
    addition, if Medicaid and Medicaid Expansion were preserved and UIHPs
    became eligible for 100 percent FMAP, then we are looking at expanded
    and impressive programs to support a population that historically has
    provided significant returns on investment.
        In conclusion, we thank the subcommittee for recognizing that there
    is a funding disparity in the IHS budget to address the health needs of
    AI/ANs living in urban areas. We would like to reconcile the
    discrepancy between $8,517 average spent per capita for healthcare per
    American citizen versus the $3,136 spend on AI/ANs in the IHS system of
    care. As UIHPs, we are a vital component to the I/T/U system of care,
    it is very important that we are given the opportunity to work with our
    Tribal communities to best meet the needs of all AI/AN people,
    particularly when they migrate or relocate to urban environments. We
    ask that the budget formulation process better reflect the healthcare
    needs of the urban AI/AN community and that a feasible budget is
    established to adequately combat the health disparities experienced by
    our AI/AN population regardless of where they reside.
        Thank you for your consideration of these requests.

        [This statement was submitted by Esther Lucero, Chief Executive
    Officer.]
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Shoalwater Bay Tribe
        The requests of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe (Tribe) for the
    fiscal year 2018 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies budget are
    as follows:
      --Appropriate $480,000 through the Tribe's self-government agreement
            with the BIA to address initial planning efforts in the first
            phase of a necessary Tribal relocation.
      --Move forward with full and mandatory funding for Contract Support
            Costs (CSC).
      --Funding for Tribal courts in Public Law 83-280 States.
      --Shield IHS funding from sequestration.
                                   background
        Good afternoon Chairman Calvert and members of the Sub-Committee.
    Thank you for inviting the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe to provide
    testimony at this hearing on fiscal year 2018 funding for programs
    affecting Indian Tribes which are funded through your Subcommittee. My
    name is Charlene Nelson, and I am the Chairwoman of the Shoalwater Bay
    Indian Tribe which is located 2,800 miles west by northwest of where we
    are meeting today on the beautiful north shore of Willapa Bay, facing
    out to the Pacific Ocean.
        My own personal history matches closely with many of you serving on
    this Subcommittee, as I understand you consistently are tasked with
    determining how to fund and shape Federal programs that positively
    impact the health, environment, and learning of American people. I
    worked for decades in the field of education. As a former commercial
    fisherman in Alaska, I came to understand the economic potential of a
    healthy environment. Prior to my service on Tribal Council, I worked in
    the Tribe's Health and Women's Wellness Program, learning firsthand
    that vibrant and successful Indian communities are not possible without
    first attending to human health.
                             relocation assistance
        I am here today to talk to you about survival. In this case, the
    survival of our Tribe, its lands, homes, businesses, and its people.
    This is my second stint as Chairwoman of the Shoalwater Bay Tribe.
    During my prior period chairing the Tribe, I spent the vast majority of
    those 10 years spearheading an effort to help the Tribe and surrounding
    area survive the threat of coastal erosion. As a result of those
    efforts, the Army Corps of Engineers worked with the Tribe to construct
    an erosion control embankment south and west of the Reservation. The
    embankment went into service 4 years ago and this winter it took a
    beating and is now a new concern of the Tribe and the Corps. The
    embankment has temporarily halted the erosion that directly threatened
    the Reservation and State Highway 105, which connects the surrounding
    Tokeland community to schools, grocery stores, healthcare, banks, and
    housing.
        But through the process of fighting for the Tribe's survival from
    coastal erosion, we learned a great deal. We learned, among many other
    things, that essentially the entire Reservation, with one small
    exception on Eagle Hill, is no higher than 6 feet above the ordinary
    high water mark of the Willapa Bay tides. The low elevation of the
    entire reservation puts it squarely within a tsunami zone that ensures,
    in the case of a tsunami event, that the Reservation would be wiped
    out. Think about that for a moment--an entire Tribe wiped out in an
    instant.
        Attached to this testimony is a map entitled Exhibit A that lays
    out the Tribe's intentions: to begin the preliminary engineering,
    planning and initial funding to construct a road to an upland
    elevation, out of the tsunami zone, to begin the relocation process of
    the Tribe. The cost to carry out this initial phase of work is
    $480,000, and the Tribe is seeking this Subcommittee's support in
    developing a funding vehicle to support these efforts through the
    Tribe's existing BIA self-governance compact.
        Exhibit A shows a part of the Reservation at the bottom left
    intersection, as well as Highway 105 in yellow. The new road, to the
    north east of the main reservation, will provide access to a higher
    elevation land base that the Tribe owns that is safe from the threats
    of coastal erosion and tsunami.

        This relocation project will require a number of partners, the
    Tribe, State, Interior Corps of Engineers. While our request today is
    for planning money for the Tribe from the BIA., other, temporary
    efforts are under serious consideration. For instance, realizing how
    dire she situation is, the State and Corps of Engineers have under
    serious and immediate consideration a joint project for a dynamic
    revetment to help protect the berm which is endangered because the wave
    action is now split where it hits the shore and part goes north and
    part comes toward the berm. We appreciate these efforts but the Tribe
    also needs the resources to be actively involved in what ultimately is
    our own relocation.
                          contract support costs (csc)
        Our great thanks for this Subcommittee's leadership in making
    funding of IHS and BIA contract support costs (CSC) for fiscal year
    2016, and now fiscal year 2017, an indefinite amount and also making
    made it a separate account in the IHS and BIA budgets. This shift makes
    an enormous difference in helping ensure that the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) is fully funded and
    implemented as Congress intended in these two agencies. It also
    significantly enhances the Federal-Tribal government-to-government
    relationship. For IHS, the fiscal year 2017 estimate for contract
    support costs is $800 million, and for the BIA it is $278 million.
        Thank you also for listening to Tribes who explained why the
    problematic IHS-supported fiscal year 2016 enacted bill proviso which
    effectively denied the CSC carryover authority granted by the ISDEAA.
    We appreciate that this proviso is absent from the Consolidated
    Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
        Our objective, though, continues to be the indefinite appropriation
    of CSC funding as mandatory and permanent. Full payment of CSC is not
    discretionary; it is a legal obligation under the ISDEAA, affirmed by
    the U.S. Supreme Court. Funding of CSC on a discretionary basis has in
    the very recent past placed the House and Senate Appropriations
    Committees, in their own words, in the ``untenable position of
    appropriating discretionary funds for the payment of any legally
    obligated contract support costs.'' We remain committed to working with
    the appropriate Congressional committees to determine how best to
    achieve this objective.
        tribal court assistance for tribes subject to public law 83-280
        We appreciate the much-needed support in the fiscal year 2017
    appropriations bill for Tribes who are affected by Public Law 83-280
    and who are striving to serve their communities with competent and
    appropriate judiciary systems.
        The fiscal year 2017 Explanatory Language accompanying the
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, fiscal year 2017 would increase BIA
    Tribal Justice Support funding for Tribes affected by Public Law 83-280
    (first enacted during the early 1950s termination era) who are working
    to exercise their rightful jurisdiction on domestic violence and other
    matters, and to increase available remedies and services for crime
    victims. It is very important for the future of Tribal nations affected
    by Public Law 83-280 to continue development of robust criminal
    jurisdiction systems. We quote below the fiscal year 2017 language:

            ``Funding for Tribal justice support is restored to
            $17,250,000, of which not less than $10,000.000 is to address
            the needs of Tribes affected by Public Law 83-280. The
            Committees remain concerned about Tribal court needs as
            identified in the Indian Law and Order Commission's November
            2013 report, which notes Federal investment in Tribal justice
            in ``Public Law 280'' States has been more limited than
            elsewhere in Indian Country. The Committees expect the Bureau
            to work with Tribes and Tribal organizations in these States to
            fund plans that design, promote, sustain, or pilot courts
            systems subject to jurisdiction under Public Law 83-280. The
            Bureau is also directed to formally consult and maintain open
            communication throughout the process with Tribes and Tribal
            organizations on how this funding supports the technical
            infrastructure and future Tribal court needs for these
            jurisdictions.''
                     shield ihs funding from sequestration
        We have requested in our previous years' testimony that the IHS
    budget be protected from sequestration. We again ask this
    Subcommittee's support of an amendment to the Balanced Budget and
    Emergency Deficit Control Act to exempt the IHS from sequestration of
    funds, just as Congress has done for the Veterans Health
    Administration's health programs. We are very concerned that the
    current fiscal year 2018 funding cap for non-defense discretionary
    spending is lower than the fiscal year 2017 spending cap, and when
    considered along with the President's ``skinny'' fiscal year 2018
    budget outline proposal, which significantly lowers non-defense
    discretionary spending, we fear a significant sequestration of funds in
    fiscal year 2018. IHS funding for healthcare services should be made
    exempt from sequestration.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley
                               Indian Reservation
        The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation
    appreciate the opportunity to submit written testimony concerning the
    fiscal year 2018 Budget for the BIA, BLM and IHS. The Shoshone-Paiute
    Tribes are grateful for this subcommittee's long standing support of
    Indian Tribes and for sharing its understanding of Indian country with
    your Senate colleagues.
        The Duck Valley Reservation is a large, rural and very remote
    reservation comprising 450 square miles adjacent to Nevada and Idaho.
    The Reservation is 140 miles from Boise, Idaho, and 100 miles from
    Elko, Nevada. Many of our 2,000 Tribal members make their living as
    farmers and ranchers, though a number of them are employed by the
    Tribes. We assume most duties of the BIA and IHS under self-governance
    compacts, although the BIA continues to provide law enforcement and
    detention services on our Reservation.
        In too many instances, however, our success in these areas is
    largely dependent on Federal appropriations which, in turn, determine
    whether economic and social conditions on the Duck Valley Indian
    Reservation improve or worsen. While we contribute Tribal resources to
    these endeavors as best we can, we look to our Federal partner for
    support. If we fall short in available funding, our Tribal citizens
    suffer. Without sustained growth in these Federal programs, we cannot
    meet the needs of our Reservation.
        As Congress has done for fiscal year 2017, we ask that the
    subcommittee reject the Administration's ill-conceived fiscal year 2018
    budget, which calls for unwarranted reductions in non-defense agency
    appropriations, including an unwarranted $12.6 billion cut to the
    Department of Health and Human Services and $1.5 billion cut to the
    Department of the Interior. If enacted the budget would cause great
    harm to the Duck Valley Indian Reservation and to most Native Americans
    who, more than most Americans, rely heavily on Federal appropriations
    across multiple Federal agencies, not just Interior and DHHS.
        We encourage this subcommittee to build on the increases in the
    fiscal year 2017 appropriation for these essential Tribal programs.

        Our priorities for fiscal year 2018 include:

        1. Increase BIA Road Maintenance Program funds (Eastern Nevada BIA
    Roads Program of the Western Regional Office). We respectfully ask for
    at least a $10 million increase in the BIA Road Maintenance Program to
    the Indian Affairs budget so that the BIA Eastern Nevada Agency Roads
    Department can purchase a road grader, backhoe, a front-end loader, a
    D7 Caterpillar dozer and a ten-wheel dump truck. We appreciate the
    fiscal year 2017 increase, but it alone will not provide sufficient
    funds to replace heavy road maintenance equipment. The 1980's blade
    road grader has broken down again and needs replacing. Likewise, the
    1980's backhoe is also outdated, and parts are a challenge to find. The
    employees are embarrassed to haul the backhoe in for repairs when
    needed because it is so old and worn (40 years old--like the grader).
    The dozer is a 1960's model, and the front-end loader and backhoe are
    from the 1970's. They need a dump truck because they do not have one. A
    modern ten-wheel dump truck is needed. Our Region has the largest
    percentage of BIA-owned roads at 21 percent. The requested increase we
    request will help our Region tremendously. It has been over 25 years
    since BIA sought supplemental funds for heavy equipment.
        The BIA Eastern Nevada Agency covers the roads maintenance need for
    the 600 miles of public roads on the Duck Valley Reservation and the
    road maintenance needs on five other reservations which are hundreds of
    mile apart throughout northeastern Nevada. The approximately $70,000
    received annually to maintain all of these roads is woefully
    inadequate. Increased Road Maintenance funding will improve road
    safety.

        2. Increase funding for the BIA Public Safety and Special
    Initiatives Program. The BIA struggles to provide adequate law
    enforcement on our Reservation. For that reason, we applaud the final
    fiscal year 2017 enacted appropriations levels for Public Safety and
    Justice totaling $385.735 million, and urge the Committee to continue
    support modest increases for the next year. We reject the
    Administration's unwise cuts to BIA Public Safety funding. We are one
    of three Tribes in a pilot program funded under the BIA's ``Law
    Enforcement Special Initiatives'' program. Under this program, we
    receive $250,000 in additional recurring funding to reduce recidivism
    on the Duck Valley Reservation. The Special Initiatives program is
    essentially funded at the same level for fiscal year 2017 as it was for
    fiscal year 2016.
        We request an increase of funding to the Special Initiatives
    Program to assist the Tribes with the cost of placing and providing
    utilities to a number of buildings that the Tribes received from FEMA
    that will be used to support the Tribes' recidivism pilot program. The
    buildings will be used for education, support of family members
    visiting and supporting incarcerated youth, year-round equine
    activities (which are integral to Native American culture) and
    emergency medical services, all of which are important components of
    the Tribes' recidivism pilot program. The cost for the facilities
    infrastructure work is approximately $2.5 million.
        We further urge the subcommittee to include statutory language to
    make clear that ``Law Enforcement Special Initiatives'' funds may be
    used for the purchase or lease of temporary trailers or modular units
    to house personnel associated with law enforcement, corrections,
    probation, Tribal courts and other professionals serving Tribal
    offenders. For rural communities like Duck Valley, housing is often the
    linchpin to program success. This request will give us the flexibility
    we need to use Special Initiatives funding for housing law enforcement
    personnel.

        3. Fund the Owyhee Initiative within the Bureau of Land Management
    (BLM). The Owyhee Initiative is a joint effort by ranchers,
    recreationalists, county and State officials, and the Shoshone-Paiute
    Tribes to protect what the Tribes know as sacred lands, and to manage
    and appropriately use public lands in the tri-state area of Nevada,
    Oregon and Idaho. In 2009, Congress passed the Omnibus Public Land
    Management Act, Public Law 111-1. Since 2010, we have worked jointly
    with BLM to protect cultural resources and increase public
    understanding and appreciation of these resources as a part of the
    Cultural Resources Protection Plan authorized in the legislation
    referred to as the Owyhee Initiative. Increased recreational use and
    encroachment by visitors within the Owyhee River Wilderness Area and
    other Federal lands, however, threaten important cultural resources.
    The BLM's Boise District manages 3 million acres of land in this rough
    remote area and they have 3-4 Rangers in their entire district. Let us
    help understaffed BLM officials perform their duties and help us put
    our members to work.
        One-time BLM funding a number of years ago allowed us to purchase
    two Cessna planes and ATV equipment and hire one Chief Ranger to patrol
    public lands and report violations of cultural and religious sites to
    BLM officials. Our Chairman also flies patrols. We work closely with
    BLM and Owyhee County officials to coordinate compatible recreation use
    within BLM lands in Owyhee County, especially within the wilderness
    areas where we seek to protect cultural resource sites important to our
    Tribes. The Ranger and our Chairman also spot and report wildfires to
    BLM officials before the fires can do great damage to sensitive, remote
    public lands.
        We seek recurring BLM funds to continue this important work to
    protect cultural sites and establish a Reserve Ranger Program to engage
    Tribal youth in cultural and related activities during the summer. The
    Chief Ranger is near retirement. It is essential that we hire and train
    replacement staff, including a pilot, to continue this important work.
    We need funds to hire an Assistant Director, one adult Tribal Ranger
    and two part-time Youth Rangers, train a qualified applicant as an
    additional pilot, purchase two more ATVs and two camp trailers to
    permit Tribal personnel to remain in the field and overhaul the two
    Cessna planes per FAA regulations. We hope to construct a hanger at the
    Owyhee Airport to centralize our operation and increase surveillance
    flights. We contribute nearly 50 percent of the required budget but
    cannot sustain this important program without Federal support. Our plan
    requires $600,000 to fully fund the above activities. Modest Federal
    appropriations can go a long way at Duck Valley.
        We also support the additional funding for BLM Cultural Resources
    Management and other BLM accounts used to manage and protect
    archaeological and historic properties on public lands. BLM lands
    contain the remnants of campsites, villages, hunting blinds and rock
    inscriptions that tell the story of the Shoshone-Paiute and other
    Tribes. After speaking with Shoshone-Bannock Tribal officials, together
    with northern tier Nevada Tribes (including the Te-Moak, Battle
    Mountain, South Fork and Goshute Tribes), we seek BLM funds to form a
    Tribal work group to spread best practices for cultural resources
    management and protection that we have learned over the last 20 years.
    We would be a good candidate for a BLM grant. It would be a wise
    investment to fund a multi-Tribal task force to propose and design
    strategies for on the ground protection of Native American cultural
    resources for the Upper Great Basin and High Plateau of the tri-state
    area of Nevada, Oregon and Idaho.

        4. Telecommunications (fiber optics). The Tribes continue to need
    fiber infrastructure over five miles for connectivity among Fish,
    Wildlife & Parks, Tribal Headquarters, Detention Center, Fire Station
    and the Owyhee Community Health Facility. The health center serves as
    the Wide Area Network (WAN) hub for the Tribes' and health center's
    computer network. Connectivity among these facilities and programs
    would alleviate the long-term monthly recurring cost we pay to an
    Ethernet Circuit provider ($96,000 annually). We require $500,000 in
    Federal funding to construct new fiber networks and cover construction
    inspection fees. We urge the subcommittee to increase appropriations
    within the BIA and IHS budgets so that Duck Valley can improve our
    telecommunications networks. Education IT is not the only program in
    need of an upgrade.

        5. East Fork Owyhee Salmon Steelhead Recovery and Reintroduction
    Project. We return Chinook salmon and steelhead trout to Duck Valley
    through an innovative ``trap-and-haul'' program. Dam construction along
    the Columbia and Snake Rivers eliminated salmon from our Reservation
    for 87 years. Duck Valley is unique in that it supports two major
    tributaries to the Snake River. In 2014, we financed a pilot study that
    found that habitat in the East Fork of the Owyhee River supports a
    summer rearing capacity of between 3,300 and 43,000 juvenile steelhead
    trout and from 3,600 to 41,000 Chinook salmon. In 2015 and 2016 we
    returned nearly 200 Chinook salmon each summer to Duck Valley and spear
    fished nearly all of them. It is a joyous event to have salmon return
    to the Reservation. With $210,000 in funding for the next 3 years we
    can complete our habitat surveys of the East Fork Owyhee River,
    including obtaining data on non-summer river conditions, as well as an
    assessment of the Bruneau River habitat. We propose to transport adult
    fish from Lower Granite Dam or Hells Canyon Dam and release the fish
    above China Dam into the East Fort Owyhee River to spawn. Emigrating
    juvenile fish would later be captured and released downstream from
    passage carriers on the Snake River to complete their migration to the
    Pacific Ocean. Adult salmon originating from the East Fork Owyhee River
    would later be captured in the lower Snake River and transported
    upstream. These programs are also jobs programs for our members and we
    value this work.
        In fiscal year 2017, Congress appropriated $200.9 million for the
    BIA's Trust-Natural Resources Management programs, a $9.1 million
    increase from fiscal year 2016. We urge the subcommittee to support an
    increase in fiscal year 2018 to the BIA's Trust-Natural Resources
    Management program budget, including the Tribal Management/Development
    Program and Fish, Wildlife & Parks program. Tribes contract a
    significant part of the Natural Resources Management funds. An increase
    to the BIA's budget can help us with this innovative project to return
    salmon and steelhead trout to the Duck Valley Reservation.

        6. Native Plant Program/Greenhouse. In cooperation with BLM, the
    Tribes gather, propagate and make available seed and other native plant
    materials that are indigenous to the region. Through a series of
    assistance agreements with BLM, we built three greenhouses and are
    growing seedlings (including sagebrush and bitterbrush seedlings) for
    planting on adjacent public lands. This program assists BLM and other
    agencies in their efforts to restore lands damaged by wildfires and
    helps employ Tribal members. The Tribes plan to have 80,000
    containerized grasses and shrub seedlings available for sale, together
    with willow and other riparian plant cuttings and local vegetables for
    sale and distribution through our ``Honor Our Elders'' program. The
    Tribes have already sold plants to a mining company and gifted plants
    to BLM for reclamation work. We seek Interior Department appropriations
    of $450,000 in fiscal year 2018 to build additional greenhouses and a
    facility to house equipment to dry, clean and store seed and to hire
    part-time greenhouse staff for marketing and finances. The Tribes
    request $200,000 in each of fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2020 for
    staff and operations to expand our program and be a reliable supplier
    of native plants and seedlings on BLM-managed public lands.

        7. IHS. The Tribe appreciates the $232 million increase Congress
    provided for fiscal year 2017 for the Indian Health Service (IHS), and
    we request an increase in, especially in the area of clinical services,
    including Purchased/Referred Care, Contract Support Costs (CSC) and
    facilities construction. The Tribes continue to support full funding of
    CSC for IHS and BIA, and thank this subcommittee for its work to date
    to fully fund contract support costs without jeopardizing program
    funding. We respectfully urge the subcommittee to continue with its
    current approach of employing a separate and indefinite appropriation.

        We urge the Committee to build on the fiscal year 2017 budget to
    meet Tribal health and safety needs that strengthen our community in
    fiscal year 2018 and beyond. The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley
    Indian Reservation thank you again for this opportunity to submit
    written testimony.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Society of American Foresters
        The Society of American Foresters (SAF), with 12,000 forestry and
    natural resources professionals, promotes science-based, sustainable
    management and stewardship of the Nation's public and private forests.
    SAF appreciates this opportunity to submit written public testimony on
    fiscal year 2018 appropriations because sufficient funding for the USDA
    Forest Service (USFS) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) is vital
    to conserving and improving the health and productivity of our Nation's
    forests.
        The American public relies on the 751 million acres of public and
    private forests in the United States to provide clean and abundant air
    and water, forest products, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational
    opportunities, forage and range resources, energy, and scenic beauty.
    Managing these natural assets for multiple uses is increasingly
    difficult with the unprecedented threats posed by wildfire, drought,
    insects, disease, and invasive species. Maintaining a balance demands
    that land managers and partner organizations work together to identify
    innovative ways to work across boundaries, maximize values, and improve
    the health of our forests nationwide.
        SAF's priorities in the fiscal year 2018 budget process include a
    range of programs within USFS and DOI. Recognizing fiscal constraints,
    these requests will assist forest managers and scientists in sustaining
    our Nation's forests and providing a multitude of benefits for
    generations to come.
                saf top federal priorities for fiscal year 2018
        1.  Adopt a long-term solution to wildfire suppression funding
    that: (1) allows access to disaster funding; (2) minimizes budget
    transfers; and (3) addresses the compounding erosion of agency budgets
    over time, with the goal of reinvesting in key programs that would
    restore forests to healthier conditions.
        2.  Increase funding levels for USFS Forest and Rangeland Research
    to no less than $303 million, with no less than $83 million for the
    Forest Inventory and Analysis Program.
        3.  Support Bureau of Land Management Public Domain Forestry and
    Oregon & California Railroad Grant Lands funding levels at no less than
    $10 million and $113.7 million, respectively.

        SAF is the premier national scientific and educational organization
    representing forestry and related natural resources professionals in
    the United States. Founded in 1900 by Gifford Pinchot, our members
    include public and private sector natural resource professionals,
    researchers, CEOs, administrators, investment advisors, educators, and
    students. Just as forests are fundamental to our Nation, so too are the
    professionals who study, manage, and protect these precious resources.
    SAF is eager to work with Congress, Federal agencies, and partners to
    identify reasonable solutions to increase the pace and scale of
    management on Federal lands, find new ways to work with private
    landowners, keep forests as forests, provide incentives for active
    management, and deliver practical innovations to meet future challenges
    and market demands.
        SAF is pleased with the continued commitment to increasing the pace
    and scale of management on Federal lands with the USFS harvest target
    of 3.2 billion board feet, up from 2.7 billion board feet in recent
    years. With up to 82 million acres in the National Forest System (NFS)
    still in need of restoration, SAF urges this subcommittee to encourage
    the agency to use all available tools to increase restoration levels by
    implementing more projects on Federal lands. USFS should expand
    collaboration with rural communities, partners, and industry to meet
    and exceed management goals outlined in forest plans. Authorizations in
    the 2014 Farm Bill facilitate quicker responses to areas devastated by
    insects and disease, expand the use of Stewardship Contracting, and
    take advantage of Good Neighbor Authority and other mechanisms that
    work across boundaries to achieve shared objectives. Investments in NFS
    Forest Products and Integrated Resource Restoration Pilots also help to
    improve forest and community resilience. However, decreases in Capital
    Improvement and Maintenance and the Administration's proposed
    elimination of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program
    could impede fulfillment of targets critical to economic sustainability
    and growth of local communities.
        Likewise, SAF encourages this subcommittee to recognize the
    importance of USFS State and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs. The
    Urban and Community Forestry, Landscape Scale Restoration, Forest
    Stewardship, and Forest Health Management programs provide important
    technical and financial assistance to private landowners and the
    resource managers responsible for managing more than 60 percent of
    America's forests. Investments in these programs are leveraged by
    landowners, State and local agencies, and a variety of non-governmental
    organizations to help to build healthy and thriving forest resources
    that benefit all citizens. Eliminating, consolidating, or drastically
    cutting funding for these programs would have profound adverse impacts
    on people and communities across the country--particularly in rural
    communities--and will jeopardize the essential benefits all citizens
    rely on forests to provide.
        Wildfire Funding.--While wildfires predominantly threaten western
    landscapes and communities, recent destructive fires in the east remind
    us that wildfire is a serious threat throughout the country. Regardless
    of fire location, the financial impacts weigh heavily on every citizen.
        All agencies and programs funded through the Interior
    Appropriations Bill suffer as wildfire suppression costs continue to
    rise under the current funding model. The rolling 10-year average has
    not met annual suppression cost needs since before fiscal year 2002,
    and the resulting shortfalls--both anticipated and actual--
    significantly disrupt important forest management projects across the
    country. Funds for management are then diverted into suppression,
    exacerbating an already serious issue. We thank the subcommittee for
    fully funding the 10-year average and providing supplemental funds, if
    necessary, in fiscal year 2017. However, agencies and first responders
    need a long-term solution that results in stable and predictable
    budgets.

            SAF respectfully requests a solution that: (1) allows access to
            disaster funding; (2) minimizes transfers; and (3) addresses
            the compounding erosion of agency budgets over time, with the
            goal of reinvesting in key programs that would restore forests
            to healthier conditions.

        Hazardous Fuels.--A comprehensive approach to averting wildfire
    threats and improving forest resilience is imperative. The Hazardous
    Fuels and Fire Risk Management line items in the USFS and DOI budgets
    are integral to restoring forest health and reducing the costs of
    wildfire suppression. Through restoring and maintaining fire-resilient
    landscapes and communities, these programs support the goals of the
    National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. SAF appreciates
    this subcommittee's consistent support for wildfire management and
    encourages it to allocate funds to address wildfire risks inside and
    outside the wildland-urban interface. In addition to preventing and
    mitigating wildfire risks, these programs serve as an important source
    of jobs, maintain critical forest products processing capability,
    especially in rural communities, and expand markets for the use of
    biomass residuals as renewable energy through efforts like the USFS
    Woody Innovations Grant Program.

            SAF supports funding the USFS Hazardous Fuels Program at $479
            million and DOI Hazardous Fuels and Resilient Landscapes at
            $178 million. We also ask that the subcommittee include report
            language encouraging Federal agencies to coordinate their fuels
            plans with other planning efforts such as State forestry and
            conservation plans to facilitate cross-boundary activities and
            increase the effectiveness of this program.

        Forestry Research.--Investments in forestry research are essential
    for the future health and sustainability of the Nation's forests, which
    include 11 million private forest landowners. Although this testimony
    focuses on USFS Forest and Rangeland Research programs, SAF also
    recognizes and supports the full array of forestry research efforts led
    by the Bureau of Land Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US
    Geologic Survey, and others including land-grant institutions and other
    universities. USFS Research and Development (USFS R&D) research
    conducted at the five USFS research stations, the International
    Institute of Tropical Forestry, and in the Forest Products Laboratory
    is crucial. Federal forestry research develops new products and
    practical innovation; identifies forest ecosystem disturbance response
    and forest resilience; helps responses to shifting social demands and
    demographic changes; and quantifies the contributions of forests to air
    and water quality. Without USFS leadership, investigation of these
    critical research needs would largely be left unfulfilled. Clear and
    relevant research helps eliminate uncertainties and builds consensus on
    management actions potentially avoiding litigation and enabling more
    projects to move forward.
        If forest research capacity in the US continues to decline, forest
    managers will not be able to meet current and future challenges with
    existing science and technical information. Continuing the trend of
    reductions in the USFS R&D budget will result in significant gaps in
    knowledge and in poor management of resources at a time of
    unprecedented threats posed by wildfire, drought, insects, disease, and
    invasive species.

