[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                    INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED
                     AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2022

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 HEARINGS

                                 BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                              FIRST SESSION

                                  __________

       SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES

                      CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine, Chair

  BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota             DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
  DEREK KILMER, Washington              MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
  JOSH HARDER, California               CHRIS STEWART, Utah
  SUSIE LEE, Nevada                     MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
  MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 
  
  
  

  NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full 
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full 
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

                 Rita Culp, Jocelyn Hunn, Kusai Merchant,
              Janet Erickson, Tyler Coe, and Marcel Caldwell
                            Subcommittee Staff

                                  ________

                                  PART 6

                                                                   Page
  Efforts to Address Marine Plastic 
Pollution Through Recycling.............
                                  ------                                
                                                                      1
                                        
  Wood Innovation: Sustainable Forest 
Products to Reinvigorate Rural Economies
                                  ------                                
                                                                     61
                                        
  The Effects of Covid-19 on Arts and 
Humanities Organizations................
                                  ------                                
                                                                    113
                                        
  U.S. Forest Service Budget Request for 
Fiscal Year 2022........................
                                  ------                                
                                                                    155
                                        
  Department of the Interior Budget 
Request for Fiscal Year 2022............
                                  ------                                
                                                                    231
                                        
  Environmental Protection Agency Budget 
Request for Fiscal Year 2022............
                                  ------                                
                                                                    299
                                        

                                   
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

                               __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          

           Part 6--INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                                      2022
                                      
                                      
                                      


 
                    INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED
                     AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2022

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 HEARINGS

                                 BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                              FIRST SESSION

                                 _________
 
       SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES

                      CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine, Chair

  BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota             DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
  DEREK KILMER, Washington              MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
  JOSH HARDER, California               CHRIS STEWART, Utah
  SUSIE LEE, Nevada                     MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
  MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania  
  
  
  

  NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full 
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full 
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

                 Rita Culp, Jocelyn Hunn, Kusai Merchant,
              Janet Erickson, Tyler Coe, and Marcel Caldwell
                            Subcommittee Staff

                                  _______

                                  PART 6

                                                                   Page
  Efforts to Address Marine Plastic 
Pollution Through Recycling.............
                                  ------                                
                                                                      1
                                        
  Wood Innovation: Sustainable Forest 
Products to Reinvigorate Rural Economies
                                  ------                                
                                                                     61
                                        
  The Effects of Covid-19 on Arts and 
Humanities Organizations................
                                  ------                                
                                                                    113
                                        
  U.S. Forest Service Budget Request for 
Fiscal Year 2022........................
                                  ------                                
                                                                    155
                                        
  Department of the Interior Budget 
Request for Fiscal Year 2022............
                                  ------                                
                                                                    231
                                        
  Environmental Protection Agency Budget 
Request for Fiscal Year 2022............
                                  ------                                
                                                                    299
                                        

                                   
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

                            _______

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
          
          

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE  
46-542                        WASHINGTON : 2022



                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                ----------                              
                  ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut, Chair


  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                         KAY GRANGER, Texas
  DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina             HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
  LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California          ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
  SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia            MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
  BARBARA LEE, California                    JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
  BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota                  KEN CALVERT, California
  TIM RYAN, Ohio                             TOM COLE, Oklahoma
  C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland        MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida          STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
  HENRY CUELLAR, Texas                       JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
  CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine                     CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
  MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois                     JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
  DEREK KILMER, Washington                   DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
  MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania              ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
  GRACE MENG, New York                       MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
  MARK POCAN, Wisconsin                      CHRIS STEWART, Utah
  KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts          STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
  PETE AGUILAR, California                   DAVID G. VALADAO, California
  LOIS FRANKEL, Florida                      DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
  CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois                     JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
  BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey          JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
  BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan               BEN CLINE, Virginia
  NORMA J. TORRES, California                GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
  CHARLIE CRIST, Florida                     MIKE GARCIA, California
  ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona                   ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
  ED CASE, Hawaii                            TONY GONZALES, Texas
  ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
  JOSH HARDER, California
  JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
  DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
  LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
  SUSIE LEE, Nevada

 
                 Robin Juliano, Clerk and Staff Director

                                   (ii)
                                   
                                   


  INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2022

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

                                          Thursday, March 18, 2021.

