[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
-