            SAF supports a funding level of $303 million for USFS R&D, with
            particular emphasis on prioritization of research projects
            uniquely suited to R&D expertise furthering agency and partner
            objectives.

        FIA Funding.--SAF strongly supports the funding increases for the
    USFS R&D Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program in the fiscal year
    2017 Omnibus Bill and in the Administration's fiscal year 2018 Budget.
    FIA is the backbone of US forestry--providing the only national census
    of forests across all ownerships. Through FIA, USFS, with State
    forestry agency, university, and private sector partners, collects and
    analyzes forest data to assess trends on issues such as forest health
    and management, fragmentation and parcelization, and forest carbon
    sequestration. The data and information collected by FIA serve as the
    basis for identifying trends in forest ownership; assessing fish and
    wildlife habitat; evaluating wildfire, insect, and disease risk;
    predicting the spread of invasive species; determining capital
    investment in existing forest products facilities and selecting
    locations for new forest product facilities; and identifying and
    responding to priorities identified in State Forest Action Plans. The
    critical need for current information about the condition of our
    forests, with greater emphasis on the role of forests in maintaining
    and improving air quality, underlies the need for FIA program capacity
    to be increased in fiscal year 2018 and beyond.

            SAF requests additional investment in FIA with a funding level
            of at least $83 million. We urge the subcommittee to ensure
            that this increase does not come at the expense of other
            research programs, and provide direction for future increases
            to allow the program to keep pace with ever-growing and diverse
            information needs.

        Fire Science Program.--SAF has concerns with the reduction in
    funding in the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus Bill and the proposed
    elimination of the Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) in the
    Administration's fiscal year 2018 Budget. Transfer of the JFSP from the
    Wildland Fire Management Budget to the USFS R&D may create
    efficiencies, but the reduction from $6.9 million to $3 million in the
    fiscal year 2017 bill or integrating those functions in the National
    Fire Plan Research and Development (NFP R&D) will negatively impact the
    joint research program with over 200 Federal agency, university, and
    nongovernmental partners. Including funding for JFSP activities within
    NFP R&D in the USFS R&D budget with a reduction in funding for all will
    reduce JFSP effectiveness and hinder exploration of fire research
    questions important to the USDA and DOI.

            SAF urges the subcommittee to restore the JFSP funding level to
            $6.9 million and maintain the Wildland Fire Management budget
            line.

        Public Domain Program.--Finally, SAF is encouraged by the
    recognition of the important work of the BLM Public Domain Forestry
    (PD) program. SAF asks this committee to consider amending the
    extension of the Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund
    authorization in the 2015 Omnibus Bill to beyond 2020. SAF is concerned
    with the proposed funding reduction for the Oregon & California
    Railroad Grant Lands (O&C) in the President's proposed budget. While
    funding for the O&C timber program is important, SAF urges this
    subcommittee to provide the needed funds to support efficient,
    effective implementation and monitoring to achieve all of the
    objectives outlined in plans, including necessary forest health and
    fuels treatments.

            SAF supports the funding level of $10 million for the PD
            program and $113.7 million for the O&C program. We also urge
            this subcommittee to extend authorization of the Forest
            Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund beyond 2020.

        Thank you for your consideration of these important requests. SAF
    and its extensive network of forestry and natural resources
    professionals stand ready to assist with further development and
    implementation of these efforts and ideas.

        [This statement was submitted by Frederick Cubbage, President.]
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Southcentral Foundation
        My name is Katherine Gottlieb and I am the President and Chief
    Executive Officer of Southcentral Foundation (SCF). SCF is the Alaska
    Native Tribal health organization designated by Cook Inlet Region, Inc.
    and eleven federally-Recognized Tribes--the Aleut Community of St. Paul
    Island, lgiugig, lliamna, Kokhanok, McGrath, Newhalen, Nikolai,
    Nondalton, Pedro Bay, Telida, and Takotna--to provide healthcare
    services to beneficiaries of the Indian Health Service (IHS) pursuant
    to a contract with United States Government under the authority of the
    Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) Public
    Law 93-638.
        SCF provides a variety of medical services, including dental,
    optometry, behavioral health and substance abuse treatment to over
    65,000 Alaska Native and American Indian people. This includes 52,000
    people living in the Municipality of Anchorage, the Matanuska-Susitna
    Borough to the north, and 13,000 residents of 55 rural Alaska villages.
    Our services cover an area exceeding 100,000 square miles. SCF employs
    nearly 2,000 people to administer and deliver these critical healthcare
    services.
        SCF is a member of the Alaska Tribal Health System (ATHS) which is
    comprised of 229 federally Recognized Alaska Tribes and Tribal
    organizations who have all contracted with the IHS to carry out the
    management and administration of Federal Indian programs. Collectively,
    the Tribes and Tribal organizations form an integrated statewide
    network with more than 7,000 employees providing services to over
    150,000 Alaska Native and American Indian people. Additionally, the
    ATHS is a critical component of the Alaska Public Health System serving
    thousands of non-Native people in rural Alaska. We believe Alaska is
    the only State where all Tribes have assumed such broad responsibility
    to own and manage our healthcare system and is shining example of how
    true Indian self-determination can work.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testify on behalf
    of the SCF and the 150,000 Alaska Native and American Indian people we
    serve.
        SCF requests that in fiscal year 2018 Congress: (1) focus on
    general IHS program increases, especially related to population growth
    and inflation; (2) support increases in behavioral health funding; (3)
    exempt IHS from any across-the board reductions; (4) support increases
    for Indian Self-Determination Act section 105(l) lease payments; and
    (5) exempt Tribal programs from any healthcare reform efforts that
    would exacerbate already grave funding deficiencies.
                   1. focus on general ihs program increases
        We thank this subcommittee for the increases enacted for the IHS
    budget in fiscal year 2017. However, we ask that in fiscal year 2018,
    the subcommittee focus on general program increases, which are shared
    equally by all Tribal programs, rather than increases for targeted
    programs--such as for leases, accreditation, or health professions--
    that may only go to a few Tribes and/or may come with funding
    restrictions that limit our ability to target them where needed most.
    Of the approximate $128 million in fiscal year 2017, only $51 million
    can be attributed to the IHS general services account. If all of that
    were used for inflation and pay cost increases (a result that is
    entirely up to the agency and far from certain), each program would
    receive approximately a 1.5 percent increase in funding. Although that
    falls behind the actual inflation rate and does not take into account
    population growth, that increase is much appreciated and provides huge
    benefits to our programs. We ask this subcommittee continue to consider
    these general needs going forward.
        We also continue to support increases targeted at Purchased and
    Referred Care (PRC). For many years, PRC funding has not kept pace with
    the rising cost of healthcare, meaning these dollars provide fewer and
    fewer services each year and we must sometimes deny care. We also ask
    this subcommittee to continue to support PRC increases that also
    support increased services for our growing population.
                     2. increase behavioral health funding
        This subcommittee is likely already aware of two problems that
    disproportionately affect our population: substance abuse, especially
    opioid addiction, and suicide. For this reason, SCF maintains its
    support for the Substance Use and Suicide Prevention Program (a
    combination of the Methamphetamine and Suicide Prevention Initiative
    and Domestic Violence Prevention Initiative). We implemented these
    programs through our Behavioral Health Services and our Family Wellness
    Warriors Initiative--program that aims to address the spiritual,
    emotional, mental and physical effects of domestic violence, and abuse
    and neglect, and to break the cycle of addiction. Funding for this
    program and prior behavioral health initiatives has been very
    instrumental in this effort.
        We also thank this subcommittee for eliminating in fiscal year 2017
    the ``notwithstanding'' clause that had been included in prior
    appropriations measures. With that done, we ask the subcommittee to
    direct IHS to now treat these funds just like other IHS program funds
    operated under the Indian Self-Determination Act instead of as grant
    funding--these dollars will go much further once funding isn't taken
    off the top for IHS's administrative overhead and once we are no longer
    forced to use a portion to comply with unnecessary and onerous grant
    requirements.
        That said, we must emphasize that behavioral health funding is
    critical for our most vulnerable population--our youth. At SCF, we run
    several programs that provide mental healthcare for Alaska Native
    youth, and that focus on building academic, vocational, and leadership
    skills through culturally-appropriate methods. These programs not only
    address past trauma, but ensure our youth stay on the path towards
    becoming tomorrow's future leaders instead of falling prey to
    addiction. We ask this subcommittee to continue supporting these
    measures.
                 3. exempt ihs from across-the-board reductions
        As this subcommittee is well aware, across-the-board reductions
    have devastating impacts on Tribal programs. Since 2013, Tribes have
    testified about the long-lasting consequences of sequestration and the
    fact that it took years for the IHS budget--and funding for Tribal
    programs--to recover to pre-sequestration levels. This reduction had
    real-world consequences, resulting in reduced programming, cuts to
    patient care, and stagnation of services at a time of growing need. The
    administration has proposed a similar across-the-board reduction in
    fiscal year 2018--requesting a 16 percent cut overall for the
    Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS). We ask that IHS be exempt
    from any such cuts--it is already the smallest part of the DHHS budget
    and is only funded at approximately 1/5 of the total Tribal needs
    budget of $30.1 billion. Any further funding reduction would only serve
    to ensure Tribal health funding falls even farther behind that provided
    for the general population.
     4. support increases for indian self-determination act section 105(l)
                                 lease payments
        A number of Tribes and Tribal organizations have approached IHS to
    negotiate leases under section 105(l) of the Indian Self-Determination
    Act (ISDEAA) for the use of tribally owned or leased buildings where
    IHS programs are carried out. But, IHS correctly points out that there
    is no budget line from which to pay such leases. We appreciate the $11
    million provided for tribally-leased facilities in fiscal year 2017
    (which includes $2 million from Direct Operations), but we understand
    these funds were intended to bring up the Village Built Clinic (VBC)
    lease amounts closer to the actual cost of operating those facilities.
    Thus, any 105(l) leases funded out of this increase in fiscal years
    2017 and 2018 will only serves to keep VBC lease payments deficient.
    Since agency 105(l) lease payments should also not come out of program
    funds, SCF requests that the subcommittee create within the Direct
    Operations account a new subaccount to pay required 105(l) Tribal lease
    payments.
        In the face of two court rulings addressing IHS's legal obligations
    to fund ISDEAA 105(l) leases, the President's Budget asks Congress to
    legislatively override section 105(l) by inserting a
    ``notwithstanding'' clause which would make all lease payments entirely
    discretionary with IHS. In this manner, IHS would secure to itself the
    right to use Tribal facilities to run IHS programs without any
    requirement to pay for those facilities. It is also legally
    questionable because without paying for these facilities, IHS would
    essentially be augmenting the appropriation though volunteered
    services, bypassing the Appropriations Clause. We respectfully urge the
    subcommittee to reject IHS's effort to repeal a key provision of the
    ISDEAA. If amendments are to be considered to the ISDEAA, it is the
    role and jurisdiction of the authorizing committees to consider the
    matter in the ordinary course.
     5. preserve funding for tribal programs in health care reform efforts
        We know that health reform legislation is a Congressional priority
    and we too know the current system still leaves many underserved.
    However, we must stress that the answer is not to cut funding from
    Tribal programs, but rather to focus on expanding coverage. In Alaska,
    expanded coverage has helped to alleviate some of the stress on Tribal
    programs that serve these individuals free of charge whether they have
    insurance or not. We find the repeal of the essential health benefit
    requirements to be especially harmful as our patients with private
    insurance may be denied necessary life-saving care, especially if our
    PRC funds are insufficient to pick up the charges that the private
    insurers refuse to cover. As a result, our costs of providing care
    would drastically increase for all of our patients, from babies born
    early or with complications to our elderly. We ask Congress to consider
    these implications before advancing this bill or similar legislation
    forward.
        We strongly recommend that any legislation that would change how
    Tribal providers receive payment from Medicare and Medicaid or that
    further restrict eligibility rules be carefully reviewed--again,
    changes that would only serve to decrease the care provided to patients
    and at higher cost. We serve the entire State population, yet the
    healthcare reform proposal would eliminate the three-month retroactive
    payment option which would be a disadvantage to our rural residents who
    often do not have the means to register for these programs until they
    come to Anchorage and are receiving care. Proposals to block grant the
    Medicare and Medicaid programs or to increase individual co-pays would
    only shift the burden from these Federal programs back to an already-
    overtaxed IHS budget and to Tribal health providers. Any reduction in
    our third-party revenues--revenues which support roughly half of the
    healthcare services we provide--would ensure that Alaska Natives
    continue to receive the lowest per-capita healthcare funding in the
    country and exacerbate deficiencies in health status, contrary to
    decades of Federal policy. We ask that this subcommittee exempt Tribal
    programs from any changes to these programs, and to look for ways to
    expand coverage, rather than focusing on cutting costs by simply
    reducing the number of beneficiaries.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf
    of Southcentral Foundation and the 150,000 people we serve.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Squaxin Island Tribe
        On behalf of the Squaxin Island Tribal Leadership and citizens, it
    is an honor to provide our funding priorities and recommendations for
    the fiscal year 2018 Budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and
    Indian Health Service (IHS). Squaxin Island Tribe requests that Tribal
    program funding throughout the Federal Government be exempt from future
    sequestrations, rescissions and disproportionate cuts.
        We applaud the subcommittee for its foresight, leadership and
    creativity in seeking a long-term resolution to fully fund Contract
    Support Cost (CSC) in the BIA and IHS. Although full funding in 2014
    and 2015 was risky and did impact some other Tribal funding, in the
    fiscal year 2016 enacted spending bill you included an estimated amount
    to fully fund the CSC needs in 2016 and 2017. Under the new budget
    structure, going forward the full CSC that Tribes are entitled to will
    be paid and other programs will not be reduced if payments are
    underestimated in the President's budget. The Squaxin Island Tribe
    agrees that maintaining this structure achieves the Nation's legal
    obligation to fully pay CSC and those payments should not be achieved
    by reducing direct services to any Tribe.

    THE FISCAL YEAR 2018 SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS:

        1.  $500,000 Shellfish Management Program--BIA
        2.  $2.5 Million to Build and Operate an Oyster and Clam Nursery
    for Southern Puget Sound--BIA
        3.  $2.5 Million Increase for Northwest Indian Treatment Center
    (NWITC) Residential Program in IHS

    REGIONAL REQUESTS:

        1.  Fully support the budget requests from the Affiliated Tribes of
    Northwest Washington (ATNI) and the Northwest Portland Area Indian
    Health Board (NPAIHB) and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

    NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS--BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS:

        1.  Continue to fully fund Contract Support Costs for BIA and
    authorize reclassification of BIA CSC to Mandatory [Permanent] Funding
    beginning in fiscal year 2018
        2.  BIA Rights Protection--Increase funding to $56.5 million for
    the BIA Rights Protection Implementation.
        3.  Fully Fund Fixed Costs and Tribal Pay Costs.
        4.  Increase Tribal Base Funding (instead of through grants)
        5.  Fully fund all the provisions of the Tribal Law and Order Act
    of 2010 and the Violence Against Women Act

    NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS--INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE:

        1.  Continue to fully fund Contract Support Costs for IHS
        2.  Authorize reclassification of IHS CSC to Mandatory [Permanent]
    Funding

        Squaxin Island Tribes supports the Regional Budget Priorities of
    the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, the Affiliated Tribes of
    Northwest Indians and the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board.
        Squaxin Island Tribe supports the National Budget Priorities of the
    National Congress of American Indians and the National Indian Health
    Board.

    SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE BACKGROUND

        We are Native People of South Puget Sound and descendants of the
    maritime people who lived and prospered along these shores for untold
    centuries. We are known as the People of the Water because of our
    strong cultural connection to the natural beauty and bounty of Puget
    Sound going back hundreds of years. The Squaxin Island Indian
    Reservation is located in southeastern Mason County, Washington and the
    Tribe is a signatory to the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty. We were one of
    the first 30 federally-recognized Tribes to enter into a Compact of
    Self-Governance with the United States.
        Our treaty-designated reservation, Squaxin Island, is approximately
    2.2 square miles of uninhabited forested land, surrounded by the bays
    and inlets of southern Puget Sound. Because the Island lacks fresh
    water, the Tribe has built its community on roughly 26 acres at
    Kamilche, Washington purchased and placed into trust. The Tribe also
    owns 6 acres across Pickering Passage from Squaxin Island and a plot of
    36 acres on Harstine Island, across Peale Passage. The total land area
    including off-reservation trust lands is 1,715.46 acres. In addition,
    the Tribe manages roughly 500 acres of Puget Sound tidelands.
        The Tribal government and our economic enterprises constitute the
    largest employer in Mason County with over 1,250 employees. The Tribe
    has a current enrollment of 1,040 and an on-reservation population of
    426 living in 141 homes. Squaxin has an estimated service area
    population of 2,747; a growth rate of about 10 percent, and an
    unemployment rate of about 30 percent (according to the BIA Labor Force
    Report).

    TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS/JUSTIFICATIONS:

      1.  $500,000--Shellfish Management--BIA

        The Squaxin Island Tribe faces an ongoing budget deficit to
    maintain and operate the shellfish program at its current level of
    operation--a level that leaves 20 percent of treaty-designated State
    lands and 80-90 percent of private tidelands unharvested due to lack of
    funding. To address this shortfall and enable effective growth and
    development of the program, an annual minimum increase of $500,000 is
    requested. Shellfish have been a mainstay for the Squaxin Island people
    for thousands of years and are important today for subsistence,
    economic and ceremonial purposes. The Tribe's right to harvest
    shellfish is guaranteed by the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty. Today, we
    are unable to fully exercise our treaty rights due to lack of Federal
    support for our shellfish management program.
      2.  $2.5 Million--Build and Operate an Oyster and Clam Nursery for
            Southern Puget Sound--BIA

        A shellfish nursery is a capital project that is both proven and a
    cost effective technology that takes small oyster and clam seeds and
    provides a safe and controlled environment for the seeds to grow to a
    size that can survive integration onto a regular beach placement.
    Aquaculture is expected to provide almost two-thirds of the fish
    intended for global consumption by 2030. Aquaculture involves the
    breeding, rearing, and harvesting of freshwater and marine species of
    fish, shellfish, and aquatic plants. Producers farm in all types of
    water environments including ponds, rivers, lakes, oceans, and land-
    based, closed recirculating-water systems. The Squaxin Island Tribe is
    uniquely positioned to meet the demand for increased seed production in
    the shellfish industry. Ocean conditions are affecting the shellfish
    industry as a whole; ranking ocean acidification as the top concern.
    Ocean acidification is making it hard for the tiny organisms to make it
    through the most important stage of their life. They may eat as much
    algae as they can, but with current ocean conditions, such as the
    decreasing pH of the water, they cannot eat enough to get the energy
    they need to grow their shell and increase body mass. In addition, due
    to weather and/or other environmental factors, the regional shellfish
    growers in southern Puget Sound continue to face a shortage of viable
    seed for their shellfish farms.
        Our original treaty-designated reservation, Squaxin Island, is a
    restricted-access area, and therefore an ideal location for such a
    nursery because it will not be disturbed by residents or recreational
    boaters. This project would be a capital cost of approximately $2.5
    million. The Tribal in-kind contribution to the effort would include
    land and shoreline and operating costs. Comparable land and shoreline,
    if privately owned, would be easily valued in the higher millions. The
    Squaxin southern Puget Sound oyster and clam nursery will be an
    extension of another project that was created through a U.S. Department
    of Agriculture appropriation two decades ago for the Lummi Tribe, which
    created an oyster and clam hatchery in Northern Puget Sound.
      3.  $2.5 Million Increase for Northwest Indian Treatment Center
            (NWITC) Residential Program--IHS ``D3WXbi Palil'' meaning
            ``Returning from the Dark, Deep Waters to the Light"

        The Squaxin Island Tribe has been operating the Northwest Indian
    Treatment Center (NWITC) since 1994. The Center, given the spiritual
    name ``D3WXbi Palil'' meaning ``Returning from the Dark, Deep Waters to
    the Light'', is a residential chemical dependency treatment facility
    designed to serve Native American who have chronic relapse patterns
    related to unresolved grief and trauma. NWITC serves adult clients from
    Tribes located in Oregon, Washington and Idaho. Since the original
    Congressional set-aside in the IHS budget for alcohol and substance
    abuse treatment for residential facilities and placement contracts with
    third-party agencies in 1993, NWITC has not received an adequate
    increase in the base IHS budget. With the well-documented nation-wide
    rise in prescription opioid and heroin abuse, it is more critical than
    ever to increase the NWITC's annual base in order to sustain the
    current services to the Tribes of the Northwest. An increase of $2.5
    million would restore lost purchasing power, ensure adequate baseline
    operating funds and allow NWITC to continue to meet the needs of Native
    Americans and their communities.

    REGIONAL Requests:

      1.  Fully support the budget requests from the Affiliated Tribes of
            Northwest Washington (ATNI) and the Northwest Portland Area
            Indian Health Board (NPAIHB) and the Northwest Indian Fisheries
            Commission (NWIFC)

    NATIONAL REQUESTS and Recommendations--Bureau of Indian Affairs:

        1.  Continue to fully fund Contract Support Costs for BIA and
    authorize reclassification of BIA CSC to Mandatory [Permanent) Funding
    beginning in fiscal year 2018
        2.  +$4.5 million increase for Rights Protection Implementation to
    increase funding to $56.5 million This Subactivity Account has a clear
    and direct relationship with the Federal trust obligation to Tribes.
    This program ensures compliance with Federal court orders by
    implementing effective Tribal self-regulatory and co-management
    systems. Contract agreements are designed to assure proper regulation
    and management of off-reservation fish, wildlife, shellfish, and plant
    gathering activities, provide conservation enforcement, and perform the
    necessary assessment and habitat protection activities that help ensure
    abundant and healthy populations of ceded territory resources. The
    benefits of these programs accrue not only to Tribes, but to the larger
    communities as well, because protection and enhancement of ceded
    territory natural resources and their habitats benefit all users of
    those resources.
        3.  Fully Fund Fixed Costs and Tribal Pay Costs--Partial funding or
    failing to fund Pay Costs for Tribes has devastated Tribal communities
    by causing critical job losses. Over 900 Tribal jobs have been lost and
    an estimated 300 more jobs will be permanently lost on an annual basis
    if 100 percent Pay Costs are not provided. The Tribal losses are being
    further exacerbated by recent projections of costs that have been
    significantly underestimated. We strongly urge full funding of fixed
    costs and Tribal pay costs.
        4.  Increase Tribal Base Funding (instead of through grants)--Grant
    funding, particularly inside the BIA, is not consistent with the intent
    of Tribal self-determination. Tribal leaders have grown increasingly
    frustrated by the increase in Indian Affairs funding offer through
    grants. Allocating new funds via grants marginalizes and impedes Tribal
    Self-Determination and Self-Governance. Provide increases via Tribal
    base funding instead of through grants to Tribal governments.
        5.  Fully fund all the provisions of the Tribal Law and Order Act
    of 2010 and the Violence Against Women Act

    NATIONAL Requests and Recommendations--Indian Health Service:

        1.  Continue to fully fund Contract Support Costs for IHS and
    authorize reclassification of IHS CSC to Mandatory [Permanent] Funding
    beginning in fiscal year 2018
        2.  IHS mandatory funding (maintaining current services)--Provide
    an increase of $314.9 million over the fiscal year 2017 budget request.
    If these mandatory requirements are not funded, Tribes have no choice
    but to cut health services, which further reduces the quantity and
    quality of healthcare services available to American Indian/Alaskan
    Native (AI/AN) people.
        3.  Purchased and Referred Care (PRC)--Provide an increase of
    $474.4 million. The Purchased/Referred Care program pays for urgent and
    emergent and other critical services that are not directly available
    through IHS and Tribally-operated health programs when no IHS direct
    care facility exists, or the direct care facility cannot provide the
    required emergency or specialty care, or the facility has more demand
    for services than it can currently meet.

        Squaxin Island Tribe supports the National Budget Priorities of the
    National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the National Indian
    Health Board (NIHB).

        Thank you for inviting the Squaxin Island Tribe to testify on these
    fiscal year 2018 budgets.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
        The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe appreciates the opportunity to submit
    written testimony concerning the President's fiscal year 2018 budget
    for the Indian programs within the Department of the Interior and the
    Indian Health Service. We would like to express our appreciation to
    this subcommittee for its support of Indian Tribes. Our testimony will
    focus on law enforcement, education, and healthcare.
        The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has a government to government
    relationship with the United States of America, reflected in our
    Treaties which were signed in 1851 and 1868. These Treaties underscore
    the ongoing promises and obligations of the United States to the Tribe,
    and our testimony today is submitted with those promises and
    obligations in mind.
        The Standing Rock Sioux Reservation encompasses 2.3 million acres
    in North and South Dakota. The Reservation's population--approximately
    8,500 Tribal members and 2,000 non-members--reside in eight districts,
    and in smaller communities. The Tribe's primary industries are cattle
    ranching and farming. The Tribe struggles to provide essential
    governmental services to our members. The Tribe's desire is to provide
    jobs and improve the economic standard of living on our Reservation. We
    operate two modest Tribal casinos, and a small number of additional
    Tribal businesses, including Standing Rock Propane and Standing Rock
    Telecommunications, which provide needed services on the Reservation.
    Casino revenue is used to help the Tribe supplement services and
    programs for our members, but those revenues are modest and our
    challenges and needs are far greater than our resources.
        Despite the Tribe's best efforts, our unemployment rate remains
    above 50 percent. In fact, over 40 percent of Indian families on our
    Reservation live in poverty--more than triple the average U.S. poverty
    rate. The disparity is worse for children, as 52 percent of the
    Reservation population under age 18 lives below poverty, compared to 16
    percent and 19 percent in North and South Dakota, respectively. The
    Federal programs established and promised by treaty to aid Tribes and
    their members are essential. We ask the government to honor its
    commitments by adequately funding these Federal programs enacted for
    our benefit, so that our members may enjoy a standard of living
    comparable to that enjoyed by the rest of the Nation.

        Our specific requests are as follows:

        BIA--Public Safety and Justice. Public safety is a priority for the
    Tribe. We applaud the final fiscal year 2017 enacted appropriations
    levels for Public Safety and Justice totaling $385.735 million, and
    urge the subcommittee to reject the Administration's unwarranted
    reductions and continue to support increases for next year. As you
    know, funding is essential for public safety in Indian Country.

              Law Enforcement: The Tribe has seen firsthand that adequate
            law enforcement funding was key to reducing crime. A number of
            years ago, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe was selected to
            participate in the High Priority Program Goals initiative,
            which dramatically increased law enforcement positions on our
            Reservation. This had a significant positive impact in reducing
            crime. Increased numbers of police officers allowed pro-active
            policing rather than reactive policing. This initiative enabled
            officers to be assigned within each Reservation community,
            which meant quicker response time to calls and more positive
            relationships between law enforcement officers and the
            communities they served. The increased law enforcement presence
            and patrols has deterred crime and resulted in our members
            feeling safer. The data confirms this. When compared to the
            number of violent crimes (homicide, rape, robbery, assault)
            that occurred between 2007 and 2009, the additional staffing
            reduced such crimes by approximately: 7 percent in 2010, 11
            percent in 2011, and 15-19 percent in 2012. The initiative
            demonstrated the critical importance that adequate law
            enforcement staffing can have in our community.
              HPPG ended after fiscal year 2013 and the Tribe's law
            enforcement personnel were reduced from the numbers that served
            us so well. We strongly support an increase in funding for
            fiscal year 2018 for BIA law enforcement personnel. It makes no
            sense that these programs would not be funded in perpetuity
            since they have been demonstrated to work to reduce crime in
            Indian country.

              Youth Corrections: In December 2010, the Tribe successfully
            completed construction of a secure 18-bed juvenile detention
            facility so that Tribal youth offenders may remain on the
            Reservation and receive culturally appropriate services if they
            must be incarcerated. After more than 5 years after the
            completion of construction, the detention center has finally
            opened. This facility is called the ``Youth Services Center''.
            With limited funds, only the secure portion of the plan was
            completed so the facility is not being utilized as we
            envisioned for our youth. The Tribe contributed $2 million of
            Tribal funds to supplement $5 million in Justice Department
            funds to build this facility. Over time this Tribally-owned
            facility will save the BIA a great deal of money that now pays
            other contract facilities to house our youth offenders. Now
            that the Tribe is operating the detention center, our law
            enforcement can avoid taking youth offenders hundreds of miles
            to off-reservation facilities, and depriving our communities of
            law enforcement officers. We strongly suggest the BIA allow
            greater flexibility for Tribes to use these facilities in
            innovative ways by supplementing detention with alternatives to
            incarceration, such as probation with mandatory counseling and
            substance abuse counseling and treatment. The fiscal year 2017
            enacted budget included $96.507 million for the BIA Detention
            and Corrections. We request that you provide for at least this
            amount, and include an increase in fiscal year 2018 to keep
            pace with inflation and cost of living increases for staff.