     EFFORTS TO ADDRESS MARINE PLASTIC POLLUTION THROUGH RECYCLING

                               WITNESSES

WINNIE LAU, SENIOR MANAGER, PREVENTING OCEAN PLASTICS, THE PEW 
    CHARITABLE TRUSTS
GINGER SPENCER, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
NICOLE COLLIER, SENIOR DIRECTOR, CORPORATE AFFAIRS, NESTLE USA
    Ms. Pingree. Good morning. This hearing will now come to 
order.
    As the hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few 
housekeeping matters. And, before I welcome everyone, I need to 
read this verbatim to comply with the rules.
    So, for today's meeting, the chair, or staff designated by 
the chair, may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise. Members are responsible for muting and 
unmuting themselves.
    If you notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will 
ask you if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you 
indicate your approval by nodding, the staff will unmute your 
microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will 
retain the balance of your time.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will 
turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the 
gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired. When 
your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will 
begin to recognize the next member.
    In terms of speaking order, we will follow the order as set 
forth in the House rules, beginning with the chair and ranking 
member; then members present at the time the hearing is called 
to order will be recognized in order of seniority; and, 
finally, members not present at the time that the hearing is 
called to order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    So that is the end of our technical script.
    And I will officially welcome you all to the first Interior 
and Environment Subcommittee hearing of the 117th Congress, and 
thank you to everyone. This is my first committee as chair, so 
I will try to make as few mistakes as possible. And I am very 
excited to say that my daughter, who used to be the Speaker of 
the House, has loaned me her gavel for this particular reason.
    So we have several new members on the committee who will be 
joining us at some point: Mr. Harder, Ms. Lee, and Mr. 
Cartwright. Thank you very much for joining our committee. We 
are excited to have you.
    Ms. Kaptur, we will have her with us at some point today. 
Mr. Joyce is in another meeting, and he will be with us as soon 
as he can, but I am looking forward to working with him as the 
ranking member. And thank you. I see Mr. Stewart and Mr. 
Amodei. Great to be back on the committee with you. And I am 
sure that, now that I am the chair, I will be able to visit the 
wild horses and the sage-grouse at some point in time.
    I am pleased that the first subcommittee oversight hearing 
will be focusing on marine plastic pollution, recycling, and 
steps currently underway to move us toward a circular economy. 
Coming from Maine, as you can imagine, the ocean is critical to 
our culture and to our economy, and I, personally, have a long-
standing interest in addressing waste challenges and improving 
sustainability.
    This hearing builds on the subcommittee's work last 
Congress. For the newcomers on the committee, we had a hearing 
in September of 2019 on marine debris and its impacts on 
ecosystems and species. And, in February 2020, we held a 
hearing on ways to strengthen community recycling programs.
    I am just going to go over a few of the key takeaways from 
those hearings.
    The marine plastic pollution problem is global in scope. It 
becomes worse each year, and is increasingly devastating for 
its consequences. Addressing it will require coordinated 
response from governments, the private sector and nongovernment 
stakeholders. There are enormous economic opportunities and 
environmental benefits to moving towards a circular economy, 
but it will take a sustained commitment of the effort and 
resources we have to get there.
    Many of the tools that we need are available today, and we 
will hear more about that. But, unless we substantially 
increase the ambition and scale, the problem will only grow 
worse as pollution growth outpaces solutions.
    Finally, Federal Government has a key role to play, both 
domestically and internationally, and, most importantly, we are 
currently on the wrong trajectory. We need to move forward on 
the complex solutions to this problem, and we need to do it 
now.
    So I want to welcome our panelists. Thank you very much for 
taking your time to be with us today.
    Dr. Winnie Lau, senior manager of Preventing Ocean 
Plastics, here on behalf of Pew Charitable Trusts, who have 
done tremendous work in this area.
    Ginger Spencer, Director of Public Works for the city of 
Phoenix, Arizona. Thank you so much. We are excited to hear 
from you.
    And Nicole Collier, Senior Director for Corporate Affairs 
at Nestle USA.
    The panelists will discuss their work researching 
strategies to reduce marine plastics and successes and 