              Adult Corrections: The BIA Office of Justice Services
            operates an antiquated 48-bed adult detention center for male
            and female inmates in Fort Yates on our Reservation. The
            detention center is a linear style facility which, because of
            its design, is very staff intensive. The jail was built in the
            1960's and has long outlived its utility. Renovated in the
            1980's and again in the 1990's, the jail fails to comply with
            most contemporary detention standards. The jail population is
            frequently two to three times above the rated bed capacity. To
            alleviate jail crowding, BIA OJS contracts bed space for long
            term adult inmates in a facility that is a 772-mile round trip
            from the reservation. Our Tribal Court is forced to release
            prisoners early to alleviate jail crowding just to make room
            for more prisoners. This sends the wrong message to criminals.
            We request that the committee consider modernizing our
            detention center and provide for adequate Operation and
            Maintenance funding which is wholly inadequate and contributes
            to the premature deterioration of Tribally-owned and BIA-owned
            facilities.

              Tribal Courts: We support an increase to the modest funding
            appropriated for the Tribal Courts Program. The Standing Rock
            Tribal Court is an independent branch of government consisting
            of a Supreme Court, Civil Court, Criminal Court, and Children's
            Court. Key positions in the Tribal Court require licensed
            attorneys: the Chief Judge, Associate Chief Judge, Chief
            Prosecutor, and Public Defender. The Supreme Court consists of
            three Justices, two of whom must be a licensed attorney. Our
            Tribe cannot effectively support these courts with our small
            BIA allocation, even when heavily subsidized by the Tribe. And
            yet in order to use our Tribe's authorities provided under the
            Violence Against Women Act of 2013, Sex Offender Registration
            and Offender Act, and the Tribal Law and Order Act, we must
            continue to meet appropriate standards. Our Tribal courts are
            also crowded, even when spread across three separate buildings.
            The main courthouse outgrew its ability to meet our needs years
            ago and the lack of space severely limits our ability to
            adequately handle the Tribal Court case load of 2,000 to 3,000
            cases per year. Funding is critical to providing a safe and
            secure center to house justice programs. We request funding to
            adequately fund the judicial services needed for our Tribal
            citizens and also additional resources to begin planning for an
            adequate facility to operate our judicial branch.

        Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). We support an increase in fiscal
    year 2018 funding for BIE programs. Standing Rock relies on BIE funding
    for three Tribal grant schools--the Standing Rock Community School (K-
    12), Sitting Bull School (K-8), and Rock Creek School (K-8). The
    Standing Rock Community School is operated through a Joint Powers
    Agreement between the Standing Rock Tribal Grant School and the Fort
    Yates Public School District. The Fort Yates Public School District,
    like other public schools on the Reservation (Cannonball, Selfridge,
    McLaughlin, McIntosh, and Wakpala), depends on Federal impact aid to
    cover the costs of the public school's share of the school operations.
    The children in the schools on the Reservation are among the most at-
    risk students in the Nation. At seven out of eight Public and Tribal
    Grant Schools on our Reservation, 100 percent of the students are
    eligible for the Free or Reduced Lunch Program. At the remaining
    school, 90 percent of students are eligible for the Free or Reduced
    Lunch Program. The high rate of our student eligibility for the Free or
    Reduced Lunch Program documents that the majority of our families live
    at or below poverty level.
        A critical source of funds for the operation of our Tribal grant
    schools are the Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) Formula
    funds. The funds cover the costs of the schools' instructional
    programs, including salaries for teachers, teacher aides, school
    administrative staff and other operational costs. ISEP has not seen any
    meaningful increase in years, and as a result, there has been a
    significant negative impact on the effectiveness of the schools'
    instructional programs. Academic programs are marginal at best and
    provide limited services to the students. It has become more difficult
    to attract and retain qualified staff. If the schools serving Indian
    children are to be effective and if our students are to succeed, and be
    college and career ready, ISEP funding must be increased.
        The Administration's near flat line funding for virtually all
    aspects of BIE programs does not account for population growth,
    increased costs, or inflation. Student Transportation funding, intended
    to cover the costs of buses, fuel, maintenance, vehicle replacements,
    and drivers, has remained at the same level for years. Proposed cuts to
    BIE funding are unjustified. The substantial increases in fuel costs
    alone make it impossible to cover such costs. For Standing Rock, funds
    are further strained because we are a rural community, where bus runs
    for many of our students may take 1= to 2 hours each way and can
    include travel on unimproved roads. These factors result in higher
    maintenance costs and shorter vehicle life. A substantial increase in
    funds for Student Transportation is long overdue.
        The same is true for School Facility Operations and Maintenance
    which is drastically under-funded. In fact, O&M budgets are currently
    constrained at 40 percent of need. This also holds true for School
    Improvement and Repair. We urge this subcommittee to strongly support
    an increase, not only for Facility Operations and Maintenance and
    School Improvement and Repair, but for School Construction as well.
    Indeed, one of our Tribal grant schools, the Rock Creek School, is more
    than 100 years old and badly needs to be replaced. Federal funds to
    replace ancient schools--like Rock Creek--are essential. Funding for
    School Facility Operations and Maintenance and School Improvement and
    Repair, as well as School Construction should be substantially
    increased. We are also very concerned about the list of new schools
    which have been slated to be constructed. Not a single school from the
    Great Plains made that list, although schools from our region comprise
    one-third of all BIE schools. It is clear that the Bureau of Indian
    Education has discretion to select these schools, and they have used
    that discretion to effectively shut out schools in our region for the
    next decade. We ask the subcommittee to investigate and reconsider the
    existing process which we see as unfair and unlikely to serve our
    children for decades.
        We also urge the subcommittee to support an increase in funding for
    Scholarships. Because of the unmet need, the Tribe spends $1 million in
    Tribal funds annually to supplement this program and gives grants of
    $3,000-$3,500 to aid our students attending colleges and vocational
    schools. But even with this, the majority of our scholarship recipients
    have unmet financial need varying from $100 to $17,000.

        Indian Health Service. We greatly appreciate the $232 million
    increase Congress provided in IHS funding for fiscal year 2017.We
    depend on IHS to care for our 16,000 enrolled Tribal members, many of
    whom suffer from diabetes, heart disease and hypertension. We are
    especially concerned about our region. Although we are not at risk of
    losing certification under the Center for Medicaid Services, we hope
    the IHS can continue to provide quality support and timely processing
    of the basics such as Human Resources, Budget responses, and
    Procurement. We also fully support increased funding for behavioral
    health, especially the youth focused programming.
        We recommend that Congress prioritize the IHS preventive healthcare
    service programs, such as the diabetes grant program, and increase
    funding for these programs above the modest increase provided for
    fiscal year 2017, while supporting and protecting the Administration's
    other IHS funding priorities, especially funding for healthcare
    personnel. In many instances, if additional funding for clinical
    services and preventive health programs can be made available,
    illnesses and injuries could be treated at their initial stages, or
    prevented altogether. This is especially important at Standing Rock,
    where many of our members' health problems could be addressed if timely
    preventive care were available. We also support fiscal year 2018
    increases in Dental Health, Mental Health and Purchased/Referred Care
    which has been historically underfunded.

        Tribal Historic Preservation Offices. We strongly support an
    addition of at least $2 million for Tribal Historic Preservation
    Offices out of the National Park Service. This modest increase will
    help us to protect historic and culturally significant resources
    throughout the region. Like so many other programs funded under this
    budget, these programs provide jobs to Tribal members.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Sustainable Urban Forest Coalition
    Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall, and Honorable
    Subcommittee Members:

        The Sustainable Urban Forests Coalition (SUFC) is comprised of more
    than 30 national organizations and corporations representing hundreds
    of thousands of professionals and millions of supporters who care and
    support sustainable trees and green infrastructure where people live.
    Collectively, we are asking for your support for several programs under
    the Interior subcommittee's jurisdiction that support urban and
    community forests and green infrastructure.
        Our Nation's 138 million acres of urban and community forest lands
    affect over 80 percent of the U.S. population and are vital to creating
    and maintaining healthy, livable communities of all sizes by providing
    many scientifically proven social, economic, and environmental benefits
    to people. The ability to mitigate air pollution, reduce energy
    consumption, mitigate the heat island effect, improve human health, and
    reduce storm water runoff have directly or indirectly reduced costs in
    communities by millions of dollars. The collective value and benefits
    of community trees equals over $10 billion nationwide. With a projected
    90 percent of Americans living in urbanized areas by 2050, investing in
    trees to create livable communities needs to happen now.
        A key goal in the 10-year National Urban and Community Forestry
    Action Plan (facilitated and stewarded by the National Urban and
    Community Forestry Advisory Council) is to improve the Nation's urban
    and community forest management, maintenance, and stewardship. The
    green jobs related to trees and landscapes is a $9 billion-dollar
    industry and is poised to grow and create local jobs that cannot be
    outsourced.
        SUFC is conscious of the Federal budget challenges, and greatly
    appreciates the fiscal year 2017 funding levels provided by this
    subcommittee. Respectfully, we ask you to reject the drastic cuts
    proposed in the President's fiscal year 2018 budget. We are deeply
    concerned by the zeroing out of important and effective programs like
    Urban and Community Forestry, Landscape Scale Restoration, and
    Community Forests and Open Space Conservation. Defunding or severely
    cutting these programs will have profound and lasting repercussions on
    people and communities across the country--particularly those in rural
    areas where these funds are essential.
                usda forest service: state and private forestry
    Urban and Community Forestry Program (U&CF)
        U&CF directly assists State government, nonprofit organizations and
    partners that manage and steward our Nation's urban and community
    forests. Working with the State forestry agencies, the program provides
    technical, financial, research, and educational support and services to
    local government, nonprofit organizations, community groups,
    educational institutions, and Tribal governments.
        U&CF helps cities and towns across the Nation prepare for storms
    and other disturbance events, contain threats from native and invasive
    pests, and improve tree infrastructure and forest cover. Properly
    managed community forests offer towns and municipalities a cost-
    effective way to manage stormwater runoff, reduce heating and cooling
    costs, and attract more tourists and consumers. They help communities
    avoid storm and disaster costs through preparedness and training, and
    maximize the economic, social, and ecological benefits of their tree
    resources.
        In fiscal year 2016, U&CF reached over 7,800 communities and 200+
    million people in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, US
    Territories, and affiliated Pacific Island Nations. U&CF is a high-
    impact program and a smart investment as Federal support is often
    leveraged 2:1 (or in many cases significantly more) by States and
    partner organizations. U&CF engages citizens in cities and towns,
    brings together diverse partners, public and private resources, and
    demonstrates that Federal investment can have huge and lasting impacts
    on communities of all sizes.
        SUFC is deeply concerned by the President's proposal to defund the
    U&CF program in fiscal year 2018. The 50 percent funding decrease
    originally proposed in the President's fiscal year 2017 budget would
    have had severe negative impacts in States and territories across the
    country. But now, zeroing out this important program would completely
    erode the capacity that has been developed in cities and towns of all
    sizes and jeopardize many local public and private partnerships and
    collaborative projects in which Federal assistance is essential.

    -- SUFC recommends the Urban and Community Forestry Program be funded
    at $31.3 million in fiscal year 2018.
    Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR)
        The LSR program strategically prioritizes resources by
    competitively allocating Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act funds. It
    focuses on targeting Federal investments--leveraged by State and local
    resources--to areas of greatest need, highest value, or strongest
    innovation potential, as stipulated in each State Forest Action Plan.
    Urban and community forestry projects have been supported by LSR in the
    past. However, we want to ensure that LSR is not a substitute to the
    Urban and Community Forestry program, but a supplement.

    -- SUFC recommends funding the Landscape Scale Restoration program at
    $23.5 million in fiscal year 2018.
    Community Forests and Open Space Conservation Program (CFP)
        CFP has made substantial progress in preserving forests by
    increasing opportunities for Americans to connect with forests in their
    own communities and fostering new public-private partnerships. CFP has
    supported nearly three dozen community forest projects in cities and
    towns across 17 States and territories. In the latest round of CFP
    grants, project partners leveraged $10.6 million in Federal funds to
    secure $34.5 million in non-Federal funding, resulting in more than
    15,000 acres of community forests. This impressive leveraging ratio
    demonstrates the willingness of local entities to match Federal funding
    with significant commitments of funding and other resources.

    -- SUFC recommends an increase in funds to $5 million in fiscal year
    2018.
    Forest Health Management
        Forests across the country are threatened by insects and disease
    pathogens introduced from abroad as an unwanted side effect of
    international trade. The damage usually starts in urban forests because
    most imported goods enter this country through urban ports. As a
    result, municipal governments across the country are spending an
    estimated $3 billion each year to remove trees on city property killed
    by non-native pests. Homeowners are spending an additional $1 billion
    to remove and replace trees on their properties and are absorbing an
    additional $1.5 billion in reduced property values. The pests do not
    stay in the cities, however. They spread to the rural and wildland
    forests and threaten their many values. While preventing introductions
    are the desired approach, it is essential that the U.S. Forest Service
    initiate programs countering these pests as soon as they are detected.
    Only such prompt and aggressive actions can protect urban, rural, and
    wildland forests from massive pest spread and tree devastation. This
    program provides essential expertise and assistance to State and
    municipal agencies and private landowners working to prevent these
    pests' spread and to develop effective strategies to minimize the
    damage they cause.

    -- SUFC recommends $48 million for cooperative lands programs under the
    Forest Health Management program.

               usda forest service: forest and rangeland research
    -- SUFC urges the subcommittee to provide $303 million for the overall
    R&D program.
    Urban and Community Forestry Research
        The Forest Service Research and Development (R&D) program provides
    critical financial support for urban forestry research activities to
    develop information and tools for understanding conditions and trends
    in our Nation's urban and community forests. U.S. Forest Service
    researchers have made huge strides in recent years through
    collaborative efforts to develop new tools, such as i-Tree, for mapping
    current tree cover, assessing trends, developing local strategies, and
    building greater understanding of the environmental, economic, and
    social services that trees and forests provide to communities.

    -- We urge the subcommittee to continue including language in Interior
    Appropriations reports encouraging the Forest Service to maintain a
    strong and vibrant urban forest research program.
    Non-native Insects and Diseases Research
        Among the major research challenges facing R&D is the destruction
    of our Nation's urban forests caused by non-native insects and
    diseases. People who value urban forests join supporters of rural and
    wildland forests in depending on Forest Service R&D to develop better
    tools for pest detection and protective strategies including chemical
    and biological controls and breeding of trees resistant to pests.
    Currently, however, R&D provides only about $5 million for research on
    non-native insects and diseases--less than 2 percent of its total
    budget.

    -- In the absence of a budget line item for invasive species research,
    we urge the subcommittee to include language in its Interior
    Appropriations report encouraging the Forest Service to increase
    funding for research targeting non-native insects and pathogens.

    Urban Forests in Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
        The collaborative efforts between SUFC and the U.S. Forest Service
    brought urban forest data into the mainstream of the agency's national
    data-collection program. FIA has long provided the Nation's forest
    census, but it had not historically included urban areas because of its
    definition of forests.

    -- We ask the subcommittee to encourage the Forest Service to continue
    and strengthen its efforts to integrate urban forest data into FIA so
    that its critical data-collection efforts address all of our Nation's
    forests, including our current and expanding 138 million acres of urban
    forest.
                        environmental protection agency
    Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF)
        Green infrastructure, including urban forests, can be a cost-
    effective and resilient approach to managing stormwater. The use of
    green infrastructure for stormwater control also provides many
    community co-benefits enumerated above. SUFC is pleased that EPA
    supports the use of green infrastructure for stormwater management and
    that green infrastructure is an eligible use under the CWSRF--a
    critical financing program for local communities investing in water
    infrastructure. CWSRF funding was maintained in the President's
    Preliminary fiscal year 2018 Budget proposal at the fiscal year 2017
    level of $1.394 billion.

    -- SUFC supports robust funding for CWSRF along with efforts to expand
    the use of green infrastructure to 20 percent to meet Clean Water Act
    goals.
                           the national park service
    Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program (ORLPP)
        The State and Local Assistance Program provides matching grants to
    States and localities for protection and development of parks and
    recreation resources and is the primary Federal investment tool to
    ensure that families have easy access to urban forests in parks and
    open space, and neighborhood recreation resources. This nationally
    competitive program complements the existing State and local assistance
    program by creating opportunities for outdoor play as well as
    developing or enhancing outdoor recreation partnerships in cities.

    -- SUFC requests $110 million for the State and local assistance
    program, which includes $12 million for ORLPP.

                Sincerely,
                                  sufc members
    Alliance for Community Trees
    American Forests
    American Planning Association
    American Rivers
    American Society of Consulting Arborists
    American Society of Landscape Architects
    Arbor Day Foundation
    Center for Invasive Species Prevention
    The Davey Foundation
    International Society of Arboriculture
    Keep America Beautiful
    National Association of Clean Water Agencies
    National Association of Conservation Districts
    National Association of State Foresters
    National Recreation and Parks Association
    The Nature Conservancy
    Society of American Foresters
    Society of Municipal Arborists
    Tree Care Industry Association
    TREE Fund
    The Trust for Public Land
    Water Environment Federation
    Wildlife Habitat Council
                                   supporters
    Alleghany Society of American Foresters
    California ReLeaf
    California Urban Forests Council
    Canopy
    Casey Trees
    Center for Climate Change and Health
    City of Seattle's Office of Sustainability and Environment
    Colorado Tree Coalition
    Community Services Employment Training
    Fathers and Families of San Joaquin
    Friends of Carmel Forest
    Friends of the Urban Forest
    From Lot to Spot
    Greenspace--The Cambria Land Trust
    Huntington Beach Tree Society
    Industrial District Green
    Just One Tree
    Leibman Associates, Inc.
    Los Angeles Beautification Team
    Our City Forest
    Parent Pioneers
    Pinchot Institute for Conservation
    Richmond Trees
    Sacramento Tree Foundation
    Save Our Forest/Fallbrook Land Conservancy
    Solano Advocates Green Environments
    Sonoma Ecology Center
    The Tree Foundation of Kern
    Tree Fresno
    Tree San Diego
    Victoria Avenue Forever
    West Coast Arborists
    Western Chapter-International Society of Arboriculture
    Woodland Tree Foundation
    Woodstock Tree Board
    Your Children's Trees

                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Tanana Chiefs Conference
        The Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) appreciates the opportunity to
    submit written testimony to the subcommittee regarding our priorities
    for fiscal year 2018 concerning appropriations for the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS). We are grateful for this
    subcommittee's bipartisanship--reflected as recently as the final
    fiscal year 2017 appropriations measure--and for the positive results
    the subcommittee has made possible in Alaska Native villages and
    throughout Indian country.
        TCC is a non-profit intertribal consortium of 39 federally-
    recognized Indian Tribes and 41 communities located across Alaska's
    interior. TCC serves approximately 13,000 Alaska Natives in Fairbanks
    where TCC headquarters is located and in the rural villages in Alaska's
    vast interior, strung along the 1,400 mile Yukon River and its
    tributaries. Our service area encompasses 235,000 square miles, about
    the size of Texas. Our most eastern village is Eagle, about four miles
    from the Canadian border. Our most western village is Anvik, about 60
    miles from the Bering Sea. Our 41 constituent villages are remote and
    they must overcome many challenges to build and sustain healthy
    communities. This subcommittee understands the critical element
    necessary to promote healthy communities and sustainable economies;
    community stability. With community stability, good results follow,
    like reduced crime, healthier families, better educated children,
    infrastructure and economic opportunity.
        Our written testimony focuses on the following four areas important
    to the Tribal leadership and the Tribal communities TCC serves: (1)
    improve Tribal healthcare quality and access; (2) expand public safety,
    Tribal court and realty services; (3) help Alaska Natives carry out
    sustainable fish management practices; and (4) promote economic
    development and job creation in rural Alaska villages.
        While TCC appreciates President Trump's recognition of the opioid
    epidemic and the need for public safety in his fiscal year 2018
    ``America First'' Budget Blueprint, we cannot agree with his request to
    reduce spending for non-defense programs, including harmful and
    unwarranted cuts of 12 percent for the Department of the Interior and
    16 percent for the Department of Health and Human Services, including
    hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to vital Tribal programs.
        This subcommittee has worked diligently, year after year, to
    increase funding in such critical areas as Tribal health, public
    safety, Contract Support Costs, education and construction in
    recognition of unmet Tribal needs and the resulting challenges Tribal
    communities face. We are very concerned that cuts to these programs may
    be combined with the loss of tens of millions in grants and awards to
    Tribes from HUD, USDA, DOJ and Education; grants that help us carry out
    our BIA- and IHS-funded programs. For rural interior Alaska Native
    communities, facing a State budget deficit for fiscal year 2018,
    Federal appropriations often make the difference between the success
    and failure of our efforts and, in turn, the wellness of our Tribal
    members.
             1. improve tribal health care quality and access (ihs)
        Increase IHS Services Budget. TCC greatly appreciates the $232
    million increase Congress included in the fiscal year 2017 budget for
    the Indian Health Service, especially the increases of $78 million for
    Hospitals and Clinics programs, $14 million for Purchased/Referred Care
    (P/RC), $13 million for Alcohol and Substance Abuse, $12 million for
    Mental Health, full reimbursement of Contract Support Costs (adding $80
    million), and $22 million increase for IHS Facilities needs for a
    combined appropriation of $5.04 billion for fiscal year 2017.
    Purchased/Referred Care (P/RC) funds are especially critical to us. We
    seek a significant increase in P/RC funds for fiscal year 2018. TCC is
    one of the only Tribal health entities in Alaska that does not have a
    regional hospital. Therefore, we rely heavily on P/RC funds to ensure
    that our patients receive comprehensive health services when we refer
    them to third-party service providers paid for with P/RC funds. For
    fiscal year 2018, we also request significant increases for Mental
    Health, Alcohol and Substance Abuse and Dental Health above the fiscal
    year 2017 enacted levels if we are to meet existing service
    requirements and expand patient health services to meet increasing
    healthcare needs.
        TCC remains deeply appreciative of the subcommittee's creative
    solution to the contract support cost problem to achieve full funding
    without jeopardizing program funding. We respectfully urge the
    subcommittee to continue with its current approach of employing a
    separate and indefinite appropriation. At the same time, we believe
    each agency should add two FTEs to manage the CSC account, engage with
    Tribes and provide robust analysis. IHS's error in estimating 2016 and
    2017 CSC requirements must not be repeated. Errors of that magnitude
    have direct consequences on the subcommittee's ability to appropriate
    funds that IHS, Tribes and Tribal organizations, such as TCC, require
    for the delivery of healthcare services.
        Increase Budget for the Small Ambulatory Program (SAP) and IHS'
    105(l) Leasing Program. We appreciate the appropriation of $5 million
    for the Small Ambulatory Program (SAP) for fiscal year 2017. We ask the
    subcommittee to at least double this figure for fiscal year 2018 so
    that an additional 5-8 Tribes can construct small ambulatory health
    clinics in their communities. For our remote Native villages, a hub
    clinic is sometimes hundreds of miles away from a patient. Too often,
    patients must be transported by medivac at great cost. Village clinics
    play an integral role in providing routine healthcare as well as live
    saving emergency services. In addition, we request the subcommittee to
    direct the IHS, in report language, to explore whether a small clinic
    should be built in one of our Native villages.
        We appreciate the $11 million provided for tribally-leased
    facilities in fiscal year 2017 (which includes $2 million from Direct
    Operations), but we understand these funds were intended to bring up
    the Village Built Clinic (VBC) lease amounts closer to the actual cost
    of operating those facilities. Thus, any 105(l) leases funded out of
    this increase in fiscal years 2017 and 2018 will only serves to keep
    VBC lease payments deficient. Since agency 105(l) lease payments should
    also not come out of program funds, TCC requests that the subcommittee
    create within the Direct Operations account a new subaccount to pay
    required 105(l) Tribal lease payments. The President's Budget asks
    Congress to legislatively override section 105(l) by inserting a
    ``notwithstanding'' clause which would make all lease payments entirely
    discretionary with IHS. We urge the subcommittee to reject IHS's effort
    to repeal a key provision of the ISDEAA. If amendments are to be
    considered to the ISDEAA, it is the role and jurisdiction of the
    authorizing committees to consider the matter in the ordinary course.
        Increase funding for the IHS Domestic Violence Prevention Program
    (DVPP). We greatly appreciate Congress including a $4 million increase
    for the Domestic Violence Prevention Program (DVPP) for fiscal year
    2017. This increase will fund an additional 30 IHS, Tribal and urban
    Indian organizations (averaging $133,000/award). As the CDC has noted,
    one out of every two AI/AN woman will experience domestic violence and
    one out of every three AI/AN women will be sexually assaulted in her
    lifetime. The DVPP provides culturally appropriate domestic violence
    and sexual assault prevention and intervention resources to Tribal
    communities. It is well documented that women in Alaska's rural
    villages report rates of domestic violence that are 10 times higher
    than the rest of the country. We urge the subcommittee to support and
    significantly expand this successful and needed program in 2018.
     2. expand public safety, tribal court and realty services in interior
                                     alaska
        TCC cannot stress enough the importance our Native village leaders
    place on providing their communities with the resources they require to
    supplement limited public safety services. As a Public Law 280 State,
    the State of Alaska has jurisdiction over crimes in Native American
    communities. The BIA, with limited law enforcement funds, prioritizes
    public safety funds in non Public Law 280 States in the incorrect
    assumption that Public Law 280 States are investing the resources and
    personnel required to ensure public safety and law enforcement in
    Native and rural communities. This is not the case. The Alaska
    Department of Public Safety is stretched thin and too few State
    troopers make routine patrols in Native communities. TCC has limited
    recurring funds to pay for our Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO)
    program which works in conjunction with Alaska State Troopers. Our
    VPSOs are the ``First Responders in the Last Frontier'' and they
    respond to emergency calls, fire, EMS and search and rescue.
        Due to limited BIA public safety funds, the role of Tribal Courts
    in Alaska Native villages is critical. It allows our villages to
    address public safety concerns at the community level--in a culturally
    appropriate way--that is more responsive to, and respectful of, local
    Tribal concerns. It seeks to heal and end criminal activity through a
    holistic approach, rather than through arrest, prosecution and
    incarceration, which perpetuates criminal and anti-social behavior and
    recidivism among Alaska Natives. We urge the subcommittee to reject the
    Administration's proposal to cut Tribal Court funding for Public Law
    280 States like Alaska and include an additional $10 million in fiscal
    year 2018, within BIA's Public Safety and Justice account for Tribal
    Courts (TPA) funding, and include report language that the increase
    should be used by BIA in Public Law 280 States, like Alaska.
        We adamantly oppose any cuts to BIA Real Estate and Trust Services
    Funding as unfortunately proposed by the Administration. The money used
    to compact real estate services with Tanana Chiefs and other Tribal
    providers of real estate and trust services is administered with an
    efficiency that could never be matched. We have a realty and probate
    staff of only five people who manage a land area larger than most of
    the States. They serve nearly 7,000 landowning clients, many thousands
    of acres, and oversee a long list of services from Federal probate to
    transactional real estate to trespass investigation. This week we have
    one staff member more than one hundred miles from the nearest
    community, traveling a dozen of these miles on foot, investigating the
    ongoing theft of resources from a 160 acre Native Allotment, another
    employee supplying landowner information to the Bureau of Land
    Management as a wildfire spreads, and yet another taking a witness
    statement from a 96 year old client in the hospital. That is the
    snapshot of a moment in this department where virtually all services
    related to land ownership, transfer, development, and protection are
    overseen by a handful of dedicated professionals with limited funding.
    We currently have a backlog of over 300 cases and as the original
    Tribal landowners age and pass away, they leave in their wake a rapidly
    increasing client base adding to the growing pile. Continued
    fractionation of land ownership means that the number of people
    dependent on our services increases with each passing year. Meanwhile,
    the funding stays stagnant. We have responded to growing numbers by
    taking on incredible workloads. These programs cannot withstand funding
    cuts, and in fact, funding should reflect the increasing population of
    clients. Please add at least $8 million to this account in fiscal year
    2018.
     3. help alaska natives carry out sustainable fish management practices
        It is the priority of every Alaska Native to continue traditional
    hunting and fishing practices which promote the social, cultural and
    spiritual wellness of our people. We want to share a success story that
    was borne out of Tribal sacrifice to illustrate why increased funding
    for the Tribal Management/Development Program is warranted in fiscal
    year 2018. It concerns Chinook Salmon (King Salmon) management along
    the Yukon River and tributaries where our Native villages are located.
    During the 1990s, the average run of King Salmon in the Yukon River was
    just below 300,000 fish. Runs began to decline in the 2000s. In 2013,
    the run plummeted to a record low 60,000 fish. The Native Alaska
    villages along the Yukon knew that it would fall to them to make
    sacrifices. In 2014, the Native villages of the Yukon River came
    together in St. Mary's, Alaska and for future generations imposed a
    fish moratorium on King Salmon. In 2015, the villages agreed to further
    conservation efforts and continued the moratorium. The villages also
    formed the Yukon River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (YRITFC), which TCC
    supports.
        The self-imposed moratorium left Tribal members with little to no
    traditional King Salmon harvest. Due to their sacrifice, for the first
    time in over a decade, the United States met its escapement goal to
    Canada for King Salmon in 2014, and then exceeded their escapement goal
    in 2015, all to ensure the continued existence of the King Salmon in
    the Yukon River. In 2015, the run had rebounded to about 150,000 King
    Salmon. The sacrifice hurt Tribal members who depend on King Salmon for
    their subsistence. Forgoing fish camps in 2014 and 2015 was extremely
    difficult and a financial hardship on our members. It also harmed us
    culturally, for it is in fish camps that Alaska Native youth learn
    math, science, spirituality and how to fish from their elders. We
    cannot express how difficult a sacrifice this was for our members.
        On July 17, 2016, Alaska Lt. Governor Byron Mallott, Alaska Fish &
    Game Commissioner, Sam Cotton, and Rural Affairs Director, Albert
    Kookesh, joined TCC officials and myself on a four-day trip to tour
    interior villages on the Yukon River and listen to community members to
    get a better understanding of how to improve the management of the
    Chinook run. We noted to the Alaska State officials who accompanied us
    on our tour to fish camps and the villages of Tanana, Rampart, Stevens
    Village, Beaver, Fort Yukon, Circle and Eagle, that the Tribal members
    always fed us fish. Even though they had little to share, they gave us
    their best. Now, we ask you to do your best; honor the Commission--and
    the Alaska Native stakeholders--in their efforts to save Yukon's King
    Salmon by increasing BIA's Tribal Management/Development Program in
    fiscal year 2018 to $14.266 million, a modest increase of $3 million,
    and direct that half the increase address subsistence management in
    Alaska by Tribal entities like the Yukon River Inter-Tribal Fish
    Commission. Please sustain this effort annually so that the Commission
    can ensure the viability of King Salmon in the Yukon River and our
    traditional subsistence practices. Alaska's interior, like the coast,
    is under environmental threat from floods, bank erosion and wildfires.
    The Commission has demonstrated that it stands shoulder to shoulder
    with State and Federal fish management officials as a capable steward.
       4. promote economic development and job creation in rural alaska
                                    villages
        In 2016, through various support programs, we assisted nearly 200
    Tribal members in Fairbanks and in our Native villages with CDL
    classes, employment training in facility maintenance, flooring and
    cabinet installation, plumbing, plastic and cooper pipe fitting,
    wildland firefighting training, and cooking. We provided over 2,000 bus
    token to nearly 750 interior Tribal members in the city of Fairbanks
    who were searching for work, and gave nearly 2,000 free computer lab
    sessions to employment seekers. These are small, but helpful measures,
    and we ask this subcommittee to increase resources for BIA job training
    and retraining programs, and adult education programs in fiscal year
    2018. There is great dignity in learning a trade and providing for your
    family. Such investments yield tremendous returns by allowing our
    members to compete more effectively for jobs. Please provide meaningful
    increases to the BIA budget to help promote job creation in our rural
    Native villages, where work is seasonal and unemployment remains high.
    Our current resources are simply inadequate to the task at hand.
        Thank you for permitting TCC the opportunity to submit written
    testimony.

                                     ______

                             Teague Alexandra deg.
    Prepared Statement of Alexandra Teague, Associate Professor, University
                                    of Idaho
    Dear Senate Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies:

        As a 2011 recipient of an NEA fellowship for poetry, I am writing
    to attest that this fellowship--which represents a miniscule fraction
    of the Federal Government's budget--was life-changing for me and for
    the many students whom I have subsequently taught. After many years as
    an adjunct community college instructor, who struggled financially and
    to find time for my own writing, receiving an NEA fellowship allowed me
    to focus on writing my second book of poetry, The Wise and Foolish
    Builders, and to secure a tenure-track position at University of Idaho,
    a land-grant institution that serves many first-generation college
    students.
        At University of Idaho, I have spent the past 6 years teaching a
    range of creative writing and literature classes that not only help
    build specialized creative writing skills, but as importantly, help
    students understand a wide range of others' stories and perspectives,
    and to express their own thoughts and experiences. I regularly hear in
    my student evaluations that the critical thinking and communication
    skills that my students gain in these courses helps them more
    compassionately and complexly understand the world in which they live--
    and they apply these communication skills and perspectives to a wide
    range of future careers including high school and college teaching and
    law. Many of my students also go on to become published writers, whose
    stories of cancer survival, domestic abuse, and so many other subjects
    are vital for others to hear.
        Literature literally saves lives: I cannot count the number of
    students in my 20-year teaching career who have told me about hearing
    someone else's story through a literature or creative writing class
    that helped them understand some traumatic experience of their own and/
    or gave them a reason to keep going and overcoming the challenges they
    faced (whether mental health or financial or of many other sorts). In
    my career, I have taught formerly (and currently) homeless students;
    students whose children had tragically died; students who were the
    first in their family to even finish high school, much less college;
    students who were living in neighborhoods where drive-by shootings were
    a daily occurrence. If we care about this country and its people (which
    frankly I worry the Federal Government has ceased to), then we should
    care that we know how to communicate across difference and hear one
    another and give one another hope.
        And that is what the NEA helps to support in so many ways, and at
    such a small financial cost in comparison to the vast social benefit.
    Please, from the bottom of my heart and my students', if you have ever
    read a story that mattered to you--if you care at all about the written
    word or self expression--do not cut these vital fellowships.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Theatre Communications Group
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the subcommittee, Theatre
    Communications Group--the national service organization for the
    American theatre--is grateful for this opportunity to submit testimony
    on behalf of our 521 not-for-profit member theatres across the country
    and the nearly 30 million audience members that the theatre community
    serves.

    -- We urge you to support funding at $155 million for the National
    Endowment for the Arts for fiscal year 18.

        The entire not-for-profit arts industry stimulates the economy,
    creates jobs, and attracts tourism dollars. The not-for-profit arts
    generate $135.2 billion annually in economic activity, support 4.13
    million jobs, and return $22.3 billion in government revenue. Art
    museums, exhibits, and festivals combine with performances of theatre,
    dance, opera, and music to draw tourists and their consumer dollars to
    communities nationwide. Federal funding for the arts creates a
    significant return, generating nine dollars in matching funds for each
    Federal dollar awarded, and is clearly an investment in the economic
    health of America. In an economy where corporate donations and
    foundation grants to the arts are diminished and increased ticket
    prices would undermine efforts to broaden and diversify audiences,
    these Federal funds simply cannot be replaced. Maintaining the strength
    of the not-for-profit sector, along with the commercial sector, is
    vital to supporting the economic health of our Nation.
        Our country's not-for-profit theatres present new works and serve
    as catalysts for economic growth in their local communities. These
    theatres also nurture and provide artistic homes for the development of
    the current generation of acclaimed writers, actors, directors, and
    designers working in regional theatre, on Broadway, and in the film and
    television industries. Our theatres develop innovative educational
    activities and outreach programs, providing millions of young people,
    including ``at-risk'' youth, with important skills for the future by
    expanding their creativity and developing problem-solving, reasoning,
    and communication abilities--preparing today's students to become
    tomorrow's citizens. At the same time, theatres have become
    increasingly responsive to their communities, serving as healing forces
    in difficult times and producing work that reflects and celebrates the
    strength of our Nation's diversity.

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

        The NEA has awarded a $15,000 grant to Touchstone Theatre in
    Bethlehem, Pennsylvania to support its Young Playwrights' Lab, bringing
    an eight-week playwriting residency to students in 3rd--12th grade.
    Through this grant, Touchstone partnered with 10 public schools in
    Allentown, Bethlehem, and Easton to offer an afterschool residency,
    reaching approximately 150 students. Twice a week for eight weeks
    during 90-minute sessions, two professional teaching artists guide
    students through theatre, journaling exercises, and workshops. Students
    learn to create dialogue, refine plot, and enhance their editing
    ability. The supportive workshop environment helps students improve
    communication and literacy skills, build self-esteem, and develop
    creative voices. At the end of the Lab, a handful of student-written
    plays are selected and professionally produced in the annual Young
    Playwrights' Festival. All Young Playwrights' Lab student participants
    receive complimentary tickets to attend the Young Playwrights'
    Festival.
        The Coterie Theatre in Kansas City, Missouri received a $10,000 Art
    Works grant to support the development and production of Imaginary
    Friends by Laurie Brooks. The theatre commissioned Brooks to write a
    play for teens and families that is adapted from a short story by her
    brother, award-winning fantasy author Terry Brooks. The story centers
    on a young teen with a serious illness who must face a demon alone. In
    the play, playwright Brooks will further develop these themes and add a
    new work of fantasy to the canon of dramatic literature aimed at teens
    and pre-teens. Imaginary Friends will open on January 26, 2018 for 28
    performances and is expected to reach over 5,800 students and educators
    as well as families and individuals. The Coterie has an established,
    diverse audience drawn from all demographic areas in a city that sits
    on the State line between Missouri and Kansas, with 50 percent of its
    audiences drawn from each side. As the theatre is centrally located,
    the play will reach urban, suburban, and rural communities alike.
    Approximately 200 in-school residencies will occur to prepare students
    for the play's topics. Interactive forums after each performance will
    further explore the play's themes
        With a $10,000 Art Works grant from the NEA, Idaho Shakespeare
    Festival was able to grow its Access Program and open the door to enjoy
    the professional theatre arts for over 30,000 people ages 5 to 100,
    many of whom would otherwise not have been able to attend. The program
    includes a tour--with over 100 performances for elementary students
    across the State of Idaho--that features an engaging new script, full
    set, costumes, and sound. Additionally, the program creates access for
    students of all ages, the deaf and hard-of-hearing, elderly on fixed
    income, at-risk youth, refugees, wounded veterans (as well as their
    families), and volunteer service providers to attend the Festival's
    mainstage season. By integrating those with special needs into its
    audience, Idaho Shakespeare Festival's Access Program has significantly
    broadened the demographic makeup and interest of those able to
    experience performances.
        Perseverance Theatre, which produces theatre by and for the people
    of Alaska, received a $10,000 Art Works grant from the NEA for the
    world premiere of They Don't Talk Back, by Frank Katasse of the Alaskan
    Tlingit Tribe, directed by Randy Reinholz of the Choctaw Tribe. The
    NEA's funding helps local communities across Alaska connect with their
    past and with one another. The play explores issues of family, coming
    of age, and honoring one's culture in the face of change as a young
    Tlingit man from Juneau returns to his family's village. Contemporary
    characters are paired with traditional Tlingit music and storytelling.
    The themes of the play are lifelong love, the impact of military
    service on veterans and their families, and the challenges of keeping
    family ties strong in the modern world. They Don't Talk Back will have
    19 performances in Juneau and will have 9 more in Anchorage, reaching
    approximately 5,000 audience members across Alaska. Outreach activities
    will include four pay-what-you-can performances; a performance in honor
    of Alaska Legislative Appreciation Night; and discounted tickets for
    seniors, students, and military personnel.
        These are only a few examples of the kinds of extraordinary
    programs supported by the National Endowment for the Arts. Indeed, the
    Endowment's Theatre Program is able to fund only 60 percent of the
    applications it receives, so 40 percent of applying theatres are turned
    away--in part because available funds are insufficient. Theatre
    Communications Group urges you to support a funding level of $155
    million for fiscal year 18 for the NEA; to maintain citizen access to
    the cultural, educational, and economic benefits of the arts; and to
    advance creativity and innovation in communities across the United
    States.
        The arts infrastructure of the United States is critical to the
    Nation's well-being and economic vitality. It is supported by a
    remarkable combination of government, business, foundation, and
    individual donors and represents a striking example of Federal/State/
    private partnership. Federal support for the arts provides a measure of
    stability for arts programs nationwide and is critical at a time when
    other sources of funding are diminished. Further, the American public
    favors spending Federal tax dollars in support of the arts.
        The NEA is currently funded at $150 million in the fiscal year 17
    budget, and despite the President's proposal for a mid-year cut, the
    subcommittee and Congress approved a $2 million increase. We thank the
    subcommittee for its leadership in supporting the work of the NEA.
    Please stand firm against the President's proposal to eliminate the
    NEA. We urge the subcommittee to fund the NEA at a level of $155
    million to preserve the important cultural programs reaching Americans
    across the country.
        Thank you for considering this request.

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

                                     ______

                               Thomas Sarah deg.
                       Prepared Statement of Sarah Thomas
        To the Senate Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies:

        I write to express my deep concern and outrage at the proposed
    budget cuts to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National
    Endowment for the Humanities, and to urge that you do not allow these
    cuts to decimate two institutions that are fundamental to our Nation's
    cultural enrichment, heritage, and status as a leader in the world.
        George Washington knew the importance of the arts among other
    fields of knowledge, not just for personal growth but indeed for
    fostering national and universal understanding, transformation, and
    justice. He wrote that ``the Arts and Sciences, essential to the
    prosperity of the State and to the ornament of human life, have a
    primary claim to the encouragement of every lover of his country and
    mankind.''
        When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into existence the National
    Endowment for the Arts, he signaled their vital importance, saying:
    ``Art is a nation's most precious heritage. For it is in our works of
    art that we reveal to ourselves and to others the inner vision which
    guides us as a nation. And where there is no vision, the people
    perish.''
        While our current President seems to think that the Nation can do
    without the arts, literature, and the humanities, his predecessors saw
    their importance to create a vibrant, just society aware of its
    heritage and inspired about its future. These funds contribute to
    educational and cultural institutions, individual artists, writers, and
    creators, without all of which our Nation would be impoverished and
    slide further away from the ideals on which it was founded.
        I urge you to reconsider these unnecessary cuts (with a fraction of
    the profit made in a recent arms deal with Saudi Arabia, these
    institutions could be protected almost in perpetuity) and acknowledge
    the importance of the arts and humanities to our Nation's future. If
    you choose to eliminate them, you do so to the detriment of the Nation
    at large.

                Sincerely yours,
                                                  Sarah Thomas,
             Assistant Professor of Hispanic Studies, Brown University.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Tribal Law and Policy Institute
        On behalf of the Tribal Law and Policy Institute (TLPI), this
    testimony addresses important programs in the Department of Interior,
    Indian Health Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Environmental
    Protection Agency as they concern Tribal justice system funding.
    Specifically, TLPI joins the National Congress of American Indians
    (NCAI) in requesting:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Program                   NCAI Fiscal Year 2018 Request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOI: Bureau of Indian Affairs         Provide increases via Tribal base
                                           funding instead of through grants
    DOI: Bureau of Indian Affairs         $82 million in additional funding
                                           for base funding for Tribal
                                           courts
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        TLPI is a 100 percent Native American operated non-profit
    corporation organized to design and deliver education, research,
    training, and technical assistance programs which promote the
    enhancement of justice in Indian country and the health, well-being,
    and culture of Native peoples.
        Native American and Alaska Native Nations constitute a third
    sovereign within the American system of justice. The vast majority of
    the more than 350 current Tribal justice systems function in isolated
    rural communities. Tribal justice systems face complex jurisdictional
    limits over individuals in its territory, complex relationships with
    Federal and State criminal justice systems, inadequate law enforcement,
    lack of detention staff and facilities, lack of sentencing or
    disposition alternatives, lack of access to advanced technology, and
    lack of substance abuse testing and treatment options. Yet ``the
    effective operation of Tribal courts is essential to promote the
    sovereignty and self-governance of the Indian Tribes.'' \1\ As the
    Supreme Court has recognized, ``[T]ribal courts play a vital role in
    Tribal self-government, and the Federal Government has consistently
    encouraged their development.'' \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Sandra Day O'Connor, Lessons from the Third Sovereign: Indian
    Tribal Courts, 33 TULSA L.J. 1, 2 (1997).
        \2\ See Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9, 14-15 (1987).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Part of the Federal trust responsibility to Indian Tribes includes
    basic governmental services in Indian Country, funding for which is
    appropriated in the discretionary portion of the Federal budget. Tribal
    governments exist to protect and preserve their unique cultures,
    identities, and natural environments for posterity. As governments,
    Tribes must deliver a wide range of critical services, such as
    education, workforce development, and first-responder and public safety
    services, to their citizens. The Federal budget for Tribal governmental
    services reflects the extent to which the United States honors its
    promises to Indian people.
        Yet Tribal justice systems historically have been under-funded and
    continue to be under-funded in most Tribal communities. In 1991, the
    United States Civil Rights Commission found that ``the failure of the
    United States Government to provide proper funding for the operation of
    Tribal judicial systems . . . has continued for more than 20 years.''
    \3\ The Commission also noted that ``[f]unding for Tribal judicial
    systems may be further hampered in some instances by the pressures of
    competing priorities within a Tribe.'' \4\ Moreover, they opined that
    ``[i]f the United States Government is to live up to its trust
    obligations, it must assist Tribal governments in their development. .
    . .'' \5\ The Commission ``strongly support[ed] the pending and
    proposed congressional initiatives to authorize funding of Tribal
    courts in an amount equal to that of an equivalent State court'' and
    was ``hopeful that this increased funding [would] allow for much needed
    increases in salaries for judges, the retention of law clerks for
    Tribal judges, the funding of public defenders/defense counsel, and
    increased access to legal authorities.'' \6\ The Indian Law and Order
    Commission (ILOC) noted that in addition to funding shortfalls, short-
    term, competitive funding approach is deficient because it reflects
    Federal priorities rather than Tribal ones, favors hired grant-writers,
    requires Tribes to compete against each other, and offers only three-
    year programs that often leave Tribes with staff turnover and short-
    term programs.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ United States Commission on Civil Rights, The Indian Civil
    Rights Act: A Report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights 71
    (June 1991).
        \4\ Id.
        \5\ Id.
        \6\ Id.
        \7\ Indian Law and Order Commission, A Roadmap for Making Native
    America Safer: Report to the President & Congress of the United States
    83 (2013) [hereinafter ILOC Report].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Allocate $82 Million for Tribal Base Funding
        In September 2015, the Bureau of Indian Affairs submitted a report
    to Congress that revealed that the BIA is funding most Tribal courts at
    a dismal 6 percent of estimated need.\8\ The BIA estimates that full
    funding for Tribal courts would cost over $860 million. For Tribal
    courts operating in Public Law 280 jurisdictions, funding has been even
    lower. BIA estimates that it would cost an additional $16.9 million for
    Tribes in mandatory Public Law 280 jurisdictions to be funded at 6
    percent of need noting that ``while $16.9 million would not be widely
    viewed as robust or perhaps even adequate, it would match existing
    levels of funding in non-Public Law 280 States, which reflect a
    constrained fiscal environment.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ ``Report to the Congress on The Budgetary Cost Estimates of
    Tribal Courts in Public Law 83-280 States,'' Bureau of Indian Affairs,
    Office of Justice Services (Sept. 16, 2015).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The critical financial need of Tribal courts ultimately led to the
    passage of the Indian Tribal Justice Act (the ``Act'').\9\ Congress
    found that ``[t]ribal justice systems are an essential part of Tribal
    governments and serve as important forums for ensuring public health,
    safety and the political integrity of Tribal governments.'' \10\
    Affirming the findings of the Civil Rights Commission, Congress further
    found that ``Tribal justice systems are inadequately funded, and the
    lack of adequate funding impairs their operation.'' \11\ In order to
    remedy this lack of funding, the Act authorized appropriation base
    funding support for Tribal justice systems in the amount of $50,000,000
    for each of the fiscal years 1994 through 2000.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Public Law No. 103-176 (codified at 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et
    seq.)
        \10\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601(5).
        \11\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601(8).
        \12\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3621(b).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To carry out the provisions of the Indian Tribal Justice Act,
    Congress authorized annual appropriations of over $58 million annually
    for each of the fiscal years 1994-1999 with $50 million annually for
    base support funding for Tribal justice systems. In today's dollars
    this would be $82 million per year, which would be less than 10 percent
    of the overall need estimated by BIA. Unfortunately, a total of only $5
    million of the more than $58 million per year appropriated was actually
    appropriated through 1999.\13\ Since Congress enacted the Indian Tribal
    Justice Act in 1993, the needs of Tribal court systems have continued
    to increase, but there has been no corresponding increase in funding
    for Tribal court systems.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ United States Commission on Civil Rights, A Quiet Crisis:
    Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country 79 (2003)
    *hereinafter ``A Quiet Crisis''+.
        \14\ In 2000, Congress reaffirmed the Congressional commitment to
    provide this increased funding for Tribal justice systems when it
    reauthorized the Act for seven more years of funding at the same level
    of more than $58 million per year through the Indian Tribal Justice
    Technical and Legal Assistance Act. See Pub. L. No. 106-559 Sec. 202.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Despite numerous congressional reauthorizations of the Act over the
    past couple of decades--most recently in the Tribal Law and Order Act
    (TLOA)\15\--funds have never been appropriated to implement the Act.
    The Act does not differentiate between Tribes subject to Public Law 280
    jurisdiction or not. The promise of this much-needed base funding must
    be fulfilled. We ask Congress to commit to fully funding Tribal courts
    within the next 5 years by incrementally increasing funding each year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Tribal Law and Order Act, Public Law 111-211, Sec. 242 (2010).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   conclusion
        Thank you for your consideration of this testimony. For more
    information, please contact Lauren van Schilfgaarde, Tribal Law
    Specialist, at lauren@tlpi.org.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Trust for Public Land
        Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and distinguished
    members of the Interior subcommittee:

        Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit testimony on
    behalf of The Trust for Public Land in support of programs under your
    jurisdiction for the fiscal year 2018 appropriations process. The Trust
    for Public Land (TPL) is a national nonprofit land conservation
    organization working to protect land for people in communities across
    the Nation. We are extremely grateful for the support members of this
    subcommittee and other conservation leaders in Congress have shown for
    Federal conservation programs during these challenging fiscal times.
        We recognize that the subcommittee will again face enormous
    challenges in meeting the broad range of priority needs in the Interior
    and Environment bill this year. The President's Budget request for
    fiscal year 2018 has proposed drastic program reductions and has
    eliminated core Federal conservation programs that have long had an
    impact in communities across the country. Our work in many of your
    districts and elsewhere shows that there is tremendous support for
    conservation and access to recreation at the local, State and Federal
    level, and the programs under your jurisdiction play a critical role in
    bringing those community visions to reality.
        Federal funding is an absolutely critical part of the conservation
    toolbox and provides manifold benefits to the American people. Given
    the limited public conservation funding at all levels of government,
    TPL works to leverage Federal conservation dollars, bringing to bear
    private philanthropic support as well as State and local funding to
    forge solutions to sometimes complex conservation funding challenges.
    Aware of these realities, many of our recommendations are for programs
    to remain at the enacted level of fiscal year 2017. The major programs
    under your jurisdiction that we count on year in and year out are the
    entire suite of Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) programs--
    including BLM, FWS, NPS and USFS acquisitions, NPS State and local
    grants, the Forest Legacy Program, Cooperative Endangered Species
    Conservation Fund, and American Battlefield Protection Program--as well
    as the USFWS North American Wetlands Conservation Act, USFS Community
    Forest Program, and National Endowment for the Arts.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund.--After celebrating its 50th
    anniversary in 2014, Congress reauthorized LWCF in a bipartisan manner
    for three additional years until September 30, 2018. In the recent
    fiscal year 2017 appropriations bill, Congress furnished the program
    with $400 million. The appropriations committees also included
    important conference report language that instructed the Federal land
    management agencies to continue ranking projects for fiscal year 2018
    and to have those lists available to Congress upon request. We are
    extremely grateful to the members of the subcommittee for their
    critical role in all of these efforts, which have resulted in important
    conservation and outdoor recreation investments at the local, State and
    Federal levels. Investments in conservation and outdoor recreation make
    sound economic sense. The Outdoor Industry Association estimated this
    year that active outdoor recreation contributes $887 billion annually
    to the U.S. economy, supports nearly 7.6 million jobs across the
    country, and generates $65.3 billion in annual Federal tax revenue.
        Most urgently, we urge you to reject the fiscal year 2018
    President's Budget request for LWCF. The Budget reduces LWCF from the
    enacted level of $400 million (itself a cut of $50 million from enacted
    fiscal year 2016) to $64 million. This is an 84 percent cut from the
    enacted level. It eliminates funding for the Forest Legacy Program, the
    Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, and the Highlands
    Conservation Act. It includes no funding for acquisition projects
    anywhere in the country, denying ongoing land protection efforts in
    Alaska, New Mexico, Montana, California, Mississippi, and many other
    States.
        We urge the subcommittee to continue to invest in LWCF as it did in
    fiscal year 2017 and provide at least the enacted $400 million for the
    entire program. Continued annual investment in the entire suite of LWCF
    programs as Congress provided in fiscal year 2017 is essential and we
    are ready to work with the subcommittee to ensure that dollars invested
    are well spent on our Nation's most urgent needs. We greatly appreciate
    the key role your subcommittee plays in ensuring that program dollars
    are used for high-priority strategic investments and appreciate that in
    challenging budgetary times you have maintained a commitment to this
    bipartisan program.
        LWCF's programs bring specific and complementary conservation
    benefits to the American public. These key programs are:
        BLM/FWS/NPS/USFS Land Acquisitions.--Every year tens of millions of
    Americans, as well as visitors to our country, enjoy our Federal public
    lands--national parks, forests, wildlife refuges and BLM conservation
    lands. Recent data shows that National Park Service units were visited
    by larger numbers than in the past 20 years. Strategic inholding and
    other acquisitions in these Federal areas through LWCF ensure
    recreation access and nature education; foster vital economic growth;
    protect clean water and other community resources; enhance the
    incomparable natural and scenic treasures that belong to all Americans;
    and frequently resolve complex land-use conflicts and produce
    management savings. Without adequate funding, the unfortunate
    alternative often is an irretrievable loss of public use and enjoyment
    of these areas and irreversible damage to the resources we all care
    about. We strenuously oppose the budget proposal eliminating all funds
    for land protection projects.
        We applaud the inclusion of recreational access line items in the
    fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017 omnibus appropriations bills for
    each of the four land management agencies--with particular emphasis on
    BLM and USFS--and support similarly focused funding in the fiscal year
    2018 bill to address opening up and improving public access to the
    outdoors. The President's Budget eliminated recreational access funding
    for all four land management agencies. We urge you to restore it.
        USFS: Forest Legacy Program.--For over 25 years, the Forest Legacy
    Program has been an extraordinarily effective program, providing
    assistance to States and localities seeking to preserve important
    working forests. It has protected over 2.5 million acres of forestland
    and has leveraged more than the required 25 percent match. Forest
    Legacy projects provide multiple public benefits through forest
    protection--clean water, wildlife protection, climate change adaptation
    and mitigation, public access to recreation, economic development and
    sustainable forestry. Working with States, landowners and other
    partners, we have worked to submit a number of projects to protect
    recreation access for snowmobilers and hikers, ensure jobs in the
    woods, buffer important Federal and State conservation areas and
    provide strategic land conservation that fits a larger goal. Among
    these are projects to protect the recreational access and critical
    wildlife habitat in Montana and New Mexico, working forests along Hood
    Canal and Puget Sound in Washington, and forests along the Pascagoula
    River in Mississippi. We strongly oppose the administration's
    elimination of this program and instead urge your continued support for
    sustained investment in this strategic and successful program.
        USFWS: Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund.--We are
    grateful for the subcommittee's historic support for the Cooperative
    Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF), which leverages State and
    private funds to protect threatened and endangered species habitat
    across the Nation. Two components of this program are funded via LWCF:
    the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Land Acquisition program and the
    Recovery Land Acquisition (RLA) program. The CESCF has been critical to
    communities in Montana, Hawaii, and California where landowners and
    public wildlife managers are working together through integrated
    planning to foster species recovery and appropriate economic
    development. The land acquisition portion of this program was
    eliminated in the President's Budget. We support at least the enacted
    fiscal year 2017 level of $30.8 million for the HCP and RLA land
    acquisition programs in fiscal year 2018.
        NPS: State and Local Assistance grants.--Since 1965, the State and
    local assistance grant program has provided over $4 billion in Federal
    funds for more than 42,000 projects in States and local communities for
    park protection and development of recreation facilities. This program
    reaches deep into communities across our Nation, supporting citizen-led
    efforts to conserve places of local importance and opportunities for
    close-to-home recreation. Through our Parks for People Program, The
    Trust for Public Land works with local communities to create, build,
    design, fund and care for parks, trails and playgrounds. As we continue
    our work with many of these communities to meet these needs, we hope
    the subcommittee will continue to provide funding to this important
    program. We also strongly support the allocation of a portion of LWCF
    State and local assistance funds to the nationwide competitive program,
    the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Program, which has now been included in
    four consecutive appropriations bills. Last year Congress demonstrated
    its commitment to this program by keeping the funding level at $12
    million, for which we are extremely grateful. We support an allocation
    of $12 million for ORLP in fiscal year 2018.
        NPS: American Battlefield Protection Program.--We applaud the
    subcommittee for its longstanding commitment to this important program,
    which complements acquisitions of threatened Civil War, Revolutionary
    War, and War of 1812 properties in national park units with non-Federal
    land protection of key battlefield sites. We hope that Congress can
    fully fund the program again at the enacted $10 million level in fiscal
    year 2018.
        Beyond LWCF, we urge the subcommittee to provide adequate funding
    to other conservation programs including:
        USFWS: North American Wetlands Conservation Act.--We respectfully
    request your support for program funding at the enacted level of
    $38.145 million in fiscal year 2018. The North American Wetlands
    Conservation Act (NAWCA) provides much-needed matching grants to carry
    out wetlands conservation, restoration and enhancement projects. NAWCA
    is a highly-leveraged program with a substantial record of success and
    is another important Federal conservation tool to support critical
    wetland habitat.
        USFS: Community Forest Program.--Contrary to the President's
    Budget, which eliminates the program, we urge your continued support
    for the Community Forest Program (CFP), which complements existing
    conservation programs by helping communities and Tribes identify,
    purchase, and manage locally important forestlands that are threatened
    with development. These community forests can be tailored to local
    needs, from timber revenue for municipal or county budgets to
    recreation access and outdoor education. Every Federal dollar from CFP
    is at least evenly matched by funding from State, local, and private
    sources. The Forest Service has now approved 35 grants in 17 States and
    territories--including Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Kentucky,
    Montana, California, Oregon, and Washington--for innovative local and
    Tribal projects, and the program has generated significant interest
    from local entities concerned about the future of their close-to-home
    forests. Given the strong interest in community forests from coast to
    coast, we urge you to include $5 million in the fiscal year 2018 bill
    for this innovative conservation tool.
        Wildfire Disaster Funding Act.--We also support efforts to improve
    budgeting for forest fire management that will provide Federal agencies
    the means to fight fires without raiding other important Federal
    programs, like LWCF. America's forests and forest-dependent communities
    are at risk from outbreaks of pests and pathogens, persistent drought,
    and the buildup of hazardous fuels. Urbanization and development
    patterns are placing more homes and communities near fire-prone
    landscapes, leading to more destructive and costly wildfires. The
    current wildfire suppression funding model and cycle of transfers and
    repayments has negatively impacted the ability to implement forest
    management, among many other activities. We strongly support the
    bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act, which addresses Federal fire
    funding challenges. It would provide a fire funding solution that would
    1) access disaster funding, 2) minimize transfers, and 3) address the
    continued erosion of agency budgets over time, with the goal of
    reinvesting in key programs that would restore forests to healthier
    conditions.
        National Endowment for the Arts.--Since its establishment by
    Congress in 1965, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has
    provided strategic leadership and investment in the arts. Through
    partnerships with State arts agencies, local leaders, other Federal
    agencies, and the philanthropic sector, the NEA supports arts learning,
    affirms and celebrates America's rich and diverse cultural heritage,
    and extends its work to promote equal access to the arts in every
    community across America. NEA provides not only critical funding and
    resources to the arts community but also significant investments in
    parks and community development through its Art Works and Our Town
    grants. According to analysis by Americans for the Arts, every $1 of
    NEA funding leverages $9 in private and public dollars and fuels a
    dynamic cultural economy and generates millions of American jobs.
    Should NEA and its funds be cut or eliminated, the impact will be
    devastating to the arts community and to local park departments and
    community development organizations. We strongly urge the inclusion of
    $155 million for the agency in fiscal year 2018 in order to preserve
    access to the cultural, educational, and economic benefits of the arts.
        The programs highlighted here are critical to the future of
    conservation at the local, State and Federal levels; reflect the
    continued demand on the part of the American people for access to
    outdoor recreation; and help sustain our economy and reflect the true
    partnership that exists in Federal conservation efforts. As ever, we
    are deeply thankful for the subcommittee's recognition of the
    importance of these programs and urge you to maintain robust funding
    for them in the fiscal year 2018 Interior, Environment and Related
    Agencies bill. Thank you for your help and support, and for your
    consideration of our requests.