challenges that they face to improve--in improving recycling 
rates by the public in their communities. Also, some 
investments the private sector is undertaking to reducing 
packaging, and to increase recyclability of their products.
    I think we all know that COVID has created new challenges 
that we now have to navigate. So, I hope our witnesses will 
talk a little bit about how the pandemic has impacted their 
efforts and if they think we can get back to where we were with 
recycling in plastics prior to the pandemic.
    Finally, I hope to hear more about what the Federal 
Government can be doing to support these efforts, and what else 
we should be doing to increase circularity and sustainability. 
We know we need to work together to address the plastic 
pollution problem, and it will be instructive to learn about 
the progress in sustainable packaging that will help with waste 
management and reduce sources of this pollution, and our 
creative solution to addressing the global trash problem.
    Before the opening statements from our panel, since Mr. 
Joyce is not here, I will be pleased to yield to the chair of 
the full committee, Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much for 
joining us, and please go ahead with your statement.
    The Chair. Thank you so much. I admire the--first of all, 
congratulations on chairing the committee. It is a delight, and 
no one knows these issues better than you do, Madam Chair. And, 
having known her daughter, I think that that was an appropriate 
size gavel for her to be wielding, and now passing it on to her 
spectacular mom.
    So--but I thank the chair and the ranking member, and our 
witnesses this morning for testifying.
    Our world's oceans are near and dear to all of our hearts. 
I grew up on the shores of the Long Island Sound, and have fond 
childhood memories of visiting New Haven's Lighthouse Point, 
where I remember playing on the beach, swimming in the water 
with my family and friends. But, as the years have gone by, I 
have watched with sadness as both the Sound and all of our 
oceans have become choked with plastic pollution. When I was a 
kid, finding plastic on the beach was a rarity, but now it is 
all too common.
    Connecticut alone uses 400 million plastic bags each year, 
many of which eventually make their way into our oceans and 
waterways. And, while recent efforts to clean up the Sound have 
made an important impact, the most recent data shows that more 
than 100,000 plastic bags still end up in the waters of the 
Long Island Sound each year.
    This has a profound impact on the health and vitality of 
Connecticut's economy, which depends on the Sound, from 
commercial and recreational fishing, to ecotourism, water-
dependent businesses, like lobster fishing. Connecticut derives 
tens of billions annually from the Long Island Sound. 
Shellfishing alone generates $30 million in sales and provides 
300 jobs Statewide.
    But, as the impact of plastic pollution grows, the future 
of these industries is uncertain. This is certainly a global 
issue, but it has local and individual causes and costs.
    Keep America Beautiful estimates that litter clean-up costs 
the United States more than $11.5 billion each year. That is 
all the more reason why every American, whether in Connecticut 
or California, has a vested interest in the future of our 
plastic consumption.
    As chair--co-chair of the Long Island Sound Caucus, I have 
been working for years on the clean-up and revitalization of 
our Nation's waterways. But this problem needs a comprehensive 
response.
    Some estimates indicate that people across the world may be 
consuming as much as half a pound of plastic in our food and 
water each year. It is in our shellfish. It is in our salt. It 
is raining from our skies. Plastic is everywhere, and if we do 
not take meaningful action to stop it, not only will plastic 
soon be found in everything, it will also soon be found in 
every way.
    Our Nation must lead in cleaning up this plastic problem, 
the recycling system. The focus of today's hearing is a key 
part of the solution. As we will learn today, we must invest in 
research that studies ways to keep plastic out of our 
environment and advance policies that tackle the plastic 
pollution problem throughout the supply chain.
    We must become more aggressive in reducing the amount of 
disposable packaging, single-use plastics, substitute more 
sustainable materials for single-use plastics that are 
difficult to recycle, and design products in packaging to make 
it easier for every American to be able to recycle.
    Congress and the private sector must partner with local 
governments to enhance recycling programs to capture and 
repurpose our waste and move towards a circular economy. That 
requires us to reimagine the role that plastic plays in our 
economy and our environment.
    Fortunately, that process is already underway, as we will 
hear this morning from our witnesses. Our role must be to 
support those efforts and accelerate the transformation as best 
we can.
    And, with that, I thank the chair and the ranking member, 