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

     Prepared Statement of the United States Section of the Pacific Salmon
                                   Commission
        Mr. Chairman, and Honorable Members of the subcommittee, I am Ron
    Allen, the Alternate Tribal Commissioner and Chair of the Finance and
    Administration Committee for the U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon
    Commission (PSC). The U.S. Section prepares an annual budget for
    implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The integrated budget
    details program needs and costs for Tribal, Federal, and State agencies
    involved in the Treaty. Tribal participation in the Treaty process is
    funded in the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget.
        In order meet the increased obligations under the 2009-2018 Pacific
    Salmon Treaty Agreement the 25 affected Tribes identified costs at
    $4,800,000 for Tribal research projects and participation in the U.S.-
    Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty process, an increase of $470,000 over
    fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The funding for Tribal participation in
    the Pacific Salmon Treaty is a line item in the BIA's budget under
    Rights Protection Implementation.
        Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service programs, the U.S. Section
    identified needs as follows:
        USFWS participation in the Treaty process is funded at $372,362 for
    fiscal year 2016. The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission's
    Regional Mark Center (PSMFC) receives support from the USFWS to provide
    data services to the PSC process at a level of $236,189 for fiscal year
    2016. The total for the two programs is $608,551. This represents a
    decrease from fiscal year 2010 levels, which were $417,673 for USFWS
    and $315,000 for PSMFC, for a grand total of $732,673. The US Section
    recommends increasing the fiscal year 2018 funding for these programs
    by $50,000, which partially restores both programs to previous funding
    levels.
        This base funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports
    critically important on-going work. The funding for Pacific States
    Marine Fisheries Commission's Regional Mark Center is utilized to meet
    Treaty requirements concerning data exchange with Canada. These program
    recommendations are integrated with those of the State and Federal
    agencies to avoid duplication of effort and provide for the most
    efficient expenditure of scarce funds.
        Funding to support activities under the Pacific Salmon Commission
    comes from the Departments of Interior, State, and Commerce. The U.S.
    Section can provide a cross-cut budget summary to the subcommittee.
    Adequate funding from all three Departments is necessary for the U.S.
    to meet its treaty obligations. All of the funds are needed for
    critical data collection and research activities directly related to
    the implementation and are used in cooperative programs involving
    Federal, State, and Tribal fishery agencies and the Department of
    Fisheries in Canada. The commitment of the United States is matched by
    the commitment of the Government of Canada.
        The U.S. Section of the PSC is recommending an adjustment to
    support the work carried out by the twenty-four treaty Tribes'
    participating in implementation of the Treaty. Programs carried out by
    the Tribes are closely coordinated with those of the States and Federal
    agencies. Tribal programs are essential for the United States to meet
    its international obligations. Tribal programs have taken on additional
    management responsibilities due to funding issues with State agencies.
    All participating agencies need to be adequately supported to achieve a
    comprehensive US effort to implement the Treaty.
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service activities are necessary so the
    U.S. can maintain the critical database to implement the Treaty. The
    work of the Regional Mark Processing Center includes maintaining and
    updating a coastwide computerized information management system for
    salmon harvest data as required by the Treaty. This work has become
    even more important to monitor the success of management actions at
    reducing impacts on ESA-listed salmon populations. Canada has a
    counterpart database. The U.S. database will continue to be housed at
    the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.
        Mr. Chairman, the United States and Canada established the Pacific
    Salmon Commission, under the Pacific Salmon Treaty of 1985, to conserve
    salmon stocks, provide for optimum production of salmon, and to control
    salmon interceptions. After thirty years, the work of the Pacific
    Salmon Commission continues to be essential for the wise management of
    salmon in the Northwest, British Columbia, and Alaska. For example,
    upriver bright fall Chinook salmon from the Hanford Reach of the
    Columbia River are caught in large numbers in Alaskan and Canadian
    waters. Tribal and non-Tribal fishermen harvest sockeye salmon from
    Canada's Fraser River in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and in Puget Sound.
    Canadian trollers off of the west coast of Vancouver Island catch
    Washington coastal Coho salmon and Puget Sound Chinook salmon. In the
    Northern Boundary area between Canada and Alaska, fish from both
    countries are intercepted by the other country in large numbers. The
    Commission provides a forum to ensure cooperative management of salmon
    populations. The agreements in the current Annex Chapters for
    management of chinook, coho, chum, and transboundary populations expire
    at the end of 2018. The Annex Chapter for management of Fraser River
    sockeye and pink chapter expires at the end of 2019. The U.S. and
    Canada are negotiating revisions to the current agreements. Based on
    past experience, the negotiation process will require additional
    meetings to reach a successful conclusion. It is important to have
    adequate resources for U.S. participants to negotiate the best outcome.
        Before the Treaty, fish wars often erupted with one or both
    countries overharvesting fish that were returning to the other country,
    to the detriment of the resource. At the time the Treaty was signed,
    Chinook salmon were in a severely depressed State as a result of
    overharvest in the ocean as well as environmental degradation in the
    spawning rivers. Under the Treaty, both countries committed to rebuild
    the depressed runs of Chinook stocks, and they recommitted to that goal
    in 1999 when adopting a coastwide abundance based approach to harvest
    management. Under this approach, harvest management will complement
    habitat conservation and restoration activities being undertaken by the
    States, Tribes, and other stakeholders in the Pacific Northwest to
    address the needs of salmon listed for protection under the Endangered
    Species Act. The 2008 Chinook agreement continued these commitments.
    The combination of these efforts is integral to achieving success in
    rebuilding and restoring healthy, sustainable salmon populations.
        Finally, you should take into account the fact that the value of
    the commercial harvest of salmon subject to the Treaty, managed at
    productive levels under the Treaty, supports the infrastructure of many
    coastal and inland communities. The value of the recreational
    fisheries, and the economic diversity they provide for local economies
    throughout the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, is also immense. The value
    of these fish to the 24 treaty Tribes in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho
    goes far beyond their monetary value, to the cultural and religious
    lives of Indian people. A significant monetary investment is focused on
    salmon as a result of listings of Pacific Northwest salmon populations
    under the Endangered Species Act. Given the resources, we can continue
    to use the Pacific Salmon Commission to develop recommendations that
    help to ensure solutions that minimize impacts on listed stocks,
    especially if we are allowed to work towards the true intent of the
    Treaty: mutually beneficial enhancement of the shared resource.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my written testimony submitted for
    consideration by your subcommittee. I want to thank the subcommittee
    for the support that it has given the U.S. Section in the past. Please
    feel free to contact me, or other members of the U.S. Section to answer
    any questions you or subcommittee Members may have regarding the U.S.
    Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission budget.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the United Tribes Technical College
        United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) has for 48 years, and with
    the most basic of funding, provided postsecondary career and technical
    education and family services to some of the most impoverished high
    risk Indian students from throughout the Nation. Despite such
    challenges we have consistently had excellent retention and placement
    rates and are fully accredited by the Higher Learning Commission. We
    are proud of our role in helping to break generational poverty and in
    helping to build a strong Indian Country middle class by training the
    next generation of law enforcement officers, educators, medical
    providers, and administrators; however, there is a long way to go and
    we need to expand our efforts. We are governed by the five Tribes
    located wholly or in part in North Dakota. We are not part of the North
    Dakota University System an do not have a tax base or State-
    appropriated funds on which to rely.
        The funding requests of the UTTC Board for fiscal year 2018 Bureau
    of Indian Education (BIE)/Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are:
      --$11 million for the line item, Tribal Technical Colleges, which is
            $3.1 million over the fiscal year 2017 enacted level. Of this
            amount, $6.8 million is BIE funding for our Indian Self-
            Determination Act contract.
      --Continue fully funding Contract Supports Costs with establishment
            of permanent, full, mandatory-funding.
      --Continue full funding for Tribal Grant Support Costs for tribally-
            operated elementary/secondary schools.
      --Establishment of a tribally-administered Northern Plains law
            enforcement training center at UTTC.
        First of all, thank you for the $500,000 fiscal year 2017 increase
    for the BIE line item of Tribal technical colleges as requested by the
    Obama Administration. Secondly, thank you again for placing the Tribal
    Technical Colleges account that provides core operational funds to our
    institution and Navajo Technical University (NTU) on a forward funded
    basis as of fiscal year 2016.
        We are pleased that as of fiscal year 2017 Congress will be
    providing forward funding for the Institute of American Indian Arts and
    that the explanatory language for the appropriations bill indicates
    that you are interested in providing in fiscal year 2018 for the
    remaining two colleges who are not yet forward funded--Southwestern
    Indian Polytechnic Institute, and the Haskell Indian Nations
    University.
        The extended length of time to achieve forward funding for UTTC and
    NTU and the fact that several other Indian higher education
    institutions were/are still not forward funded highlights the
    carefulness with which Tribal college references need to be made. We
    are authorized under differing titles of the Tribally Controlled
    Colleges and Universities Act and then there are other statutory
    authorities for the three institutions administered through the Bureau
    of Indian Education.
        Base Funding.--UTTC administers our BIE funding under an Indian
    Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act agreement, and has done
    so for 40 years. The UTTC portion of the Tribal Technical Colleges line
    item should be $6.8 million based on an $11 million appropriation. We
    will want to communicate again with this subcommittee when we know what
    the Trump administration has requested in the Indian Affairs budget.
        Acquisition of additional base funding is critical. We struggle to
    maintain course offerings and services to adequately provide
    educational services at the same level as our State counterparts. BIE
    funds are central to the viability of our core postsecondary education
    programs. Very little of the other funds we receive may be used for
    core career and technical educational programs; they are competitive,
    often one-time targeted supplemental funds. Our BIE funding provides a
    base level of support while allowing the college to compete for
    desperately needed discretionary funds.
        We highlight several recent updates of our curricula to meet job
    market needs. First, at the certificate level, UTTC recognized the need
    for more certified welders and heavy equipment operators in relation to
    the oil boom and expanded these programs in response to the workforce
    need. UTTC is now the only welding test site in a multi-State region
    approved by the American Welding Society, and while the North Dakota
    Bakken oil boom has diminished, these professions remain in demand. The
    hospital facilities in the regions were unable to hire certified
    Medical Coding & Billing personnel so we developed and currently offer
    this certificate as one of our online offerings. We are now able to
    train students for good paying in-demand employment with a focus on
    career rather than just a job. Finally, upon receiving approval by the
    Higher Learning Commission to offer a Bachelor's Degree in
    Environmental Science, we began this four-year program in the Fall of
    2016, thus providing experiential research opportunities for our
    students.
        Funding for United Tribes Technical College is a good investment.
    We have:
      --Renewed unrestricted accreditation from the Higher Learning
            Commission through 2021. We offer 1 diploma, 4 certificates, 14
            Associate degrees, and 4 Bachelor degree programs of study
            (Criminal Justice; Elementary Education; Business
            Administration; Environmental Science and Research). Business
            Management, Criminal Justice, Medical Coding and General
            Studies are fully available and offered online. UTTC continues
            to be the only TCU in the country approved by the Higher
            Learning Commission to offer full programs online.
      --Services including a Child Development Center, family literacy
            program, wellness center, area transportation, K-7 BIE-funded
            elementary school, tutoring, counseling, family and single
            student housing, and campus security.
      --A projected return on Federal investment of 20-1 (2005 study).
      --From 2015-2016, UTTC had a fall to fall retention rate of 38
            percent and a 2016 fall semester persistence rate of 84 percent
            for the fall of 2016. Of the 87 graduates in 2016, 53 students
            were employed, for a placement rate of 61 percent.
            Additionally, 19 of those graduates continued their education.
      --Students from 69 Tribes represented at UTTC during the 2015--2016
            academic year.
      --Our students are very low income, and 70.4 percent of our
            undergraduate students receive Pell Grants.
      --An unduplicated count of 524 undergraduate degree-seeking students
            and 4 non-degree seeking students; 1,037 continuing education
            students; and 29 dual credit enrollment high school students
            for a total of 1,594 students for 2016-2017.
      --A critical role in the regional economy. Our presence brings at
            least $34 million annually to the economy of the Bismarck
            region. A North Dakota State University study reports that the
            five Tribal colleges in North Dakota made a direct and
            secondary economic contribution to the State of $192,911,000 in
            2016.
        Contract Support Costs.--As mentioned above, we administer our BIE
    funding through an Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
    Act contract, and thus Contract Support Costs (CSC) are vital to us. We
    thank this subcommittee for the recognition of the legal obligation the
    Federal government has to pay Tribal contractors their full CSC. This
    has been an enormously important development for Indian Tribes. We
    appreciate that the fiscal years 2016 and 2017 appropriations acts
    place Contract Support Costs for the BIA and the Indian Health Service
    (IHS) in their own accounts and is funded at an indefinite amount, thus
    assuring full funding. Given that this funding status for CSC is year
    to year, we join with others in Indian Country in supporting a long-
    term legislative solution that will provide full and permanent funding
    for Contact Support Costs. Placing CSC funding on a mandatory basis is
    the logical resolution to a long-term solution for CSC that will also
    protect the programs funded on a discretionary basis in the BIA and IHS
    budgets.
        Tribal Grant Support Costs for K-12 Tribally-Operated Schools.--We
    have a BIE-funded elementary school on our campus, the Theodore
    Jamerson Elementary School, and thus many of our college students and
    their children attend school on the same campus. For these elementary
    schools, Tribal Grant Support Costs are the equivalent of Contract
    Support Costs for Tribes although authorized under different statutory
    authorities. We thank you for providing what is estimated to be full
    funding for Tribal Grant Support Costs in fiscal year 2017 ($80
    million).
        A Northern Plains Indian Law Enforcement Academy.--We again ask
    Congress to seriously look at the problem of addressing crime in Indian
    Country with an eye toward the establishment of a campus-based academy
    for training of law enforcement officers at UTTC. We ask that you
    direct the Secretary of Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to
    work with the Northern Plains Tribes and others on the timely
    development of a plan for the establishment of an academy to better
    serve the Tribes residing in the Northern tier of the United States.
        Establishment of such an academy at UTTC continues to be strongly
    supported by the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association (GPTCA) via
    Resolution 5-1-20-16. The Resolution requests that the Secretary of
    Interior and the BIA consult with the Tribes on the details of a plan
    for establishment of the Academy. Cultural and legal differences
    further support why such training should be tribally-directed in order
    to be appropriate for the realities of Tribal communities within
    different parts of the Indian Country. The need is critical and
    continues to grow with the methamphetamine, opioid and heroin crises
    and the resulting social ills from these epidemics. North Dakota and
    other northern border regions have special problems relating to drug
    and human trafficking. Additionally, the expanded Tribal authorities
    under the Tribal Law and Order Act and the Violence Against Women Act
    only further the importance of trained law enforcement officers within
    our Tribal communities. State and national training resources would
    have an important role in this new endeavor.
        The UTTC Criminal Justice program currently offers two- and four-
    year degrees, and prepares graduates for employment as Federal, State
    or Tribal law enforcement, correction, parole and probation, and
    transportation safety officers; victim advocates; U.S. Customs,
    Homeland Security, and Military Investigative services; and private
    security agents. A pre-law program is currently in development to
    address the shortage of law trained personnel within Tribal judicial
    systems. We want to expand our endeavors to help meet law enforcement
    needs in Indian Country. Given our Criminal Justice program, our
    location and our campus resources, we propose the establishment of a
    Northern Plains Indian Law Enforcement Academy.
        Basic law enforcement training is currently provided through the
    BIA's Indian Police Academy in Artesia, New Mexico, which often has
    waiting lists. The BIA is depending on the basic training provided by
    State academies to supplement what is provided at Artesia. UTTC is well
    positioned with regard to providing both basic and supplemental law
    enforcement training. An academy at UTTC would allow Tribal people in
    the Great Plains and other nearby regions a more affordable choice for
    training locations while minimizing the distance and long separation of
    trainees from their families.
        The fiscal year 2017 Indian Affairs budget (p. IA-PSJ-12) notes
    that training initiatives for the Indian Police Academy include
    developing a pre-Academy training program for candidates; developing a
    mid-level manager training program; and establishing an on-line
    distance learning program for recertification, among other things.
    These are things that we could do as part of an academy at UTTC or in
    partnership with the Indian Police Academy.
        In short, the BIA should be utilizing and enhancing the resources
    of UTTC to make a real difference in the law enforcement capability in
    Indian Country. We can offer college credit to trainees, and our
    facilities include the use of a state-of-the-art crime scene simulator.
    Maintaining safe communities is a critical component of economic
    development for our Tribal Nations, and local control of law
    enforcement training resources is a key part of that effort.
        We know members of this subcommittee have made a point to visit
    places in Indian Country and we would love to be able to arrange for
    you to visit United Tribes Technical College. Thank you for your
    consideration of our requests. Mitakuye Owasin (All my relatives)

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

                    Prepared Statement of the USGS Coalition
        The USGS Coalition appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony
    about fiscal year 2018 appropriations for the United States Geological
    Survey (USGS). The USGS Coalition requests Congress to fund the USGS at
    $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2018. The requested funding would allow the
    agency to sustain current efforts in scientific discovery and
    innovation and to make strategic investments that will produce the
    impartial knowledge and decision support tools needed by decision-
    makers across the country.
        Few modern problems can be addressed by a single scientific
    discipline. The USGS is uniquely positioned to provide information and
    inform responses to many of the Nation's greatest challenges. The USGS
    is an agency that has a distinctive capacity to deploy truly
    interdisciplinary teams of experts to gather data, conduct research,
    and develop integrated decision support tools that improve ecosystem
    management, ensure accurate assessments of our water quality and
    quantity, reduce risks from natural and human-induced hazards, deliver
    timely assessments of mineral and energy resources, and provide
    emergency responders with accurate geospatial data and maps.

    The USGS Coalition is an alliance of more than 75 organizations united
    by a commitment to the continued vitality of the United States
    Geological Survey to provide critical data and services. Coalition
    members include scientific organizations, universities, businesses, and
    natural resource managers.
                       essential services for the nation
        The USGS plays a unique role within the Department of the Interior,
    conducting research across a broad array of scientific disciplines and
    providing data that informs responses to many of the Nation's greatest
    challenges. To highlight just a few examples, USGS scientists:
      --Reduce risks from natural hazards--including earthquakes,
            landslides, volcanic eruptions, flooding, drought, and
            wildfires--that jeopardize human lives and result in billions
            of dollars in damages annually.
      --Inform management of freshwater resources--both above and below the
            land surface--for drinking water, agriculture, and commercial,
            industrial, recreational, and ecological purposes.
      --Inform sound management of natural resources on Federal and State
            lands, including control of invasive species and wildlife
            diseases that cause billions of dollars in economic losses.
            This information is shared with other Interior bureaus and
            State agencies to allow for adequate monitoring and management.
      --Help predict the impacts of land use and climatic conditions on the
            availability of water resources and the frequency of wildfires.
            The Landsat satellites have collected the largest archive of
            remotely sensed land data in the world, which informs
            agriculture production and our Nation's response to and
            mitigation of natural hazards.
      --Provide vital geospatial and geologic mapping data used in economic
            development, environmental management, infrastructure projects,
            and scientific applications by States, Federal agencies, and
            the private sector.
      --Help make decisions about the Nation's energy future by assessing
            mineral and energy resources--including rare earth elements,
            coal, oil, unconventional natural gas, and geothermal. The USGS
            is the sole Federal source of information on mineral potential,
            production, and consumption.
                                    funding
        Over the years, Congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion to
    provide essential funding to the USGS. These efforts have paid
    dividends and helped the USGS provide answers to the challenging
    questions facing decision-makers across the country.
        The USGS Coalition opposes the proposed cuts outlined in the fiscal
    year 2018 President's budget request of 15 percent for the USGS.
        The proposed funding level for USGS is very troubling, as the
    agency has made numerous economies in recent years. Any cuts in fiscal
    year 2018 or beyond would come at the expense of scientific programs.
    As a science agency, much of the USGS budget is dedicated to staff as
    well as equipment and facilities that must be maintained and updated to
    ensure the continuity of data acquisition and that the data gathered
    are reliable and available for future scientific investigations. We
    believe that the leadership of the USGS is doing all they can, and has
    been for a number of years, to contain costs while continuing to
    deliver high quality science.
        One strength of the USGS has been its partnerships with many other
    Federal agencies, States, local governments, and private entities.
    These relationships, however, should not be mistaken as a means to
    transfer Federal activities to other entities. The work of the USGS is
    uniquely tied to the agency, as shown in the following examples.
      --A potash mineral deposit worth $65 billion was identified in
            Michigan as a result of the National Geological and Geophysical
            Data Preservation Program. The initiative catalogs and archives
            geological samples acquired during oil, gas, and mineral
            exploration. The program is run by the USGS and helps States to
            preserve and inventory their geological samples and data. The
            rock samples from Michigan were entered into a national
            database, where mining companies discovered their existence and
            are now assessing the potential for mining potash in Michigan.
            Without USGS funding, these mineral samples and their potential
            for new revenue and jobs would likely not have been discovered.
      --A major geomagnetic storm has the potential to cause a continent-
            wide loss of electricity and substantial damage to power-grid
            infrastructure. Although these events are rare, they do occur,
            such as the 1989 geomagnetic storm that disrupted power to the
            entire Canadian province of Quebec. The USGS monitors Earth's
            magnetic field at 14 ground stations across the U.S. This
            information is critical for utility companies, who use the
            resulting geoelectric hazard maps to assess the vulnerability
            of their systems and to mitigate the predicted damages, thereby
            preventing costly power outages.
      --Nearly half of America's drinking water comes from underground
            aquifers. The large size of some aquifers, which can span the
            boundaries of multiple States, puts them beyond the scope of
            local water authorities. The USGS is evaluating water quality
            in 20 principal aquifers as part of the National Water-Quality
            Assessment Project. The program is testing for contaminants,
            such as pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and other pollutants that
            threaten human health.
      --Precise elevation data is needed for a variety of applications,
            including farming, infrastructure construction, flood
            mitigation, and aviation safety. The U.S., however, does not
            yet have national coverage of high-quality topographic data.
            Given its expertise in mapping, the USGS is the lead entity for
            the 3D Elevation Program, which will acquire precise national
            elevation data coverage within 8 years. The program is
            estimated to provide benefits worth $1.1 billion a year to
            government and private entities.
      --Recent research by the USGS identified the potential for avian flu
            to move between Europe and North America when migratory birds
            congregate in Iceland during their migration. Wildlife diseases
            threaten not only the ecosystem and economic values of wild
            animals, but can also jeopardize human health. The USGS has
            unique technical expertise for surveillance and diagnosis of
            wildlife disease, such as identifying a potential transmission
            route of a deadly disease.
      --Expected losses from natural hazards in the U.S. exceed $3 billion
            per year. These losses can be significantly reduced through
            informed decisions guided by the most current and thoroughly-
            researched understanding of the hazards, risks, and cost of
            mitigation. The USGS Science Application for Risk Reduction
            Project was created to innovate the application of hazard
            science for the safety, security, and economic well-being of
            the Nation by directing new and existing scientific research
            toward addressing gaps in vulnerability to help communities
            build resilience to natural hazards.

        Many USGS programs are highly leveraged by outside funding sources.
    For instance, 69 percent of funding for the National Streamflow Network
    (aka streamgages) comes from States, localities, Tribes, other Federal
    agencies, private industry, and non-governmental organizations. For
    each Federal dollar invested in the Cooperative Research Units Program,
    States and universities invest more than three dollars. Interior's
    Climate Science Centers have also seen investments from partner
    universities into education and research totaling more than $8.2
    million since the program began in 2009. In total, more than $100
    million in contributions were made in 2016 by USGS partners.
                                   conclusion
        We recognize the financial challenges facing the Nation, but losing
    irreplaceable data can increase costs to society today and in the
    future. Data not collected and analyzed today is data lost forever.
    This is particularly significant for environmental monitoring systems,
    where the loss of a year's data can limit the scope and reliability of
    long-term dataset analysis. Moreover, the United States Geological
    Survey has a national mission that extends beyond the boundaries of the
    Nation's public lands to positively impact the lives of all Americans.
    For these reasons, the USGS Coalition requests that Congress work to
    provide $1.2 billion for USGS in fiscal year 2018.
        The USGS Coalition appreciates the subcommittee's past leadership
    in strengthening the United States Geological Survey. Thank you for
    your thoughtful consideration of this request.

        [This statement was submitted by Elizabeth Duffy, Co-Chair, and
    Julie Palakovich Carr, Co-Chair.]
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Western Governors' Association
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of the
    subcommittee, the Western Governors' Association (WGA) appreciates the
    opportunity to provide written testimony on the appropriations and
    activities of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Forest
    Service (USFS) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). My name is
    James D. Ogsbury and I am the Association's Executive Director. WGA is
    an independent and bipartisan organization representing the Governors
    of 19 Western States and 3 U.S.-flag islands.
        The agencies within the subcommittee's jurisdiction wield
    significant influence over vast areas of the American West. 94 percent
    of all Federal lands are situated in the western States and the Federal
    Government owns over 46 percent of the land within active WGA States.
    The work of this subcommittee is of vital importance to Western
    Governors, as it helps establish how these lands are managed and how
    Federal agencies interact with other levels of government and the
    public.
        Western Governors recognize that there is a certain tension between
    State and Federal Governments, one that is embedded in the very fabric
    of our Constitution. It is equally clear that these different layers of
    government must have a close and productive working relationship to
    increase efficiencies and maximize returns on taxpayer investments. The
    promotion of a greater partnership between States and the Federal
    Government is central to the mission of WGA and is reflected in our
    Policy Resolution 2017-01, Building a Stronger State-Federal
    Relationship, which I commend to your attention.
        The promotion of greater partnership between States and the Federal
    Government is central to the mission of WGA. This is a key theme of two
    ongoing WGA projects: the National Forest and Rangeland Management
    Initiative and the Species Conservation and Endangered Species Act
    Initiative. Responsible forest and rangeland management can only take
    place when Federal, State, and local stakeholders are working
    collaboratively to increase the health and resilience of our lands.
    Likewise, fish and wildlife conservation, essential to preserving the
    heritage of the West, is only possible through the cooperative efforts
    of State and Federal officials across multiple disciplines.
        Through the National Forest and Rangeland Management Initiative,
    Governors have acknowledged progress to address past frustration with
    how western forests and rangelands are managed and have developed
    strategies to overcome barriers and build on progress for the future.
    Congress has taken steps (notably in the 2014 Farm Bill) to increase
    the pace, scale and quality of land restoration activities, and States
    have responded by implementing Good Neighbor Authority, Stewardship
    Contracting, and Insect and Disease designation authorities. WGA will
    release a report in June including several recommendations to further
    improve the health and resiliency of western forests and rangelands. I
    hope you will find these useful as you examine process reforms and
    spending priorities in the coming months.
        Western Governors believe that States should be full partners in
    the implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and should have
    the opportunity to participate in listing decisions, critical habitat
    designations, recovery planning and delisting decisions. The Act is
    premised on a strong State-Federal partnership. Section 6(a) of the ESA
    States that, ``In carrying out the program authorized by the Act, the
    Secretary shall cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the
    States.'' WGA submits that such cooperation should involve meaningful
    consultation opportunities for States to comment, participate, or
    undertake proactive measures before the Federal Government takes action
    under the ESA.
        ESA listing decisions can have dramatic impacts on vital State
    interests. States possess primary authority to manage most fish and
    wildlife within their borders, and they are the principal recipients of
    economic benefits associated with healthy species and ecosystems. At
    the same time, species listings and their associated prohibitions and
    consultations can affect western States' abilities to promote economic
    development, accommodate population growth, and maintain and expand
    infrastructure. Consequently, States should have the right to intervene
    in judicial and administrative proceedings regarding the ESA. Western
    Governors urge the subcommittee to support the legal standing of States
    to participate in administrative and judicial actions involving ESA
    that, by their nature, implicate State authority and resources.
        For the past 4 years, the subcommittee has adopted report language
    directing Federal land managers to use State fish and wildlife data and
    analyses as principal sources to inform land use, land planning and
    related natural resource decisions. Western Governors are deeply
    appreciative of your commitment to encouraging a positive relationship
    between the States and the Federal Government in the use of wildlife
    data. Federal managers need data-driven science, mapping and analyses
    to effectively manage wildlife species and habitat, and in many cases
    States generate the best available wildlife science.
        With respect to funding levels of appropriated programs, WGA
    recommends the enactment and full funding of a permanent and stable
    funding mechanism for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program
    administered by the Department of the Interior (DOI). PILT funding does
    not represent a gift to local jurisdictions; rather it represents
    important compensation for the disproportionate acreage of non-taxable
    Federal lands in the West. Similarly, payments under the Secure Rural
    Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (SRS) are critical to
    compensating communities whose timber industries have been negatively
    impacted by actions and acquisitions of the Federal Government. Western
    Governors hope that you will appropriate full funding for both PILT and
    SRS payments in fiscal year 2018.
        The subcommittee is familiar with the pressing problem of ``fire
    borrowing,'' by which funding for routine U.S. Forest Service
    management activities is transferred to firefighting activities. By
    diverting funding from activities that reduce wildfire threats, this
    practice increases the overall fire risk and all but ensures that
    future wildfires will be more damaging and costly. The rising cost of
    the 10-year average of fire suppression has forced USFS to shift
    resources from non-fire to fire accounts over time. WGA strongly
    supports efforts to solve the issue of fire borrowing, and has
    advocated the adoption of a funding structure similar to that used by
    the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in its response to
    natural disasters to address the long term erosion of capacity
    associated with the current budget approach.
        The 2014 Farm Bill accorded Governors the opportunity to request
    that National Forest System lands within their States be considered for
    insect and disease (I&D) designation, and the Forest Service responded
    by designating 46.7 million acres of land for expedited treatment. The
    Farm Bill authorized the appropriation of $200 million to accomplish
    the work required under the statute. This work will reduce the threat
    of wildfires in areas of high risk, and WGA requests that funding be
    appropriated at a reasonable and sustainable level for I&D designation
    projects.
        Data for water management and drought response planning is critical
    to western States. Western Governors request adequate funding levels
    for the Cooperative Water Program and National Streamflow Information
    Program, both administered by the DOI's U.S. Geological Survey. This
    data is integral to the water supply management decisions of States,
    utilities, reservoir operators and farmers. They are also used for
    flood forecasts, making them essential for risk assessment as well as
    water management. These two programs are important elements of a robust
    water data management framework in the western States, and provide
    needed support for drought mitigation efforts throughout the West.
        Infrastructure management is another crucial element of drought
    response. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Water and
    Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) provide necessary support
    for communities to maintain and enhance their water infrastructure.
    Western Governors' Policy Resolution 2017-04, Water Quality in the
    West, encourages adequate funding for SRFs.
        The following recommendations are intended to help ensure that
    taxpayers realize a healthy return on the investment of limited
    discretionary resources. This goal will be more readily achieved to the
    extent that Federal agencies better leverage State authority, resources
    and expertise.
        Western Governors continue to be concerned about the number of wild
    horses and burros on BLM lands. This number is presently estimated to
    be almost double the current Appropriate Management Level (AML).
    Overpopulation can degrade rangeland, causing harmful effects on
    wildlife and domestic livestock and threatened and endangered species
    habitat. WGA supports a process to establish, monitor and adjust AMLs
    for wild horses and burros that is transparent to stakeholders,
    supported by scientific information (including State data), and
    amenable to adaptation with new information and environmental and
    social change.
        Western Governors previously expressed concern regarding the
    development of the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) 2015
    Clean Water Rule, as States were not adequately consulted by the
    agencies during the process. That Rule is now being reconsidered by the
    current Administration and is stayed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
    the Sixth Circuit. EPA and USACE have recently begun efforts to
    promulgate new language to clarify the jurisdictional boundaries of the
    Clean Water Act and have taken positive steps to engage WGA and
    individual States in the rulemaking process. Western Governors look
    forward to working with the agencies to develop a new rule that
    reflects the viewpoints of the Western Governors and adequately
    protects States' primary authority over the management and allocation
    of water resources.
        States have exclusive authority over the allocation and
    administration of rights to groundwater located within their borders
    and are primarily responsible for protecting, managing, and otherwise
    controlling the resource. The regulatory reach of the Federal
    Government was not intended to, and should not, be applied to the
    management and protection of groundwater resources. WGA encourages
    Congress to include express and unambiguous language protecting States'
    authority over groundwater resources in any water-related legislation,
    as well as clear direction to administrative agencies to respect such
    authority. Federal agencies should work through existing State
    authorities to address their groundwater-related needs and concerns.
    Such collaborative efforts will help ensure that Federal efforts
    involving groundwater recognize and respect State primacy and comply
    with all statutory authorities.
        States also possess delegated authority from EPA to manage air
    quality within their borders. Last year the EPA tightened the National
    Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone to .070 parts-per-
    million, a level equal to background ozone levels in much of the West.
    Attaining the revised ozone standard will present significant
    challenges for many western States--challenges exacerbated by factors
    such as wildfire, transported ozone, and background ozone. For decades,
    eastern States have enjoyed the benefit of financial and technical
    support from EPA for ozone research and mitigation. Given the unique
    character of the West and the region's attainment challenges, funding
    should be appropriated for EPA to assist western States in discharging
    their ozone responsibilities and in developing cooperative agreements
    with EPA. In addition, WGA urges Federal agencies to engage States as
    co-regulators in any rulemaking that results from a review of
    regulations under Executive Order No. 13783.
        Improving electricity transmission and distribution siting and
    permitting is also a priority of Western Governors. WGA encourages
    congressional direction to Federal departments and agencies to work
    with States on identifying infrastructure locations and expediting
    permitting for facilities that improve the reliability and resilency of
    electricity in the western States.
        Western Governors and Federal land management agencies deal with a
    complex web of interrelated natural resource issues. It is an enormous
    challenge to judiciously balance competing needs in this environment,
    and Western Governors appreciate the difficulty of the decisions this
    subcommittee must make. The foregoing recommendations are offered in a
    spirit of cooperation and respect, and WGA is prepared to assist you as
    you discharge these critical and challenging responsibilities.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony.
    Please feel free to contact WGA if you have any questions about the
    content of these remarks.

        [This statement was submitted by James D. Ogsbury, Executive
    Director.]
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Wilderness Land Trust
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and Members of the
    subcommittee, my name is Brad Borst and I am the President of The
    Wilderness Land Trust, a small, focused national nonprofit that
    facilitates the transfer of lands owned by willing sellers to the
    United States to unify ownership within designated and proposed
    wilderness. This work secures already conserved lands, access to and
    through them and creates management efficiencies.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. My testimony
    focuses on a very small portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF): funding for the Inholding Acquisition Accounts in the four land
    management agencies.
        Access and management efficiencies are vital goals for the
    investment of limited Federal funds. Acquisitions made through the
    inholding accounts have demonstrated success over their 52-year
    history. Congress created these accounts when it created the National
    Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) to complete and secure its
    commitment to that system. Continued modest funding--between $3 and $5
    million--in each of the Inholding Accounts is vital to the success of
    securing and preserving Wilderness designated by Congress while fairly
    treating private landowners.
        When the Trust began 25 years ago, there were approximately 400,000
    acres of private land within designated wilderness in the lower 48
    States. Today, nearly half of the inholdings have been acquired, with
    approximately 175,000 acres of private lands still remaining in more
    than 2,800 parcels in the lower 48 States. (In addition, there are
    440,000 acres of State owned lands within designated wilderness. Alaska
    is home to 47 percent of the total nonFederal lands--predominately
    Native corporation lands stemming from ANCSA comprising 693,641 acres
    in 686 parcels.)
        Large appropriations for the Inholding Accounts did not accomplish
    this success. Rather, it is reliable, modest funding so that lands can
    be purchased when landowners want to sell. This is the level of funding
    we urge continue.
        Thank you for funding the Inholdings Accounts in fiscal year 2017
    and I ask for your continued support in 2018. An appropriation of
    between $3 and 5 million to each of the land management agencies--the
    Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife
    Service and the National Park Service--is sufficient to enable the
    agencies to acquire high priority inholdings from willing sellers.
        Our work, along with that of many other organizations and
    facilitated by funding of the Inholding Accounts, aims to give the
    Federal Government less work. Examples of the benefits resulting from
    the elimination of private inholdings within designated wilderness
    include:
      --Creates recreational access and economic development opportunities;
      --Saves Federal dollars by solving management problems and
            inefficiencies that frequently exceed the cost of acquisition;
      --Helps private landowners
      creating recreational access and economic development opportunities
        All agencies prioritize securing access when ranking acquisition
    projects. In determining where to place its efforts, The Trust follows
    a ranking system developed, in cooperation with the Federal land
    management agencies and Colorado State University. Prioritizing the
    Acquisition of Wilderness Inholdings is a rational basis for
    acquisition now widely accepted and used across the country. Of the 17
    separate factors in three clustered areas, the prioritization
    specifically calls out: enhancement of wilderness visitor experience
    such as obtaining legal public access or eliminating a safety hazard.
        In just this past year, the Trust worked on a project that will
    create access to the only landlocked wilderness in the Wilderness
    Preservation System (NWPS), the Sabinoso Wilderness (NM), acquired
    lands in the Rocky Mountain National Park (CO) that will secure access
    to a prominent overlook in the Wild Basin portion of the Park (we hope
    this to be developed as accessible wilderness access) and secured
    recreational access in the Garcia and Elkhorn Ridge Wildernesses (CA).
    Several other projects are in the works, all of which are dependent on
    continued modest funding of the inholding accounts for success.
        A review of the work completed by the Trust in the last 5 years and
    transferred to Federal ownership shows that 60 percent of the projects
    created or secured public access to conserved wilderness land. Recent
    purchases funded from the Inholding Accounts have secured access to the
    east side of the Ventana Wilderness (CA), secured trails through the
    Wabayuma Peak Wilderness (AZ) and the Glacier Peak Wilderness (WA) and
    created access to a recently designated wilderness in Idaho. More are
    on the way.
        Additionally, on the east side of the Castle Crags Wilderness (CA)
    is a wall of private land that blocks access from Interstate 5. The
    nearby communities of Dunsmuir and Mt. Shasta are wholly supportive of
    transferring these lands to Federal ownership and opening up the Crags
    to visitation. The towns anticipate visitors that will come to the
    community, and its climbing, biking and skiing shops it is hoped will
    grow. Dunsmuir has suffered under an unemployment rate of 18 percent
    and looks forward to having the recreational asset of the Crags' world
    class climbing just outside their community. Rather than a seven mile
    hike around the private lands that now block access, climbers will soon
    access the area only one mile off of Interstate 5.
                             saving federal dollars
        A specific criterion within the above mentioned ranking system used
    by the Trust and its Federal partners is: improvement of wilderness
    manageability by acquiring a parcel that substantially burdens land
    managers.
        The management of human development activities in wilderness is
    expensive for the agencies. The potential resource damage to the
    protected lands and waters is enormous. While steady progress has been
    made reducing private inholdings in wilderness areas in the lower 48
    States, our wilderness areas remain riddled with private inholdings
    that greatly threaten the wilderness that surrounds them and creates a
    ``Swiss cheese'' effect.
        While The Wilderness Act defines Wilderness as places where ``where
    man himself is a visitor who does not remain,'' private landowners
    retain their rights to build roads, homes and other buildings, extend
    utilities, extract minerals and timber, and block public access. There
    are numerous cases where such inholdings have been developed in ways
    that seriously degrade wilderness values on the adjacent public lands.
    All of these activities pose challenges for Federal managers of the
    lands surrounding private inholdings and create significant and costly
    management inefficiencies.
        By contrast, the cost of acquiring these properties when they are
    offered for sale is relatively small. That is why continued modest
    appropriations for the inholding acquisition program are important.
    About one third of all designated wilderness include remaining private
    lands. There is much work left to be done.
        In the last 5 years, 100 percent of our completed projects included
    resolving one or more land management issues, ranging from the
    potential development of resources that would damage and are
    inconsistent with the surrounding wilderness, to long-standing
    conflicts and the potential rebuilding on isolated parcels already
    consumed by wildfire. For example, we just acquired the largest
    inholding in the Chuck River Wilderness (AK), a now defunct gold mine
    and source of repeated redevelopment speculation that was a consistent
    management issue for the Forest Service.
        The costs associated with firefighting on public lands are
    significant. The Western Forestry Leadership Coalition, a State and
    Federal Government partnership, published a report: ``The True Cost of
    Wildfire in the Western U.S.'' in April 2009. Among the case studies
    reviewed, the lowest total firefighting cost per acre was the Canyon
    Fire Complex (MT) (2000). The total cost was $411 per acre. There were
    only six structures involved. The highest cost per acre was the 2000
    Cerro Grande fire (NM). It cost $22,634 per acre. There were 260
    residences involved. This is strong evidence that the presence of
    private lands and structures within public landscapes exponentially
    increases firefighting costs.
        The Wilderness Land Trust may be the only landowner within
    designated wilderness that can say it has experienced both sides of
    firefighting costs. A property the Trust owned in the Yolla Bolly
    Wilderness (CA) burned while under our ownership. Significant resources
    were spent to protect the structures on it. On the other hand, because
    the Trust's Hells Canyon Wilderness property (ID) had transferred one
    week before a fire, firefighting efforts rightly concentrated at the
    edges of the wildland-urban interface.
                    solves management and resource problems
        The Inholding Accounts have been used to acquire defunct mines from
    private owners, private retreats, and various properties that include
    the spectrum of non--wilderness uses. We are currently ready for
    transfer to Federal ownership a former mine in the Frank Church River
    of No Return Wilderness. We've closed the former un-reclaimed mine on
    the banks of the Wild and Scenic Salmon River. The transfer will remove
    a private home and no trespassing signs on one of the few flat spots on
    that stretch of river. It will be returned to the public, who can enjoy
    being able to stop and learn about past mining days, camp or fish from
    land on which the abandoned and open mine is now reclaimed and closed--
    no longer a threat to the public, or to the Wild and Scenic River from
    its open shafts deep into the alluvium of the river.
                            helps private landowners
        Landowners who are ready to sell deserve to have their properties
    purchased. Their isolated properties are primarily the result of 19th
    century Congressional policy when homesteads, mining operations and
    timber production were encouraged without the balance of conservation.
    Thus, wilderness areas now designated by Congress are pockmarked with
    islands of private ownership that compromise the wilderness resource,
    become expensive management issues for the agencies and often befuddle
    landowners who wish to sell these properties for the benefit of their
    companies or families.
        If the opportunity to acquire these when offered is lost, the
    management issues and inefficiencies that result from private lands
    remaining within designated wilderness continue. This is why consistent
    funding for the Inholding Accounts is vital. It has been our experience
    that these critical inholdings come on the market at a steady rate as
    owners make decisions based on their family or business needs. Without
    consistent funding, numerous opportunities to acquire these private
    parcels will be lost. Not for a year, but often for a generation.
        Finally, it is also important to recognize that wilderness
    inholdings come in many shapes, sizes and prices depending on the real
    estate market in a particular area. A number of projects that fall in
    the agency project lists are inholdings. Thus, we ask that you give the
    highest level of support possible for Federal LWCF acquisitions.
        In summary, continued consistent funding of the Inholding Accounts
    is vital. Without such funding, significant opportunities to acquire
    private parcels within our designated wilderness areas will be lost for
    at least another generation. We urge your support of continued funding
    for these accounts and as much support for Federal LWCF acquisitions as
    possible.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We greatly appreciate
    your work, consideration and the support of the Subcommittee in
    securing these appropriations.

        [This statement was submitted by Mr. Brad Borst, President.]
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Wilderness Society
        The Wilderness Society (TWS) represents more than 1 million members
    and supporters who share our mission to protect wilderness and inspire
    Americans to care for our wild places. When deciding on funding that
    affects hundreds of millions of Americans, we urge you to take into
    account the full economic, social, environmental and cultural value of
    the many programs overseen by our land management agencies.
        Additionally, we urge that in crafting the Interior and Environment
    Appropriation bill you avoid harmful policy riders that damage our
    land, air, water and wildlife. Must-pass appropriations legislation is
    not the appropriate venue for unpopular policy provisions which
    undermine bedrock environmental laws like the Wilderness Act,
    Antiquities Act and Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. In
    particular, we strongly oppose riders which would authorize a road
    through the Izembek Wilderness Area or prevent the Bureau of Land
    Management from implementing the collaboratively developed sage-grouse
    conservation strategy.
        The laudable goal of returning to regular order on appropriations
    must not continue to be undermined by the attempted inclusion of
    harmful policy riders which would damage the environmental protections
    all Americans value. Their inclusion only serves to further compromise
    an already challenging appropriations process.
        Prudent investments in critical conservation programs will provide
    jobs and protect the health and economic wellbeing of local
    communities. We urge bold action in support of conservation funding for
    fiscal year 2018. Specifically, TWS recommends:
                           recreation & public lands
    Land and Water Conservation Fund
        Now in its second half-century, the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund (LWCF) remains the premier Federal program to conserve our
    Nation's land, water, historic, and recreation heritage. It is a
    critical tool to protect national parks, national wildlife refuges,
    national forests, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, and other
    Federal areas. The companion LWCF State grants program provides crucial
    support for State and local parks, recreational facilities, and trails.
    Full funding for LWCF will allow land management agencies to manage our
    public lands more efficiently and cost-effectively. This is in part
    achieved through strategic inholdings acquisition which reduces
    internal boundary line surveying, right-of-way conflicts and special
    use permits.
        LWCF also funds two other important State grant programs--the
    Forest Legacy Program and Cooperative Endangered Species programs--that
    ensure permanent conservation of important forest lands and threatened
    and endangered species' habitat, as well as important wildlife and
    recreational habitat and ensures that public lands stay public for
    hunters, anglers, and other outdoor recreationists for generations to
    come.

        -- TWS strongly supports fully funding LWCF at the authorized level
    of $900 million, with a discretionary funding level of $475 million.
    BLM National Landscape Conservation System
        The National Landscape Conservation System (Conservation Lands),
    overseen by the BLM, comprises over 30 million acres of congressionally
    and presidentially designated lands and waters, including National
    Monuments, National Conservation Areas, Wilderness Areas and other
    designations. Stewardship of the Conservation Lands provides jobs for
    thousands of Americans while supporting vibrant and sustainable
    economies in surrounding communities. The Conservation Lands provide
    immeasurable public values from modest investments: outstanding
    recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat, clean water, wilderness,
    and open space near cities.

        -- TWS strongly supports $83.122 million in fiscal year 2018
    funding for the National Conservation Lands. This is a small increase,
    but a strong funding proposal for the Conservation Lands, and will help
    promote the natural, cultural, and historical resource protection
    provided by the Conservation Lands for the American public.
    BLM Wilderness Management
        We want to call specific attention to the Wilderness Management
    program, housed within BLM's National Landscape Conservation System.
    The Wilderness program plays a critical role in supporting the agency's
    multiple use and sustained yield mission, emphasizing continued
    collaboration, public involvement and youth engagement. As part of the
    Department of Interior (DOI) Engaging the Next Generation Initiative,
    the Wilderness Management program connects communities with their
    public lands, providing opportunities for outdoor recreation,
    scientific research, education, volunteer and full time employment.

        -- TWS strongly supports restoring BLM Wilderness funding to the
    fiscal year 2011 level of $19.663 million. The enacted level for BLM
    wilderness management is a step in the right direction, but still 7
    percent lower than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level in raw dollars.
    To just keep the fiscal year 2011 level on pace with inflation the
    fiscal year 2018 request would need to be $21.036 million.
    U.S. Forest Service Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness
        The Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness program provides critical
    funding to improve recreational access to our national forests, give
    training and employment opportunities for youth and veterans, modernize
    and improve the recreational permitting process, and protect our
    cultural heritage. We recommend that funding for the Recreation,
    Heritage and Wilderness program be restored to support much needed
    trails maintenance, update signage, fight invasive species, restore
    watersheds, and monitor effects of climate change, among other critical
    needs.

        -- We urge Congress to support wilderness and recreation by
    restoring funding to the fiscal year 2010 level of $285.1 million for
    the Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Program. Recreation is the most
    ubiquitous use of our forest lands, and accounts for more than half of
    all job and income effects attributable to Forest Service programs
    (over 190,000 jobs and $11 billion in spending effects by visitors).
    BLM Recreation Resources Management
        The Recreation Resources Management program provides critical
    funding to improve recreation access for all visitors to BLM lands,
    engage youth, promote public health, protect visitor safety and
    strengthen rural economies. Investments in the Recreation program will
    support increased access for all types of recreation by maintaining
    trails and roads, increased access for hunters and anglers to world
    class fish and game habitat, and small businesses, guides and
    outfitters through processing commercial recreation permits.

        -- TWS strongly supports funding the Recreation Resources
    Management program at $53.5 million in fiscal year 2018. This is a
    small increase over the currently enacted levels, and would support 3
    additional FTEs to ensure efficient processing of recreations permits,
    oversight, and visitor safety.
    U.S. Forest Service Legacy Roads and Trails
        The Legacy Roads and Trails (LRT) program provides essential
    funding to improve recreational access, advance collaborative watershed
    restoration projects, provide clean drinking water, and protect aquatic
    species. LRT funding was slashed 50 percent in fiscal year 2011 and 22
    percent in fiscal year 2014. Given the recent evaluation of the
    Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) program we recommend that LRT be
    removed from IRR to enable it to operate as a complementary program to
    IRR, similar to Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration. We also do
    not recommend that the IRR pilot program be expanded until the test
    regions have proven that IRR can improve restoration without a loss of
    transparency and accountability. Specifically, TWS recommends:

        -- Funding Legacy Roads and Trails at $50 million, distinct from
    IRR. The highest appropriation for LRT was in 2010 at $90 million, and
    even then the need far surpassed the program's capacity. LRT provides
    tremendous returns, through leveraging other public and private
    funding, reducing future maintenance costs, and creating jobs and
    contributing to local economies.
                                     energy
    Bureau of Land Management Oil and Gas Policy
        TWS believes that our public lands should be treasured and
    maintained for the benefit of all Americans. As we continue to extract
    publicly owned resources--nearly 200 million acres of our public lands
    are currently available for leasing--BLM must do so with full funding
    for programs that support operational safety, inspections, and both
    environmental and fiscal stewardship. BLM funding should encourage
    balanced oil and gas development on public lands with natural resource
    benefits and recreation uses, and ensure that public resource are fully
    and fairly valued for the American people.

        -- TWS strongly supports restoring the BLM funding level to $38,630
    million, including increasing Oil and Gas Inspections to $48.4 million,
    and increasing Resource Management Planning to $48.1 million.
    Sage Grouse Conservation Plans
        Ranchers and other Americans benefit from Federal assistance in
    managing sagebrush across the western United States. Congress should
    fully fund the sage-grouse conservation strategy, which helped to
    prevent a listing under the Endangered Species Act. Full funding for
    implementation is important for the recovery of this critical western
    game species and those who rely on its habitat for their livelihood.

        -- TWS strongly supports a funding level of $89.7 million in fiscal
    year 2018 to conserve and restore sage steppe habitat through the
    Bureau of Land Management.
    Renewable Energy
        TWS is a strong proponent of transitioning our country to a clean
    energy economy by developing our renewable energy resources
    responsibly. We believe renewable energy is an appropriate and
    necessary use of public lands when properly sited in areas that avoid
    habitat, resource, and cultural conflicts. Identifying and avoiding
    conflicts early helps ensure projects are permitted more efficiently
    with limited impact on wildlands. TWS hopes the Department will
    continue to support a program that ensures our public lands play an
    important role in supporting renewable energy infrastructure through
    environmental review, suitability screening, and identification of low-
    conflict designated leasing areas where wind and solar projects are
    likely to succeed--an approach which cut permitting times in half in
    the Dry Lake solar zone outside of Las Vegas.

        -- TWS strongly supports increasing funding for renewable energy
    programs across the Department of Interior to $110.4 million in fiscal
    year 2018. This increase would enhance training opportunities for staff
    to fully implement the wind and solar leasing rule, mitigation
    strategies, the Western Solar Plan and the Desert Renewable Energy
    Conservation Plan. Implementation of these programs will facilitate
    efficient permitting for projects in designated leasing areas and
    identification of new designated leasing areas in regions with strong
    development demand. Finally, this funding should support the ongoing
    review of the West-Wide Energy Corridors to facilitate more efficient
    and appropriate siting and permitting for transmission lines to ensure
    greater access for clean energy development.