and I yield back my time.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank 
you for joining us and making that wonderful statement.
    Since we don't have the ranking member yet, I am just going 
to go ahead and let the panelists start. And, when he arrives, 
we will happily recognize him for an opening statement.
    So, with that, let's start with Dr. Winnie Lau. Thank you 
very much for being with us today.
    Ms. Lau. Thank you.
    Chairman Pingree, Ranking Member Joyce, members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for your invitation to discuss the 
growing problem of marine plastic pollution, and possible 
solutions to address it.
    My name is Winnie Lau, and I am the senior manager for The 
Pew Charitable Trusts' Preventing Ocean Plastics Project.
    Plastic pollution in the ocean is a major environmental 
challenge that is growing worse each year but society has yet 
to come together around a strategy to reverse this trend.
    Plastic pollution stems from the current linear plastic 
system where a product is produced and then discarded after 
use, as opposed to a circular one, where a product is designed 
for long use and ideally reused, and then recycled and waste 
eliminated wherever possible.
    The cost of plastic pollution to people, the economy, and 
nature is estimated at $1.5- to $2.2 trillion a year. Last 
year, Pew and our partners produced a report, Breaking the 
Plastic Wave, a comprehensive assessment of pathways towards 
stopping ocean plastic pollution, and a paper in the Journal 
Science. This morning, I will present our findings and relevant 
recommendations for your consideration.
    One of the starkest findings from Pew's work is that 
without action, the amount of plastic going into the world's 
oceans, rivers, lakes, and on land each year could triple by 
2040, leading to a quadrupling of the plastic that is already 
in the ocean today.
    The private sector and governments are responding with 
commitments and new policies, but these would only reduce 
plastic pollution by 7 percent in 2040. At this rate, 
businesses could face a financial risk of $100 billion in the 
next 20 years if governments passed the cost of plastic waste 
management onto them.
    There is no silver bullet. A fundamental system change is 
needed. Relying mainly on recycling, disposal, or reduction, 
would, at best, keep plastic pollution at around today's level 
in the year 2040, but would still require a lot of effort and 
resources. We simply will not be able to recycle our way out of 
this problem. At the same time, recycling will need to be part 
of the solution.
    The one strategy that could significantly reduce plastic 
pollution going into our environment is a system-change 
approach that applies actions synergistically across the whole 
plastic system. With the technologies and approaches that exist 
today, we have the tools to reduce annual ocean plastic 
pollution by 80 percent in the next 20 years.
    The biggest bang for the buck is to eliminate avoidable 
plastic use and encourage to switch to the reuse and refill 
systems. These changes could generate 30 percent less plastic 
waste by 2040, and governments globally could save $70 billion 
over the next 20 years on waste management costs.
    For example, the U.S. Government could exercise its 
considerable procurement power, and put in place policies to 
reduce the purchase of single-use plastic, and incentivize 
reuse and refill models by its vendors.
    A second complementary tool is to achieve a doubling of 
recycling rates in the next 20 years. Only 15 percent of global 
plastic waste is recycled, and the U.S. figure was only 4.5 
percent in 2018.
    Three key factors hinder the growth of the recycling 
sector. First, 80 percent of the plastic produced today cannot 
be recycled economically. Second, collecting and sorting of 
plastic wastes are too costly due to the diversity of products 
in the market. Third, recycled plastic often costs more than 
virgin plastic.
    Putting in place design standards, recycled content 
targets, and improved collection and sorting technologies, 
could support a robust domestic recycling industry with 
economic, social, and environmental benefits.
    I would like to highlight two other key areas that need 
attention. First, the U.S. contribution to plastic pollution 
does not stop at its borders. Decreasing and monitoring scrap 
plastic export to middle- and low-income countries is needed.
    Second, microplastic pollutions, especially tire tread 
particles, is an increasingly growing concern, especially for 
high-income countries like the U.S., and will require more 
research to understand its impacts and ways to prevent and 
reduce it.
    We feel there is an opportunity for the U.S. to take a 
global leadership role to reduce plastic pollution by 80 
percent in the next 20 years, especially in the oceans, by 
encouraging a comprehensive system-change strategy across 
government and the private sector.
    Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
       