        [This statement was submitted by Drew McConville, Senior Managing
    Director of Government Relations.]
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Conservation Society
        The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) would like to thank
    Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and the members of the
    subcommittee for providing this opportunity to provide public testimony
    in support of sufficient funding in the fiscal year 2018 Interior,
    Environment and Related Agencies (Interior) Appropriations Act for the
    Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF), Office of International
    Affairs (IA), Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), and Cooperative
    Landscape Conservation Program (CLCP) accounts at the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service's (FWS), the International Forestry program at the
    U.S. Forest Service (FS-IF), and on the final 4(d) rule revision on the
    African elephant. WCS is deeply concerned by the President's budget
    proposal, which retreats from many of the important investments this
    subcommittee has made in domestic and international conservation under
    the Chairwoman's leadership. We strongly urge you to maintain funding
    for these programs at fiscal year 2017 levels.
        WCS was founded with the help of Theodore Roosevelt in 1895 with
    the mission of saving wildlife and wild places worldwide. Today, WCS
    manages the largest network of urban wildlife parks in the United
    States led by our flagship, the Bronx Zoo. Globally, our goal is to
    conserve the world's largest wild places in 16 priority regions, home
    to more than 50 percent of the world's biodiversity. We manage more
    than 200 million acres of protected lands around the world, employing
    more than 4,000 staff including 200 Ph.D. scientists and 100
    veterinarians.
        The American conservation tradition is based on promoting
    sustainable use of our natural resources in order to preserve the
    world's species and environment for future generations. In recognition
    of the current fiscal constraints, it is important to note that
    effective natural resources management and conservation has indirect
    economic benefits, including contributing to local economies through
    tourism and other means. Internationally, by supporting conservation,
    the US is increasing capacity and governance in developing nations and
    improving our own national security as a result.
        FWS--Multinational Species Conservation Fund--$11.1 Million: Global
    priority species, such as tigers, rhinos, African and Asian elephants,
    great apes, and marine turtles, face constant danger from poaching,
    habitat loss and other serious concerns. MSCF programs have helped to
    sustain wildlife populations by controlling poaching, reducing human-
    wildlife conflict and protecting essential habitat--all while promoting
    US economic and security interests in far reaching parts of the world.
    These programs are highly efficient, granting them an outsized impact
    because they consistently leverage two to four times as much in
    matching funds.
        WCS has had great success on projects using funds from the MSCF.
    One grant awarded to WCS in fiscal year 2016 through the African
    Elephant Conservation Fund will provide initial funding for rugged
    technology and training and equipping park rangers in Yankari Game
    Reserve to defend one of the last populations of elephants in Nigeria.
    WCS is grateful that the Committee appropriated $11.1 million for the
    program in fiscal year 2017 and support an appropriation of the same
    amount in fiscal year 2018.
        FWS--International Affairs--$15.8 Million: The FWS International
    Affairs (IA) program supports efforts to conserve our planet's rich
    wildlife diversity by protecting habitat and species, combating illegal
    wildlife trade, and building capacity for landscape-level wildlife
    conservation. The program provides oversight of domestic laws and
    international treaties that promote the long-term conservation of plant
    and animal species by ensuring that international trade and other
    activities do not threaten their survival in the wild. Within IA, the
    Wildlife Without Borders program seeks to address grassroots wildlife
    conservation problems from a broad, landscape perspective, building
    regional expertise and capacity while strengthening local institutions.
    WCS asks that the subcommittee maintains support for $15.8 million,
    equal to the fiscal year 2017 appropriation.
        FWS--Office of Law Enforcement--$75.1 Million: The US remains one
    of the world's largest markets for wildlife and wildlife products, both
    legal and illegal. A small group of dedicated officers at the OLE are
    tasked with protecting fish, wildlife, and plant resources by
    investigating wildlife crimes--including commercial exploitation,
    habitat destruction, and industrial hazards--and monitoring the
    Nation's wildlife trade to intercept smuggling and facilitate legal
    commerce. Many of the new responsibilities placed on the FWS by the
    National Strategy to Combat Wildlife Trafficking are enforced by the
    OLE, and WCS supports continuing to fund the agency at $75.1 million.
    Additional funding for the program will support their efforts to
    maximize the scope and effectiveness of FWS' response to the
    international wildlife trafficking crisis by strengthening forensic
    capabilities and expanding the capacity of their Special Investigations
    Unit. It will also ensure OLE has an adequate number of law enforcement
    agents deployed to enforce laws against wildlife trafficking in the
    U.S. effectively and allow the agency to continue to support
    coordinated law enforcement actions against wildlife trafficking
    overseas through the deployment of FWS attaches in targeted U.S.
    embassies.
        FWS--Cooperative Landscape Conservation--$13 Million: Many of the
    domestic conservation programs in this bill provide funding to States
    to implement their conservation goals. But wildlife does not recognize
    political boundaries, and scarce conservation dollars can best be spent
    when effective planning and coordination takes place across entire
    ecosystems. The CLCP funds a network of 22 Landscape Conservation
    Cooperatives in the US and Canada, which use a collaborative approach
    between Federal, State, Tribal and local partners to identify landscape
    scale conservation solutions and work collaboratively to meet unfilled
    conservation needs, develop decision support tools, share data and
    knowledge, and facilitate and foster conservation partnerships. Funding
    will support landscape planning and design that will improve the
    condition of wildlife habitat and improve resilience of U.S.
    communities. WCS encourages the Committee to appropriate $13 million
    for this program.
        USFS--International Forestry--$8 Million: The US economy has lost
    approximately $1 billion per year and over 200,000 jobs due to illegal
    logging, which is responsible for 15-30 percent of all timber by
    volume. The FS-IF program works to level the playing field by reducing
    illegal logging and improving the sustainability and legality of timber
    management overseas, translating to less underpriced timber
    undercutting US producers. Through partnerships with USAID and the
    Department of State, FSIP helps to improve the resource management in
    countries of strategic importance to US security.
        With technical and financial support from FS-IP, WCS has been
    working to conserve a biologically rich temperate forest zone called
    the Primorye in the Russian Far East. The region hosts over a hundred
    endangered species as well as numerous threatened species, including
    the Far Eastern leopard and Amur tiger. FS-IP works with us to exchange
    information and methodologies with Russian scientists, managers, and
    students on a variety of wildlife-related topics to support
    conservation and capacity building efforts and ensure the sustainable
    management of forests and wildlife habitat. WCS supports an
    appropriation of $8 million for fiscal year 2018, equal to the amount
    appropriated the last several fiscal years.
        No Harmful Rider on Ivory: On the ground in Africa and elsewhere,
    WCS scientists are seeing, first-hand, the devastating impact poaching
    is having on elephants, rhinos, tigers, and other iconic species. A
    study published by WCS found that in 2012 alone, 35,000 African
    elephants were killed for their ivory--that is an average of 96
    elephants per day or one killed every 15 minutes. This finding is
    supported by a subsequent study which also found that 100,000 elephants
    were poached between 2011 and 2013. Both studies show that conditions
    are dire for the subspecies of African forest elephants, which has
    declined by about two-thirds in a little more than a decade. Continued
    poaching at these rates may mean the extinction of forest elephants in
    the wild within the next 10 years and the potential loss of all African
    elephant species in the wild in our lifetimes. Action must be taken now
    to prevent this catastrophe from occurring.
        There is broad consensus that the stunning increase in poaching is
    due to one factor--the illegal sale of poached ivory in commercial
    markets around the world. The illegal trade in elephant ivory and other
    products, like rhino horns and tiger skins, is worth at least an
    estimated $8 to $10 billion annually, and because of the lucrative
    nature of this industry, evidence is showing increasingly that
    transnational criminal organizations and terrorist groups that are
    involved in other major trafficking operations--drugs, humans and
    weapons--are engaged in wildlife trafficking as well.
        There is no question that China is the largest market for illegal
    ivory. However, the United States is also one of the larger
    destinations, both for domestic consumption and as a transshipment hub
    for Asia. As part of Operation Crash, the US Fish and Wildlife Service
    and Department of Justice have successfully arrested criminals and
    prosecuted cases in several States over the last few years involving
    millions of dollars of illegal ivory and rhino horn. These busts,
    although few in number, are strong evidence that there is a domestic
    problem with illegal ivory, all of which is smuggled in from overseas
    and which frequently crosses State lines, placing it firmly under
    Federal jurisdiction.
        In 2016, the FWS began enforcing a rule to close loopholes in the
    existing ban on commercial ivory sales that have allowed illegal ivory
    to be sold in the U.S. for decades. The rule requires sellers to
    demonstrate that ivory items qualify for an exemption from the law so
    consumers may be assured they are purchasing a legal product. It also
    tightens the existing, Congressionally-mandated ban on the import of
    most ivory, with some narrow exceptions, including ones for sport-
    hunted trophies and musicians travelling with instruments that contain
    ivory. The rule continues to allow the domestic sale of items such as
    bona fide antiques and, to accommodate the concerns voiced by many
    stakeholders, also allows the sale of items like firearms, knives,
    instruments and artworks that contain only a small amount of ivory. It
    is also important to note that nothing in the rule makes the possession
    of ivory illegal, and that States maintain the right to regulate
    commercial sales occurring entirely within their borders.
        Past Interior bills in the House contained a provision that would
    have blocked FWS from proceeding on this rule, forcing the continuation
    of a system that we know does not work and has been a contributing
    factor in the poaching of 100,000 elephants over the past 3 years. WCS
    is grateful that the Senate has not included a similar provision in its
    corresponding bills. Given that there have been few complaints from any
    parties in the rule's first year of implementation, WCS encourages the
    subcommittee not to include the same or a similar rider in the fiscal
    year 2018 bill.
        We appreciate the opportunity to share WCS's perspectives and make
    a case for increased investment in conservation in the fiscal year 2018
    Interior, the Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
    Conservation of public lands is an American tradition and, as far back
    as 1909, Theodore Roosevelt recognized that the management of our
    natural resources requires coordination between all nations. Continued
    investment in conservation will reaffirm our global position as a
    conservation leader, while improving our national security and building
    capacity and good governance in developing countries.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Society
        The Wildlife Society (TWS) appreciates the opportunity to provide
    testimony concerning the fiscal year 2018 budgets for the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S.
    Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Founded in
    1937, TWS inspires, empowers, and enables wildlife professionals to
    sustain wildlife populations and their habitat through science-based
    management and conservation. Appropriations for the following programs
    within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment,
    and Related Agencies will affect the current and future status of
    wildlife and wildlife professionals in North America. To empower and
    enable the appropriate use of science within these programs and beyond,
    TWS respectfully requests the following programmatic funding in fiscal
    year 2018.

     FISCAL YEAR 2018 INTERIOR APPROPRIATION REQUESTS--THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Fiscal year 2017    Fiscal year 2018
      Agency          Program              enacted                TWS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                State & Tribal       63M................  70M
                 Wildlife Grants.    484M...............  586M
                National Wildlife    240M...............  253M
    FWS          Refuge System.      38M................  38M
                Ecological Services  4M.................  6.5M
                NAWCA..............  52M................  54M
                NMBCA..............  48M................  50M
                Partners for Fish    13M................  19M
                 and Wildlife.
                Migratory Bird
                 Management.
                Migratory Bird
                 Joint Ventures.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Wildlife &           103M...............  121M
    BLM          Fisheries           22M................  48M
                 Management.         81M................  81M*
                T&E Species
                 Management.
                Wild Horse & Burro
                 Management.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    USGS        Ecosystems Mission   160M...............  174M
                 Area.               17M................  22M
                Cooperative
                 Research Units.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    USFS        Wildlife and         140M...............  140M
                 Fisheries Habitat.  289M...............  303M
                Forest and
                 Rangelands
                 Research.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * BLM Wild Horse & Burro Management funding request accompanies request
      to remove an associated policy rider.
    NOTE: In addition to these fiscal year 2018 requests, TWS urges Congress
      to ensure the independent science-advising role of Federal advisory
      committees is protected during the administration's recent actions to
      suspend and review these bodies.

                         u.s. fish and wildlife service
        The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program (STWG) is the Nation's
    only program that directly supports development and implementation of
    State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs), thereby assisting States in
    preventing classification of more wildlife as threatened or endangered.
    Collectively, STWG funds support strong partnerships between Federal,
    State, Tribal, private, and nonprofit entities that enable wildlife
    professionals to implement on-the-ground conservation activities that
    benefit over 12,000 at-risk species. Between fiscal year 2002 and
    fiscal year 2010, appropriations for STWG were greater than $70 million
    per year. Subsequent budget reductions in STWG, however, have not
    allowed this highly successful program to make adequate progress. TWS
    requests Congress empower the front lines of conservation with at least
    $70 million for STWG.
        As a member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement
    (CARE), TWS requests at least $586 million for the National Wildlife
    Refuge System's operations and maintenance accounts in fiscal year
    2018. CARE estimates that the Refuge System needs at least $900 million
    in annual operations and maintenance funding to properly administer its
    566 refuge units, 38 wetland management districts, and 5 marine
    national monuments spanning over 850 million acres of land and water.
    Without adequate funding, habitat restoration is limited, invasive
    species are left unchecked, poaching and other illegal activities
    occur, and our Nation's wildlife heritage declines. Furthermore, the
    Refuge System generates approximately $4.87 in economic activity for
    every $1 appropriated by Congress. By providing $586 million in fiscal
    year 2018, Congress will bring us much closer to achieving the
    necessary $900 million by fiscal year 2021.
        The North American Wetlands Conservation Act is a cooperative, non-
    regulatory, incentive-based program that has shown unprecedented
    success in maintaining and restoring wetlands, waterfowl, and other
    migratory bird populations. This program, however, has remained
    drastically underfunded despite its demonstrated effectiveness. We
    greatly appreciate the $3 million increase in fiscal year 2017 and ask
    that Congress again provide at least $38 million for NAWCA in fiscal
    year 2018.
        Since 2002, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA)
    has provided more than $58.5 million in grants to support 510 projects
    in 36 countries that enable wildlife professionals to conserve 386 bird
    species on 4.2 million acres of habitats in the United States, Mexico,
    Central America, South America, and the Caribbean. Moreover, NMBCA has
    achieved a partner match ratio of nearly 4:1 despite requiring only a
    3:1 match. TWS recommends Congress increase funding to at least $6.5
    million in fiscal year 2018 to achieve greater conservation results
    under the program.
        Through the Ecological Services Program, FWS works with diverse
    public and private partners to help identify species facing extinction
    and reduce threats to their populations so that the requirement of
    Federal protection can be removed. Wildlife professionals in FWS are
    working on new strategies to increase the efficiency and effectiveness
    of the Ecological Services Program and reduce regulatory burdens on
    private partners. To support these actions--and the increased emphasis
    on consultation and recovery--we recommend Congress provide at least
    $106 million for Planning and Consultation, $35 million for
    Conservation and Restoration, $23 million for Listing, and $89 million
    for Recovery in fiscal year 2018.
        TWS regularly expresses the importance of wildlife habitat on a
    mosaic of public and private lands. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife
    Program (PFW) allows voluntary habitat restoration goals on private
    lands to be achieved through cost-efficient financial and technical
    assistance from wildlife professionals in FWS. For the role this
    program plays in improving private lands wildlife stewardship while
    working to preempt ESA listings through projects like the Monarch
    Butterfly Conservation Initiative, TWS requests at least $54 million
    for PFW in fiscal year 2018.
        The Migratory Bird Joint Ventures, part of FWS' Migratory Bird
    Management program, are locally-directed partnerships that develop and
    implement science-based habitat conservation strategies for all species
    of birds across North America. These partnerships have leveraged
    Federal funds at 32:1 to enhance and protect over 26 million acres of
    habitats. TWS supports $50 million for Migratory Bird Management,
    including $19 million for Joint Ventures.
                           bureau of land management
        The Wildlife and Fisheries Management (WFM) program maintains and
    restores fish, wildlife, and their habitats across a large portion of
    America's western landscapes. This includes projects to mitigate the
    effects of public land use on wildlife species and their habitat. With
    the anticipated expansion of energy development on BLM lands--and the
    associated mitigation challenges--we recommend that Congress support
    WFM professionals with at least $121 million in fiscal year 2018. We
    also appreciate the increase of $9 million in directed funds for
    greater sage-grouse conservation in fiscal year 2017 and request
    continuation of this funding in fiscal year 2018.
        The Threatened and Endangered Species Management Program (TESM)
    allows wildlife professionals at BLM to meet the agency's
    responsibilities in recovering the over 420 ESA listed species that
    occur on BLM managed lands. In a March 2001 Report to Congress, BLM
    called for a doubling of the TESM budget to $48 million over 5 years to
    meet the needs of the program. Now, over 15 years later, this goal has
    yet to be met. In light of this, we strongly encourage Congress to
    increase overall funding for TESM to $48 million in fiscal year 2018.
        TWS, co-chair of the National Horse and Burro Rangeland Management
    Coalition, recognizes horses and burros in the U.S. as ecologically
    invasive, feral species. Horse and burro populations on the range
    reached >72,000 individuals in March 2017, exceeding BLM's estimated
    threshold for ecological sustainability by >45,000 animals. In fiscal
    year 2018 the on-range population is expected to grow beyond 85,000
    animals. To achieve ecologically sustainable levels of horses and
    burros on BLM rangelands without substantial budget increases the
    current appropriations language limiting the sale and/or destruction of
    unwanted or unadoptable wild horses and burros must be removed from the
    Interior Appropriations bill. We support the President's fiscal year
    2018 request to remove this language as a way to increase program
    flexibility and enable effective implementation of the Wild Free-
    Roaming Horses and Burros Act, as amended. Until Congress enables BLM
    to responsibly manage wild horses and burros by removing this text from
    the appropriations bill, Federal funds will continue to be wasted
    warehousing nearly 50,000 animals, rather than spent on productive
    rangeland management activities. Congress must enable effective
    management of wild horses and burros and our Nation's rangelands by
    empowering BLM to remove excess horses and burros from the range at a
    meaningful rate and focus resources on rangeland habitat restoration.
    Removal of this appropriations rider, as requested by the
    administration, will allow this program's budget to eventually be
    reduced, and put Federal funds toward more effective rangeland and
    wildlife management activities. TWS recommends a flat budget of $81
    million for Wild Horse and Burro Management and the removal of the
    appropriations language. We also request Congress direct BLM to
    increase gather and removal of animals from the range to meet
    ecologically sustainable populations.
                             u.s. geological survey
        As a member of the USGS Coalition, TWS supports the critical and
    unique mission of USGS to provide the country with objective scientific
    research and data collection on the complex environmental issues facing
    our Nation. TWS specifically requests at least $174 million for the
    Ecosystems Mission Area, which contains programmatic resources for
    fisheries, wildlife, environments, invasive species, and Cooperative
    Research Units (CRU).
        Within the Ecosystems Mission Area, we support at least $22 million
    for the CRU program. CRUs foster Federal, State, non-governmental
    organizations, and academic partnerships to provide actionable science
    tailored to the needs of wildlife managers on the front lines, and
    helps develop the next generation of wildlife professionals. These
    partnerships leverage more than three dollars in outside funds for
    every Federal dollar invested into the program. An increase in funding
    would allow CRUs to continue to leverage outside sources and fill
    critical vacancies within their program to serve State cooperator
    interests across the U.S.
        Climate Sciences Centers (CSC), a DOI program administered by the
    Climate and Land Use Change Mission Area, work with cooperators
    throughout their 8 regions to provide actionable climate science
    research. Following a similar model as CRUs, CSCs carry out dual roles
    by providing usable climate science research while also training the
    next generation of natural sciences professionals at host universities.
    These university partnerships have provided more than $8.2 million in
    leveraged funds to CSCs since the program's inception 7 years ago.
                              u.s. forest service
        The traditional 10-year moving average for forecasting fire
    suppression costs for the upcoming fiscal year have not met USFS
    suppression needs since fiscal year 2002. This results in funding
    transfers and shortfalls that negatively affect the ability of staff at
    USFS to implement proactive forest research and management projects.
    DOI and USFS need a long-term fire funding solution that will result in
    stable and predictable budgets. As a result, TWS supports bipartisan
    congressional efforts to address Federal fire funding challenges,
    minimize fund transfers, and address the continued erosion of agency
    budgets over time, with the goal of reinvesting in key programs that
    will restore forests to healthier more resilient conditions.
        Improving the future health and sustainability of the Nation's
    forests and grasslands requires a strong investment in USFS Research
    and Development (R&D). Through long-term monitoring and collaborative
    research efforts with States and other partners, USFS R&D generates
    broad environmental and societal benefits, including an understanding
    of wildlife-habitat relationships for multiple species and communities
    that enables informed land management decisions. TWS encourages
    Congress to increase funding for all Forest Service R&D to a minimum of
    $303 million in fiscal year 2018, including at least $220 million
    directed to Forest and Rangeland Research program areas exclusive of
    Forest Inventory and Analysis. Furthermore, TWS appreciates the $140
    million Congress provided for the applied Wildlife and Fisheries
    Habitat Management program in fiscal year 2017 and we encourage
    Congress to continue--and consider increasing--this funding in fiscal
    year 2018.

        [This statement was submitted by Bruce Thompson, President, The
    Wildlife Society.]
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe
        The requests of the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe (hereinafter ``YTT'' or
    ``Tribe'') for the fiscal year 2018 Indian Health Service and
    Environmental Protection Agency appropriations are as follows:
      --Continue funding for the IHS Joint Venture Program and ensure that
            funds for staffing packages for completed programs is made
            available in a timely manner.
      --Fully Fund Contract Support Costs.
      --Increase the IHS services appropriation for Purchased/Referred Care
            and the IHS facilities appropriation for Maintenance and
            Improvement funding for healthcare facilities.
      --Permanently reauthorize the Special Diabetes Program for Indians.
      --Support the Environmental Protection Agency's Indian Environmental
            General Assistance Program, which is needed for building
            capacity and administering Tribal environmental programs that
            directly affect human health.
        The Yakutat Tlingit Tribe is a federally recognized Indian Tribe
    located on the eastern shores of the Gulf of Alaska in the City and
    Borough of Yakutat, Alaska. It is only accessible by air or boat, is
    225 miles northwest of Juneau and 220 miles southeast of Cordova,
    Alaska. Due to the geographic isolation, it is imperative that the
    Tribe offer high quality services on site in Yakutat. We thus provide a
    substantial and growing array of community healthcare services and
    counseling and prevention services at the Yakutat Community Health
    Center (YCHC), through funding from the IHS as a co-signer to the
    Alaska Tribal Health Compact under the Indian Self-Determination and
    Education Assistance Act, through a community health center grant from
    the Health Resources and Services Administration, State of Alaska
    awards, and third-party collections. While the City and Borough of
    Yakutat operates a volunteer Emergency Medical Services squad, the YCHC
    is the only provider of healthcare in the community. The Yakutat
    Borough is in a Medically Underserved Area and is designated as a
    Health Professional Shortage Area for medical, dental and mental
    health.
                     funding the ihs joint venture program
        Under Section 818(e) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, the
    IHS is authorized to establish a Joint Venture Construction Program for
    projects in which Tribes and Tribal organizations construct, acquire or
    renovate a Tribal healthcare facility, and the IHS commits to funding
    the initial equipment and a staffing package for operation and
    maintenance of the new facility. The program is competitive, and
    priority is given to Tribes and Tribal organizations who agree to also
    fund the equipment portion of the project. Proposals are also evaluated
    on the need for space at the specific location, among other criteria.
        The Yakutat Tlingit Tribe was selected from a competitive pool of
    Tribes and Tribal organizations to participate in the IHS Joint Venture
    program, through which the Tribe commits to building a new healthcare
    facility and providing equipment funding, and IHS commits to providing
    recurring funding for staffing on completion of the construction
    project. The Tribe will be constructing a new healthcare facility in
    Yakutat, Alaska on land owned by the Tribe. The facility is expected to
    encompass just over 11,000 building gross square feet. The new facility
    will provide improved and increased health service delivery in our
    remote area, so that the Tribe can expand primary care services and
    dental care, as well as make space available for visiting specialty
    providers, health aides, preventive care, behavioral health, and the
    Tribe's administration staff.
        The Tribe believes that it is critically important for Congress to
    continue to commit to funding staffing packages and equipment related
    to the IHS joint venture program. Tribes like YTT must commit far in
    advance to construction costs and are reliant on the funding for
    staffing being available to them as quickly as possible on completion
    of the project (or even as the project is being finished). It can
    otherwise be impossible to plan for and operate a new healthcare
    facility without the security of knowing that the funding for staffing
    will be made available in a timely manner, to allow for the
    advertisement for and selection of healthcare professionals and other
    staff, and to allow time for people to relocate to Yakutat and begin
    their work.
        The Tribe thus asks this subcommittee to support the continued
    funding for the IHS Joint Venture Program and ensure that Joint Venture
    participants received their staffing funds timely.
                    fully fund contract support costs (csc)
        The YTT wishes to thank Congress for fully funding CSC in fiscal
    years 2016 and 2017, and for making it an indefinite amount that is in
    a separate account in both the IHS and BIA budgets. For IHS, we
    understand the fiscal year 2017 estimate for CSC is $800 million, and
    for the BIA it is $278 million. This funding helps us to meet our own
    responsibilities under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act (ISDEAA), and significantly enhances the Federal-Tribal
    government-to-government relationship. We also wish to thank the
    subcommittee for listening to Tribal comments about how the bill
    proviso in the fiscal year 2016 enacted bill effectively denied the CSC
    carryover authority authorized by the ISDEAA, and appreciate that the
    proviso was absent from the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal
    year 2017.
        We ask this subcommittee to support the continued full funding of
    CSC in fiscal year 2018. However, our long-term goal is to ensure the
    indefinite appropriation of CSC funding--that it be made mandatory and
    permanent. Under the ISDEAA, the full payment of CSC is not
    discretionary, but is a legal obligation that has been affirmed by the
    United States Supreme Court.
                  increase ihs services and facilities funding
        We ask that the subcommittee support an increase in funding for the
    IHS's Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) program. The Indian health system
    relies heavily on PRC funding to pay for specialty or emergency
    healthcare from outside providers. This is especially true in Alaska,
    given the remote locations and the distance required whenever a patient
    has to travel vast distances to receive care in a facility in
    Anchorage, for example, to address an emergency or see a specialist.
    While there have been increases in funding that IHS receives for PRC is
    not at all keeping up with the medical rate of inflation, and thus PRC
    funding has to be stretched further and further to provide needed care
    to patients.
        We also request your support for an increase in the IHS's
    maintenance and improvement funding (M&I) for healthcare facilities, a
    need the Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup deems ``critical.'' The
    current IHS estimate of the backlog of essential maintenance,
    alternation and repair is $473 million. M&I funding is important to
    federally-owned and tribally-owned buildings used to provide healthcare
    services, for functions such as routine maintenance, such as emergency
    repairs, preventive maintenance activities, and maintenance supplies
    and materials; environmental compliance; and improvements, such as
    those needed for new patient care equipment or new treatment
    methodologies. This funding thus greatly supports and enhances the
    delivery of healthcare and preventive services.
        The Yakutat Tlingit Tribe doesn't qualify for M&I funding today as
    we do not currently own our facility we are currently in. However in
    fiscal year 2019, when our new clinic is open for business, we will get
    a line item budget from the YTT JVCP and we will receive funding for:
    Maintenance & Improvement (M&I), Facility Support Account (FSA), and
    Biomedical Equipment. It is a huge undertaking to build our own
    building but will need M&I funding to properly maintain the building.
                      special diabetes program for indians
        The Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) provides crucial
    funding for diabetes treatment and prevention programs for Alaska
    Natives and American Indians, among whom diabetes continues to be an
    epidemic. For YTT, we have seen significant outcomes in terms of
    dramatically increased access to treatment and prevention services. The
    SDPI has been funded at $150 million for many years, but oftentimes it
    is very close to expiring before it is reauthorized for an extended
    period of time. It is set to expire again on September 30, 2017.
        We join with others in Indian Country in recommending the permanent
    reauthorization and increased funding for the SDPI program. A permanent
    reauthorization with annual funding of $200 million would provide
    stability for our diabetes programs, which will greatly help us to plan
    the programs and to recruit and retain personnel. While we understand
    the SDPI reauthorization bill is not under purview of this
    subcommittee, the SDPI definitely affects the healthcare services we
    provide and for which this subcommittee appropriates funding. We
    request and would appreciate any assistance the subcommittee members
    could provide with your colleagues on this issue.
        Additionally, as a co-signer to the Alaska Tribal Health Compact
    (ATHC), we request an amendment to the SDPI that would simplify the
    process for us to receive our diabetes funding. The current process
    requires that the co-signers receive SDPI awards via the DHHS grants
    office and then follow Secretarial regulations before the funds are
    added to our ISDEAA funding agreements. The grant applications,
    monitoring and reporting requirements are not only burdensome, but also
    inefficient. Tribal programs should be authorized to administer SDPI
    funds as part of their ISDEAA funding agreements and have their funds
    added directly to their funding agreements without having to go through
    a grants process. The ATHC's letter and paper dated April 27, 2017,
    which was sent to the Congressional Diabetes Caucus Co-Chairs DeGette
    and Reed, provide more detail on our request.
                                      usac
        We bring to your attention a potentially devastating development
    and that is the proposal by the FCC to pro-rate by 7.5 percent the
    subsidies for Internet service. We currently have a subsidy from USAC
    that pays for our Internet so we can connect thru satellite. It is at
    $20k a month. Our portion is $500 after the subsidy. If we don't have
    that it will sink us. There is no way we can afford an additional
    $19,500 per month for connectivity. This will affect not only us but
    all Tribal health organizations in the State. Connectivity is the
    lifeline for the provision of health services in Alaska. This is
    obviously a case to be made to the FCC, but we would want this
    subcommittee and others to be aware of this issue.
            support funding the environmental protection agency igap
        Any cuts that may be made to EPA program funding will have real-
    world human costs. For example, the EPA's Indian Environmental General
    Assistance Program (IGAP) funding helps Tribes to build capacity to
    administer Tribal environmental protection programs that relate
    directly to human healthcare and safety. The IGAP include a focus on
    solid waste management, such as solid waste planning, solid waste/
    recycling collection and disposal services, as well as hazardous waste
    management. The program also allows us to address other environmental
    issues, such as water quality monitoring, recycling programs, and
    renewable energy, to name a few. Having these resources is essential
    for Tribes to be able to address long-standing environmental and human
    health challenges, and to recruit and retain professionals to develop
    and carry out our environmental regulatory programs, which can be very
    difficult in a remote area like Yakutat. Yakutat has been receiving
    their IGAP funds since fiscal year 1998. The funding has allowed for
    through assessments to be completed. Along with remediation of WWII
    clean up. Has provided for Wetland protection. Yakutat is resource rich
    with the Situk River that has all species of Salmon and Steelhead that
    run. This funding has allowed for baseline water quality monitoring for
    the forelands to begin. Our concerns are what is coming from up the
    River down to our foreland in Canada and Alsek. More studies need to be
    completed in this area. Yakutat truly needs a Science Center to study
    all that is happening at our doorstep.
        The Tribe is greatly concerned about the current administration's
    proposals to cut EPA funding. If EPA Tribal programs are not funded,
    that could result in catastrophic harm to the Tribe and its ability to
    address environmental concerns, and to the health and well-being of our
    Tribal members. President's Trump's preliminary budget proposal (the
    ``skinny'' budget) proposes specifically to eliminate EPA's
    infrastructure assistance program for Alaska Native Villages. We are
    facing many vulnerabilities due to the changing climate in Alaska,
    including rising sea levels and degradation of our lands and food
    sources. Global warming has produced havoc in all issues. It has
    brought invasive plant species that choke out the native plants that
    Yakutat citizens rely on for Subsistence foods. Moreover, the area in
    which Yakutat is located is pristine and needs to be protected. The
    Tribe thus requests that the subcommittee support continued and
    increased funding for the EPA IGAP program and that it give full and
    open consideration to the human impacts that any reduction in the EPA
    budget may cause.
        Thank you for your consideration of the concerns and requests of
    the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe.