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Spencer, we would love to hear from you.
    Ms. Spencer. Congratulations, Chairwoman Pingree. To you, 
to chair--Madam Chair DeLauro, to Ranking Member Joyce, and 
members of the subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to 
share the city of Phoenix's story on how we have met recycling 
challenges, and our work to build a circular economy.
    My name is Ginger Spencer. I am the public works director 
for the city of Phoenix, and I am very honored to be here 
today.
    The city of Phoenix is the fifth largest city in the Nation 
where our mayor is Kate Gallego. The city is home to 1.5 
million-plus people and spans more than 500 square miles.
    Mayor Gallego and our city leadership are passionate and 
committed to recycling, sustainability, and building a circular 
economy.
    In 2011, Phoenix was described as the least-sustainable 
city in the world. In 2012, our then-newly elected mayor, and 
now Congressman Greg Stanton, set out to change that. The mayor 
and city council established a new initiative called Reimagine 
Phoenix, where our goal was to divert 40 percent of our waste 
from the landfill by the year 2020. At the time, we had a 16 
percent diversion rate, so this was a very ambitious goal.
    I am here to report that we achieved a high diversion rate 
of 36 percent in 2019, prior to COVID-19, and exceeded the 
EPA's national average recycling rate of 34 percent at the 
time, and that was without any mandates, fees, or fines to 
incentivize our residents to recycle. Everything we did was on 
a voluntary basis using our existing resources and revenue.
    So how did we do it? In short, it was through innovation 
and partnerships. Thanks to the leadership and action of our 
mayor, city council and city management, new public-private 
partnerships, a strong solid waste team, and some of the 
hardest-working and most dedicated employees and essential 
workers that I know, we met the challenge head-on. We said we 
have got trash and lots of it. We said we have got trash, and 
we don't know what to do with all of it. And we said we have 
got trash, and we want to transform it into a resource.
    The city has been in the recycling business for more than 
30 years. We own two MRFs, two transfer stations, one compost 
facility, one open landfill in the city of Buckeye, and five 
closed landfills in Phoenix.
    First, we did a waste characterization study to determine 
the composition of our garbage and recycling, and we found out, 
for example, that 30 percent of what our residents were 
throwing away was compostable material. So we built a compost 
facility to divert the waste from the landfill.
    We also determined what was it costing us per ton to send 
our material to the landfill, and we entertained new business 
proposals to transform the waste into a resource that basically 
would cost less than to send it to the landfill, allowing us to 
create new programs and services for our residents without 
increasing their fees.
    We partnered with businesses, universities, NGOs, and 
innovators from throughout the U.S. to repurpose our waste. We 
partnered with Arizona State University and developed the 
Resource Innovation and Solutions Network and the Technology 
Solutions Incubator. That program, the Incubator, helped grow 
19 start-up companies, generated $4.1 million in revenues, 
raised $3.72 million in capital, created 68 jobs, and 
manufactured 25 new products.
    We issued a Call for Innovators--i.e., requests for 
information--and partnered with our Economic Development 
Department to issue RFPs like mattress recycling, palm frond 
recycling, waste-to-energy RFPs. We partnered with the 
Recycling Partnership using their free resources to develop the 
Oops Shine On program to educate our residents and reduce 
recycling contamination.
    In week one, 70 percent of our residents received an Oops 
tag for contamination in the recycling. By week five, 70 
percent of our residents received a Shine On tag for great 
recycling.
    We partnered with the Closed Loop Partners, and received a 
zero interest loan to make upgrades to our recycling facility 
located in the northern part of town, which allowed us to 
increase capacity. It improved the quality of our recyclables, 
and it increased our net revenue from $3 million that was 
projected to $6 million annually.
    We partnered with our friends across the pond, and became a 
member of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation so we could learn from 
international cities who are already leading the way in 
building a circular economy, and to highlight our challenges 
and opportunities here in the U.S.
    When the National Sword policy hit and we had to find a new 
home for 80 percent of our recyclables that previously went to 
China, we basically figured out what to do. With plastics three 
through seven, we found out they no longer had a home, but we 
said, Are there any plastics that do have value, and found out 
that number fives, polypropylene--basically your yogurt cups--
did have value. So we slowed down our MRFs, caught that 
material, and we partnered with Renewology to turn our plastics 
into fuel.
    When COVID-19 hit and we saw an increase on average of 20 
percent in garbage, recycling and bulk trash, we stepped up and 
met that challenge. It was a $4 million increase to our 
operation, and we were able to get coronavirus relief funds to 
help out with that as well.
    We had to put our plastics-to-fuel project on hold because 
of the uncertainty in the market. I am glad to announce that we 
have restarted those conversations with Renewology and their 
investors, such as Mitsubishi, to restart the Renew Phoenix 
Project by doing a smaller demonstration project.
    The city of Phoenix has a new goal of achieving zero waste 
by 2050. We embrace the EPA's new national goal of achieving 50 
percent diversion by 2030. We are activators of the U.S. 
Plastic Pact, a partnership between The Recycling Partnership, 
World Wildlife Fund, and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, with 
more than 89 activators representing brands, manufacturers, 
MRFs, government entities, academia, and other stakeholders 
along the supply in plastics manufacturing chain, working to 
build a roadmap to address the plastic waste challenge.
    Lastly, our residents--we asked our residents if they were 
satisfied with our solid waste services; if they value 
recycling and compost; and, lastly, if they were willing to pay 
a little more to maintain these services, and they said yes, 
yes, and yes.
    Our residents are relying on us to provide this service and 
to keep our communities clean and safe, and to do our part to 
protect the environment.
    Thank you very much for this opportunity to share our 
story.
    [The information follows:]
    
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
       
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much for your testimony.
    Ms. Collier.
    Ms. Collier. Thank you, Chairwoman Pingree, Ranking Member 
Joyce, and members of the subcommittee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this 
morning about Nestle's commitment to tackling plastic waste and 
critical infrastructure that both industry innovation and 
recycling infrastructure will play in that effort.
    My name is Nicole Collier, and I am the senior director of 
corporate affairs for Nestle with responsibility over our U.S. 
policy priorities, including efforts that support our 
sustainability goals.
    Nestle is the world's largest food and beverage company, 
and the U.S. is our largest market. Our products are in 97 
percent of U.S. homes. We offer products that include Coffee-
Mate creamers, Purina Pet Care, plant-based brands, like Sweet 
Earth, and baking products, like Nestle Toll House morsels. 
Nearly all of what we sell in the U.S., we produce right here, 
with over 30,000 committed employees at our 68 facilities 
throughout the country.
    Our vision is that none of our packaging, including 
plastics, ends up in landfills, oceans, or waterways. To 
achieve this, we have set the goal that 100 percent of our 
packaging will be reusable or recyclable by 2025. And, by that 
same year, we will reduce our use of virgin plastic in our 
packaging by one-third.
    Some of these transitions are particularly challenging for 
food products, where packaging and food safety are regulated by 
the FDA. In some cases, there simply are not approved 
alternatives for current packaging.
    There is reason to be optimistic with industry investment 
and discoveries. Nestle's Institute of Packaging Sciences is 
making incredible headway, and Nestle is pouring research and 
development dollars into the design of recyclable and 
alternative materials.
    Last year, we announced a $2 billion global investment to 
help lead the shift from virgin to food-grade recycled 
plastics. As part of that, we created a sustainable packaging 
venture fund focusing on start-up companies that are developing 
innovative packaging solutions. And we are not alone in these 
pursuits. Other consumer-facing companies have similar goals.
    For example, several years ago, we founded the Sustainable 
Food Policy Alliance, or SFPA, along with Danone, Mars, and 
Unilever, because we value a collaborative approach to 
policymaking, and believe we can contribute to that process 
while solving issues facing our employees, our consumers, our 
supply chain, and retail customers.
    We realize that systemic change is needed to achieve our 
packaging goals, and prevent recyclable materials from being 
sent to landfills, and to increase the amount of recycled 
material that is collected and processed in the U.S. and made 
available for reuse.
    To achieve this, SFPA supports the adoption of a Federal 
Extended Producer Responsibility, or EPR system. An EPR system 
would place a fee on packaging, and the revenue from the 
collected fee would be dedicated to recycling infrastructure 
improvements. Nestle and the other SFPA member companies 
participate in EPR systems globally, and we know what works.
    In the U.S., we support a nationally consistent, economy-
wide approach to life-cycle management of packaging with shared 
responsibility between communities and brands for waste 
collection, handling, and recycling.
    This subcommittee's work to support the Recycling Needs 
Survey and Assessment at EPA will help target investments to 
increase recycling rates, reduce contamination, and attract 
stronger end markets. There is a tremendous amount of 
innovation and partnership happening in this space. We have 
worked closely with partners, including the Recycling 
Partnership's Circular Economy Accelerator, to develop a 
framework using this policy approach for the U.S.
    Another example is the U.S. Plastics Pact, which launched 
last year with over 70 founding activators, including Nestle. 
This group is aligning on national standards and a common 
vision for a circular economy that will likely be published in 
the summer of 2021.
    I want to thank this committee for continuing to create 
opportunities like this for thoughtful and bipartisan 
discussions on these issues. We applaud your work to direct a 
national recycling strategy that includes collaboration among 
all levels of government, nonprofits, and the private sector, 
and we look forward to continuing to partner with you and put 
our size and scale to work in the area of plastic waste 
reduction.
    Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
       