        [This statement was submitted by Victoria Demmert, President.]

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    1854 Treaty Authority, Prepared Statement of the.................   233

    Academy of American Poets, Prepared Statement of the.............   234
    Alexandra Teague, Associate Professor, University of Idaho,
      Prepared Statement of..........................................   492
    All Pueblo Council of Governors, New Mexico, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................   235
    Alternate ROOTS, Prepared Statement of...........................   239
    American:
        Alliance of Museums, Prepared Statement of the...............   241
        Forest Foundation, Prepared Statement of the.................   244
        Forests, Prepared Statement of...............................   246
        Geophysical Union, Prepared Statement of the.................   249
        Geosciences Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............   251
        Indian Higher Education Consortium, Prepared Statement of the   253
        Institute of Biological Sciences, Prepared Statement of the..   256
    Americans for the Arts, Prepared Statement of....................   259
    Animal Welfare Institute, Prepared Statement of the..............   260
    Arctic Slope Native Association, Prepared Statement of the.......   263
    Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation,
      Prepared Statement of the......................................   265
    Association of:
        Art Museum Directors, Prepared Statement of the..............   267
        Clean Water Administrators, Prepared Statement of the........   269
        Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU) Board on Natural
          Resources (BNR), Prepared Statement of the.................   270
        State:
            Drinking Water Administrators, Prepared Statement of the.   273
            Floodplain Managers, Prepared Statement of the...........   276
        Zoos and Aquariums, Prepared Statement of the................   277

    Blunt, Senator Roy, U.S. Senator From Missouri, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    45
    Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation, Prepared Statement of the...   280
    Buchanan, Rear Admiral Chris, Deputy Director, Indian Health
      Service........................................................   175

    Capito, Senator Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator From West Virginia,
      Questions Submitted by.........................................   165
    Catawba Indian Nation, South Carolina, Prepared Statement of the.   283
    Central Arizona Project, Prepared Statement of the...............   285
    Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority, Prepared Statement of the....   286
    Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Prepared Statement of the............   291
    Choose Clean Water Coalition, Prepared Statement of the..........   294
    Chugach Regional Resources Commission............................   297
    Colorado River:
        Basin Salinity Control Forum, Prepared Statement of..........   298
        Board of California, Prepared Statement of the...............   299
    Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................   301
    Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Prepared Statement of the....   303
    Congressional Fire Services Institute, Prepared Statement of the.   305
    Consortium of Aquatic Scientific Societies, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   306
    Corps Network, Prepared Statement of the.........................   307

    Daines, Senator Steve, U.S. Senator From Montana, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    47
    Dance/USA, Prepared Statement of.................................   309
    David Jonas Bardin, Prepared Statement of........................   278
    Defenders of Wildlife, Prepared Statement of the.................   312
    Dine Grant Schools Association, Prepared Statement of the........   315
    Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, Prepared Statement of the..............   317
    Dunham, Sarah, Acting Assistant Administrator, Environmental
      Protection Agency:
        Letter to Senator Tom Udall Regarding the Renewable Fuel
          Standard Program and the Status of the Triennial Report to
          Congress...................................................   149
    Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant School (DCGS), Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   320

    Ecological Society of America, Prepared Statement of the

    Elliot, Sheri, Acting Director, Office of Strategic Planning,
      Budget and Accountability, United States Forest Service,
      Department of Agriculture......................................     1
    Entomological Society of America, Prepared Statement of the......   324
    Esther Allen, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Programs in French and
      in Hispanic and Luso-Brazilian Literatures and Languages, City
      University of New York (CUNY) Graduate Center, and Department
      of Modern Languages, Baruch College, CUNY, Prepared Statement
      of.............................................................   238

    Factual Assessment of the Impact of Cuts to the Specific IHS
      Budget.........................................................   198
    Federation of State Humanities Councils, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   326
    Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California,
      Questions Submitted by

    Ferriter, Olivia Barton, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget,
      Finance, Performance, and Acquisition, Department of the
      Interior.......................................................    55
    Flanagan, Denise A., Director, Office of Budget, Department of
      the Interior...................................................    55
    Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe, Prepared Statement of the..........   329
    Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   330
    Fowler, Elizabeth, Deputy Director for Management Operations,
      Indian Health Service..........................................   175
    Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   333
    Frosch, Dan, General Assignment Reporter for The Wall Street
      Journal's Southwest Bureau:
        Articles From The Wall Street Journal, Friday, July 7, 2017:
            ``Families Speak Out: Stories of Indian Health Service
              Patients--Regulators cite facilities of federal health
              agency for Native Americans for dangerous care,
              unnecessary deaths'' (by Dan Frosch and Christopher
              Weaver)................................................   177
            ``People Are Dying Here: Federal Hospitals Fail Tribes--
              Indian Health Service facilities sanctioned for
              dangerous, faulty care, leaving often-impoverished
              patients on remote reservations without services
              required by law'' (by Dan Frosch and Christopher
              Weaver)................................................   179

    Geological Society of America, Prepared Statement of the.........   334
    Greaves, Holly, Senior Advisor to the Administrator,
      Environmental Protection Agency................................   107

    Hartz, Gary, Director of the Office of Environmental Health and
      Engineering, Indian Health Service.............................   175
    Healing Lodge of the Seven Nations, Prepared Statement of the....   336
    Housenger, Jack E., Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Letter from the United States
      Department of Agriculture about EPA's proposal to revoke
      chlorpyrifos tolerances........................................   141
    Hualapai Tribe of the Grand Canyon, Prepared Statement of the....   338
    Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society Legislative
      Fund, and Doris Day Animal League, Prepared Statement of the...   339

    IHS By Category of Service, Year 2016, State-by-State Total
      Expenditures by Program for the Medicaid Program

    International Association of Fire Chiefs, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   305
    Interstate Mining Compact Commission, Prepared Statement of the..   342
    Intertribal Timber Council, Prepared Statement of the............   344

    Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Prepared Statement of the.............   347

    Kenai Peninsula Borough (Alaska), Prepared Statement of the......   350
    Kunickis, Sheryl H., Director, United States Department of
      Agriculture:
        Letter to Jack E. Housenger, Director, Office of Pesticide
          Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Commenting on
          EPA's Proposal to Revoke Chlorpyrifos Tolerances

    Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   351
    Lauren Russell, Prepared Statement of............................   460
    League of American Orchestras, Prepared Statement of the.........   354
    Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont:
        Prepared Statement of........................................   113
        Questions Submitted by.......................................   161
        Statement of.................................................   111
    Literary Network, Prepared Statement of the......................   357
    Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Prepared Statement of the.............   358

    Matt Reeck, Prepared Statement of................................   455
    Medicaid Program:
        IHS by Category of Service, Year 2016, State-by-State Total
          Expenditures by Program

    Merkley, Senator Jeff, U.S. Senator From Oregon, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   169
    Mescalero Apache Tribe, Prepared Statement of the................   361
    Metlakatla Indian Community, Prepared Statement of the...........   364
    Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   366
    Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska:
        Opening Statements of

        Prepared Statement of........................................    57
        Questions Submitted by

    National:
        American Indian Court Judges Association, Prepared Statement
          of the.....................................................   368
        Assembly of State Arts Agencies, Prepared Statement of the...   370
        Association of:
            Clean:
                Air Agencies, Prepared Statement of the..............   370
                Water Agencies, Prepared Statement of the............   373
            Conservation Districts, Prepared Statement of the........   375
            State:
                Energy Officials, Prepared Statement of the..........   376
                Foresters, Prepared Statement of the

                Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers, Prepared
                  Statement of the...................................   381
        Congress of American Indians, Prepared Statement of the......   382
        Ground Water Association, Prepared Statement of the..........   385
        Humanities Alliance, Prepared Statement of the...............   388
        Indian Child Welfare Association, Prepared Statement of the..   390
        Institutes for Water Resources, Prepared Statement of the....   393
        Opera Center of America (OPERA America), Prepared Statement
          of the.....................................................   395
        Parks Conservation Association, Prepared Statement of the....   397
        Recreation and Park Association, Prepared Statement of the...   400
        Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition, Prepared Statement of
          the........................................................   403
        Trust for Historic Preservation, Prepared Statement of the...   405
        Volunteer Fire Council, Prepared Statement of the............   305
    Native Village of Eyak, Prepared Statement of the................   408
    Natural Science Collections Alliance, Prepared Statement of the..   410
    Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the

    Navajo-Hopi Land Commission of the 23rd Navajo Nation Council,
      Prepared Statement of the......................................   416
    Nez Perce Tribe, Prepared Statement of the.......................   418
    Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Prepared Statement of the.   421
    Norton Sound Health Corporation, Prepared Statement of the.......   424

    Officers of the Environmental Council of the States, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   427
    Oglala Sioux Tribe, Prepared Statement of the....................   429
    Oregon Water Resources Congress, Prepared Statement of the

    Partnership for the National Trails System, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   437
    Paul Hendrickson, Prepared Statement of..........................   338
    Performing Arts Alliance, Prepared Statement of the..............   440
    Poets & Writers, Prepared Statement of...........................   442
    Pruitt, Hon. Scott, Administrator, Environmental Protection
      Agency:
        Prepared Statement of........................................   115
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   157
        Statement of.................................................   107
        Summary Statement of.........................................   114
    Public Lands Foundation, Prepared Statement of the...............   443
    Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico, Prepared Statement of the...........   445
    Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Prepared Statement of the.............   447

    Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc., Prepared Statement of the.......   450
    Recording Academy, Prepared Statement of the.....................   451
    Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Prepared Statement of the.....   452
    Restore America's Estuaries, Prepared Statement of...............   456
    Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health, Inc., Prepared
      Statement of...................................................   458

    Sac and Fox Nation, Prepared Statement of the....................   461
    Samenow, Jason, editor and writer covering weather and climate
      for the Washington Post:
        Article from the Washington Post, June 22, 2017:
            ``I Worked on the EPA's Climate Change Website. Its
              Removal is a Declaration of War'' (by Jason Samenow)...   155
    Santa Clara Pueblo, Prepared Statement of the....................   463
    Sarah Thomas, Prepared Statement of..............................   494
    Seattle Indian Health Board, Prepared Statement of the...........   466
    Shoalwater Bay Tribe, Prepared Statement of the..................   468
    Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation,
      Prepared Statement of the......................................   471
    Smith, Lamar, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology:
        Statement on Dr. Deborah L. Swackhamer's testimony before the
          Committee on May 23 in the Environment Subcommittee
          Hearing, ``Expanding the Role of States in EPA Rulemaking''   133
    Society of American Foresters, Prepared Statement of the.........   474
    Southcentral Foundation, Prepared Statement of the...............   477
    Squaxin Island Tribe, Prepared Statement of the..................   479
    Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Prepared Statement of the.............   482
    Sustainable Urban Forest Coalition, Prepared Statement of the....   485
    Swackhamer, Dr. Deborah L.:
        Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and
          Technology, statement on the email exchange between
          Swackhamer and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chief
          of Staff Ryan Jackson......................................   133
        New York Times article about the email exchange between Dr.
          Swackhamer and Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson of the U.S.
          Environmental Protection Agency............................   132

    Tanana Chiefs Conference, Prepared Statement of the..............   488
    Tester, Senator Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    52
    Theatre Communications Group, Prepared Statement of the..........   492
    Tidwell, Tom, Chief, United States Forest Service, Department of
      Agriculture:
        Prepared Statement of........................................     6
        Questions Submitted to.......................................    37
        Statement of.................................................     1
        Summary Statement of.........................................     5
    Tribal Law and Policy Institute, Prepared Statement of the.......   494
    Trust for Public Land, Prepared Statement of the.................   496

    Udall, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator From New Mexico:
        Letter From the United States Environmental Protection Agency
          About Updates to the Renewable Fuel Standard...............   149
        Questions Submitted by

        Statements of

    United:
        States Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission, Prepared
          Statement of the...........................................   499
        Tribes Technical College, Prepared Statement of the..........   501
    USDA Comments on the Risk Assessment Underlying the Reopened
      Proposed Rule ``Chlorpyrifos; Tolerance Revocations; Notice of
      Data Availability and Request for Comment'' (Docket ID EPA-HQ-
      OPP-2015-0653).................................................   142
    USGS Coalition, Prepared Statement of the........................   503

    Van Hollen, Senator Chris, U.S. Senator From Maryland, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   171

    Wall Street Journal, Friday, July 7, 2017:
        ``Families Speak Out: Stories of Indian Health Service
          Patients--Regulators cite facilities of federal health
          agency for Native Americans for dangerous care, unnecessary
          deaths'' (by Dan Frosch and Christopher Weaver)............   177
        ``People Are Dying Here: Federal Hospitals Fail Tribes--
          Indian Health Service facilities sanctioned for dangerous,
          faulty care, leaving often-impoverished patients on remote
          reservations without services required by law'' (by Dan
          Frosch and Christopher Weaver).............................   179
    Washington Post, June 22, 2017, ``I Worked on the EPA's Climate
      Change Website. Its Removal is a Declaration of War'' (by Jason
      Samenow).......................................................   155
    Weahkee, Rear Admiral Michael, Acting Director, Indian Health
      Service:
        Prepared Statement of........................................   188
        Statement of.................................................   175
        Summary Statement of.........................................   185
    Weaver, Christopher, writes about the business of health care for
      The Wall Street Journal:
        Articles from The Wall Street Journal, Friday, July 7, 2017:
            ``Families Speak Out: Stories of Indian Health Service
              Patients--Regulators cite facilities of federal health
              agency for Native Americans for dangerous care,
              unnecessary deaths'' (by Dan Frosch and Christopher
              Weaver)................................................   177
            ``People Are Dying Here: Federal Hospitals Fail Tribes--
              Indian Health Service facilities sanctioned for
              dangerous, faulty care, leaving often-impoverished
              patients on remote reservations without services
              required by law'' (by Dan Frosch and Christopher
              Weaver)................................................   179
    Western Governors' Association, Prepared Statement of the........   505
    Wilderness:
        Land Trust, Prepared Statement of the........................   508
        Society, Prepared Statement of the...........................   511
    Wildlife:
        Conservation Society, Prepared Statement of the..............   513
        Society, Prepared Statement of the...........................   516

    Yakutat Tlingit Tribe, Prepared Statement of the.................   518

    Zinke, Hon. Ryan, Secretary, Department of the Interior:
        Prepared Statement of........................................    62
        Statement of.................................................    55
        Summary Statement of.........................................    60

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

              DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                                                                       Page

    2018 Budget Priorities...........................................    62
    Alaska Legacy Wells..............................................   101
    America's:
        Energy.......................................................    63
        Lands........................................................    64
        Trust Responsibilities.......................................    64
    Applications for Permits to Drill................................    88
    Arctic...........................................................    92
        National Wildlife Refuge.....................................    95
    Atlantic Seismic Testing.........................................    77
    Blackfeet Water Settlement.......................................    80
    Budget

    Bureau Highlights................................................    65
    Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge...........................    82
    Chesapeake Bay...................................................    77
    Chimney Tops Fires...............................................    70
    Climate Change...................................................    84
    Coal.............................................................    91
    Confirmations....................................................   103
    Congressional Inquiries..........................................    72
    Cooper Landing Bypass............................................   105
    Energy...........................................................    87
    Fire Suppression.................................................    81
    Fiscal Year 2018 Budget..........................................    70
    Great Smoky Mountains National Park..............................    71
    Indian:
        Affairs......................................................    94
            Public Safety and Justice................................    85
        Education....................................................    94
        Programs.....................................................    98
    James K. Polk Special Resource Study.............................    70
    Kagalaska Island and Chirikof and Woewodski Islands..............   104
    Karluk Lake......................................................   104
    King Cove........................................................   105
    Klamath Basin....................................................    95
    Land and Water Conservation Fund

    Legislative Proposals............................................    68
    Management and Reform............................................    65
    Methane Rule.....................................................    82
    National Monuments...............................................    99
    Nation's Infrastructure..........................................    63
    OCS 5-Year Plan..................................................    74
    Offsetting Collections and Fees..................................    69
    Payments in Lieu of Taxes

    Polar Bear Co-Management

    Precious Metals..................................................    84
    Reorganization

    Revenue and Deferred Maintenance.................................    87
    Sudden Oak Death.................................................    80
    The Nation's Infrastructure......................................    63
    Tribal:
        Consultations

        Courts.......................................................    75
    U.S. Geological Survey...........................................    83
        Natural Hazards..............................................   102
    Venting and Flaring..............................................    88
        Rule.........................................................    89
    Volcano Hazards..................................................   102
    Walrus Ivory.....................................................    93
    Western Oregon Resource Management Plan..........................    81
    White Sulphur Springs National Fish Hatchery.....................    84
    Yellowstone Mine.................................................    91
                                   __________

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   156
    Air Quality Management...........................................   162
    Analysis of Enforcement Reductions...............................   161
    Analyzing Changes to Agency Regulations..........................   162
    Bristol Bay......................................................   150
    Budget Prioritization............................................   121
    California Waiver................................................   166
    Carbon Neutrality of Biomass.....................................   157
    Chesapeake Bay:
        Program......................................................   171
            Office in Annapolis, Maryland............................   171
        TMDL Program.................................................   131
    Chlorpyrifos

    Clean Drinking Water Rural Communities...........................   165
    Cleaning up Contaminated Land to Revitalize Communities..........   118
    Climate:
        Briefings....................................................   170
        Change:
            CO2...........................................   135
            Website..................................................   135
        Research

        Website......................................................   173
    Coal:
        Combustion Residuals Federal Permit Program..................   157
        Refuse-Fired Power Plants....................................   158
    Committee on Science, Space, & Technology, statement released by
      Chairman Lamar Smith, ``EPA Emails Show Due Diligence, SST
      Minority Email Shows Politically Motivated Agenda''............   133
    Contaminated Land Issues.........................................   120
    Elimination of:
        Energy Star..................................................   163
        EPA..........................................................   128
    Energy Star......................................................   169
        Impacts From Elimination.....................................   174
    Enforcement Negotiations.........................................   130
    Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals in Commerce.....................   118
    Environmental Justice............................................   172
    ``EPA Emails Show Due Diligence, SST Minority Email Shows
      Politically Motivated Agenda'', statement released by Chairman
      Lamar Smith of the Committee on Science, Space, & Technology...   133
    Executive Order 13783 and Climate Briefings......................   170
    Fairbanks North Star Borough.....................................   139
    Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification............   170
    Fiscal Year 2018 OMB Budget Request..............................   161
    Generators.......................................................   151
    Geographic Programs..............................................   163
    Gold King Mine Spill.............................................   137
    ``I Worked on the EPA's Climate Change Website. Its Removal is a
      Declaration of War'', from the Washington Post, June 22, 2017
      (by Jason Samenow).............................................   155
    Imperial County Air Pollution....................................   168
    Improving America's Air Quality..................................   116
    Inaccuracies in Climate Change Website...........................   135
    Incinerators.....................................................   151
    Indian General Assistance Program................................   157
    Investing in Infrastructure......................................   167
    Lead Paint Program...............................................   162
    Leadership Positions.............................................   152
    Manmade Climate Change...........................................   148
    Military Advisory Board Report: ``National Security and the
      Threat of Climate Change''.....................................   172
    Navajo Nation--Water Monitoring..................................   138
    New:
        Source Performance Standards.................................   154
        York Times Article...........................................   132
    Office of Inspector General Funding..............................   163
    Pebble Limited Partnership.......................................   140
    Proposed State Budget Cuts.......................................   123
    Puget Sound......................................................   161
    Punishing Bad Actors.............................................   119
    Regional:
        Consolidation................................................   163
        Haze Rule....................................................   164
    Renewable Fuel Standards

    Research Budget..................................................   172
    Responsive Communications........................................   122
    Restoring the Role of States in the Regulation of Water..........   117
    Small and Rural Communities Technical Assistance.................   165
    Staffing Changes.................................................   122
    State of Alaska Issues...........................................   120
    States' Budgets and Resources....................................   169
    Steam Electric Plants Rule.......................................   173
    Streamlining.....................................................   119
    Superfund:
        Authority and Sediment Guidance..............................   159
        Budget.......................................................   128
        Cleanup......................................................   124
        Process, Standards, and Priorities...........................   160
        Review--Libby, Montana.......................................   130
        Task Force...................................................   125
    TSCA.............................................................   138
    U.S.-Mexico Border Infrastructure................................   167
    United States:
        Department of Agriculture, Letter to Jack E. Housenger,
          Director, Environmental Protection Agency Regarding the
          EPA's Proposal to Revoke Chlorpyrifos Tolerances...........   141
        Environmental Protection Agency, Letter to Senator Tom Udall
          Regarding the Renewable Fuel Standard Program and the
          Status of the Triennial Report to Congress.................   149
    USDA Comments on the Risk Assessment Underlying the Reopened
      Proposed Rule ``Chlorpyrifos; Tolerance Revocations; Notice of
      Data Availability and Request for Comment'' (Docket ID EPA-HQ-
      OPP-2015-0653).................................................   142
    Vehicle Emissions Standards: Collaboration With the Department of
      Transportation and the California Air Resources Board..........   167
    Washington Post, June 22, 2017:
        ``I Worked on the EPA's Climate Change Website. Its Removal
          is a Declaration of War'' (by Jason Samenow)...............   155
    Water Pollution Cleanup..........................................   127
    Waters of the United States (WOTUS)..............................   136
    Workforce Reduction..............................................   164
                                   __________

                             INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

    Access to Quality Health Care Services Through Improved
      Infrastructure.................................................   189
    Ambulatory Care Program..........................................   225
    Amount of Additional Purchased and Referred Care Appropriations
      Funding Needed To Maintain Care Above Medical Priority Level I
      if Medicaid Expansion Funding Were Eliminated..................   195
    Analysis of What the Impact of Cuts to the Budget Would Have on
      the Physical Health Area and the Behavioral Health Area........   197
    Behavioral Health................................................   196
    Construction Backlog.............................................   223
    Diabetes.........................................................   187
    Facilities.......................................................   228
    Factual Assessment of the Impact of Cuts to the Specific IHS
      Budget.........................................................   198
    ``Families Speak Out: Stories of Indian Health Service Patients--
      Regulators cite facilities of Federal health agency for Native
      Americans for dangerous care, unnecessary deaths'', from The
      Wall Street Journal, July 7, 2017 (by Dan Frosch and
      Christopher Weaver)............................................   177
    GAO..............................................................   201
    Health Insurance Reimbursements..................................   189
    Housing..........................................................   204
    How Many People on Both Scholarship and Loan Repayment Program
      Are Not Able to Get Into the Program (Under the Budget
      Proposal)......................................................   227
    IHS:
        Category of Service by State

        Credentialing System.........................................   202
        Health Care..................................................   190
    Indian Health Board--Billings Contract...........................   229
    Manilaaq vs. Burwell.............................................   229
    Medicaid.........................................................   185
    ``People Are Dying Here: Federal Hospitals Fail Tribes--Indian
      Health Service facilities sanctioned for dangerous, faulty
      care, leaving often-impoverished patients on remote
      reservations without services required by law'' from The Wall
      Street Journal, July 7, 2017 (by Dan Frosch and Christopher
      Weaver)........................................................   179
    Prioritizing Health Care Services................................   188
    Purchased Referred Care..........................................   193
    Quality Framework................................................   187
    Special Diabetes Program for Indians.............................   189
    Supporting Indian Self-Determination.............................   189
    Total Amount of Reimbursements IHS Facilities Have Received Due
      to Medicaid Expansion..........................................   193
    Village Built Clinics............................................   224
    Wall Street Journal, July 7, 2017:
        ``Families Speak Out: Stories of Indian Health Service
          Patients--Regulators cite facilities of Federal health
          agency for Native Americans for dangerous care, unnecessary
          deaths'' (by Dan Frosch and Christopher Weaver)............   177
        ``People Are Dying Here: Federal Hospitals Fail Tribes--
          Indian Health Service facilities sanctioned for dangerous,
          faulty care, leaving often-impoverished patients on remote
          reservations without services required by law'' (by Dan
          Frosch and Christopher Weaver).............................   179
                                   __________

                          UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE

    Access to Section Lines..........................................    27
    Additional Committee Questions...................................    37
    Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange.........................    22
    Blue-stained Wood................................................    50
    Capital Improvement and Maintenance..............................    42
        Program Cuts.................................................    32
    Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) Program

    Cottonwood:
        Decision.....................................................    47
        Environmental Law Center/Lynx Amendment......................    13
    Endangered Species Act...........................................    25
    Expanding Mill Capacity..........................................    50
    Federally Recognized Tribes......................................    24
    Fire:
        Assistance Program Cuts

        Fighting and the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request.............    12
        Funding

    Firefighting Crews...............................................    21
    Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request

    Forest:
        And Range Research...........................................    39
        Products Program.............................................    45
        Service Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request......................     1
    Good Neighbor Authority..........................................    51
    Grazing Permits..................................................    26
    Hazardous Fuels..................................................    38
        Management...................................................    33
    Infrastructure Plan

    Lake Tahoe:
        Restoration Act Implementation...............................    48
        Western Side Tree Removal....................................    49
    Land:
        Acquisition

        And Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)...........................    30
    Legislative Proposals............................................     7
    Mark Twain National Forest--Collaborative Forest Landscape
      Restoration Program............................................    45
    Modernization....................................................    34
    National Forest System...........................................    41
    Natural Resources and Environment................................    39
    Other Operations.................................................    44
    Outfitters and Guide Permits.....................................    11
    Pipeline Permitting Process......................................    17
    President's 2018 Budget..........................................     6
    Public Private Partnerships......................................    46
    Qualified Pilots.................................................    36
    Recreation Permits...............................................    34
    Road Funding.....................................................    28
    Rural Broadband..................................................    18
    Secure Rural Schools

    State & Private Forestry.........................................    40
    Sudden Oak Death.................................................    20
    The President's 2018 Budget......................................     6
    Timber:
        Sales........................................................    10
        Targets......................................................    11
    Tongass:
        Forest Inventory.............................................    37
        Inventory....................................................     8
    Tree Mortality...................................................    48
    Valuing People and Places Initiative.............................    16
    Wildfire Budget Reform...........................................    52
    Wildland Fire Management.........................................    43
        Budget.......................................................     4
        Preparedness Funding Changes.................................    39

                                       -