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much for your testimony and to 
all of you for being here today.
    I see Mr. Joyce has joined us. And if you would like to 
make opening remarks, please go ahead.
    Mr. Joyce. There we go.
    Ms. Pingree. Well done. That is the biggest challenge of 
today, is unmuting yourself.
    Mr. Joyce. I need my daughters around so they can help me 
fix all my problems with the software. Thank you for allowing 
me to be here. Madam Chair, so nice to see you.
    Let me be the first to say congratulations on your new role 
as the head of this Interior and Environment Subcommittee. It 
is well-deserved. I have heard your advocacy on behalf of Maine 
for the years you have been on the subcommittee, and they 
should be proud to have you as their advocate.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you.
    Mr. Joyce. And it is always a pleasure to see that the 
chair, Rosa DeLauro, who I first served on Labor HHS has joined 
us. She taught me a lot of lessons, too, in her time there. But 
you have always been a hard-working and well-respected member 
of the Appropriations Committee, and I am really thankful for 
the friendship and the way we are going to work together.
    As we kick off subcommittee activity in the 117th Congress, 
I am hopeful that we will continue the tradition that Betty and 
I, and certainly Betty and Ken had in the past to reach across 
the aisle and tackle the tough issues our constituents face, 
while also maintaining proper oversight of the critical 
programs that fall within our jurisdiction.
    With that, Madam Chair, thank you for holding today's 
hearing. I look forward to working with all the people on the 
committee in trying to make sure we do what is best for our 
country.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much, Mr. Joyce. It is a pleasure 
to have the opportunity to work with you, and will do my best 
to fill the big shoes that Ms. McCollum left behind, and to do 
my best to get up to speed quickly on all the things that you 
need to know to be on this committee, that I know you know a 
lot about, so I will lean on you.
    I will recognize myself for 5 minutes to begin the 
questions. And, again, thank you so much to our witnesses. It 
is going to be wonderful to have a chance to chat with you 
more.
    So let me just start with Ms. Lau. And, again, thank you so 
much for the work that Pew has done on this topic, and really, 
the comprehensive assessment of what needs to be done. So let 
me just throw out a couple questions for you.
    Why is a material design and substitution for plastic 
products not enough to address the problem? And then, maybe I 
will just throw in a couple of other parts of this. Why must we 
focus on both pre-consumer and post-consumer? And, also, in 
looking at the whole problem here, what other research is 
necessary to understand the life cycle of different plastics 
and the challenges that we are facing?
    Sorry for that load, but I figured it would just be easier 
to get them out there.
    Ms. Lau. Thank you, Chair Pingree. I was writing it all 
down, so I will try to capture all of your questions. If I miss 
anything, please do let me know.
    So what we have found is that, you know, we started the 
work recognizing that plastic has a utility and it has a value 
in society, but at the same time, that the rate at which we are 
producing plastic is much higher than the rate at which we are 
growing the solutions, the waste management processes and 
infrastructure to handle that.
    So, by applying approaches both to the pre-consumer and to 
the post-consumer stages of the plastic system, we would be 
able to dramatically reduce plastic pollution going into the 
environment. What we found was, if we only focused on pre-
consumer, while we can reduce some of the--a significant 
amount, 30 percent--we can reduce 30 percent of the plastic 
away, and then substitute around 17 percent of the plastic 
away, we would still be left with about 50 percent. And, right 
now, the recycling industry is only at 15 percent of recycling 
for plastic.
    So that would mean we still have about 30 to 40 percent of 
plastic that needs to be captured and safely handled, and 
hopefully recycled back into the system. So, without applying 
action to both pre-consumer and post-consumer stages of the 
plastic system, we would not be able to decrease plastic waste 
generation and decrease plastic pollution going into our 
environment.
    So material design, as you said, it is a really important 
part of this whole process. Part of the reason that it is 
difficult and costly to recycle plastic is that the plastic, 
when it is designed, is not necessarily taking into account 
what happens to the product, the packaging, once it is used. So 
sometimes different plastic materials are mixed together, which 
makes it very difficult to recycle, or maybe impossible, could 
make it--and then, also, in the design of it--and you have 
multiple, different polymers, different chemical formulations 
that require a lot of effort in sorting.
    So the whole system right now is not very efficient, and 
there are different ways to make it more efficient. As I said 
earlier, you could have design standards, you could have 
recycling content targets. Those could make the whole system 
more effective.
    And then, at the same time, by reducing away the very-
difficult-to-recycle plastic, then you can take the 
inefficiencies out of the system.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you. Thanks. And I have many more 
questions, but I will just quickly ask Ms. Spencer--thank you 
so much for talking to us about really the amazing work that 
Phoenix has done. Such a great role model for our other cities, 
and I am thrilled to hear that you have a composting operation 
and that you have just really taken a comprehensive view.
    So, in going forward--and I only have a minute to ask, but 
I can always get back to you. What kind of research or 
information do you need to be able to make the assessments and 
decide what is going to be cost effective to do going into the 
future?
    Ms. Spencer. Thank you, Chairwoman, for that question.
    So one of the things that was very helpful for us in the 
beginning was to do a waste characterization so we could figure 
out the makeup. What are our residents throwing away in the 
garbage? What are our residents putting into the recycling bin 
that is contamination, so that way, we knew how to focus our 
efforts. Also, trying to figure out, well, what was our cost 
per ton to send material to the landfill, and compare that 
against decisions to do composting, to do recycling, to do 
upgrades to our MRF, or to build a composting facility, for 
example, or to do other partnerships.
    One of the things that will be very, very helpful for us 
from a research standpoint moving forward is similar to what 
Ms. Lau said, is about being able to do life-cost analysis when 
it comes to materials, when it comes to commodities. So not 
only are we looking at what is the cost of the material? What 
is the economic benefit that we can bring by selling that 
material? But, also, what is it doing to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions? What is the long-term effect, so that we could 
actually look at what we call the triple bottom line in that 
overall economic benefit.
    So, life cycle analysis definitely would be very, very 
helpful in our efforts to continue to build a circular economy.
    Ms. Pingree. Great. I have to leave it there. I am over my 
time. And thank you so much.
    Mr. Joyce, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, also, for the 
record, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to include my 
full opening statement and a letter from the American Chemistry 
Council in the hearing record today.
    Ms. Pingree. Without objection, so moved.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
       
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
    Ms. Collier, thank you so much for being here--all of our 
witnesses today, thank you for being here.
    I am so proud of what you have done at Nestle and the bold 
commitment that you have made to make 100 percent of your 
packaging recyclable, or reusable by 2025 and to reduce the use 
of virgin plastics by one-third. I am especially proud that you 
are employing 4,000 Buckeyes to help make this goal a reality.
    Can you take a moment to describe how Nestle will meet this 
goal using innovative solutions, partnerships, and consumer 
communication? How might heavy-handed Federal mandates and 
product bans potentially, hinder Nestle's ability to foster a 
circular economy and develop innovative packaging solutions?
    Ms. Collier. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Joyce. We 
are really proud to be in the heart of Solon, Ohio, so thank 
you for that.
    We do agree--I agree with all of the panelists and many of 
the comments that have been made. This is a complex problem, 
and Nestle is looking at this, and looking at the kind of 
multifaceted-pronged approach to solving this issue.
    One, we also have tremendous research capabilities 
throughout the company, and we are putting a lot of those 
resources and efforts into this plastic and sustainable 
packaging issue.
    We are one--to achieve our commitment, we are looking at 
the plastic that we currently use. As I mentioned, we have a 
goal of reducing virgin plastic in our packaging by one-third 
by 2025, and so, we are very committed to doing that where we 
can.
    However, I think, as was already mentioned by Winnie Lau, 
plastic does play an important role in food packaging. It helps 
sustain shelf life. It has a portion of food safety that we 
rely on. And, so, it likely will be a part of the food industry 
for some time.
    We are looking to continue redesigning and designing our 
packaging for recycling in order to commit to achieve our 
goals. We also are spending a lot of research and development 
dollars, as I mentioned, on new alternative materials, whether 
those are fiber-based, bio-based. We are looking at a lot of 
other types of materials for our packaging.
    We have a diverse portfolio of products, and a diverse 
portfolio of needs of packaging as well. And, so, we have spent 
a lot of time investing in that.
    We also created this venture fund to invest in small 
companies and start-ups that are innovating equipment for local 
MRFs throughout the world, and some of that investment has come 
to the U.S., and I hope to speak about that as well.
    So there are lots of different areas that we are trying to 
achieve this work. While we know plastic remains to be a big 
problem, we do still use it, we do see that it has value, and 
we are trying to make it as recyclable as possible.
    And, last but not least, one of the things that I really 
have focused a lot of my time on is infrastructure in the U.S. 
It is really important that we enhance and strengthen that 
infrastructure so that all of that diverse packaging really can 
be circular--be a part of the circular economy and we can drive 
circularity through our infrastructure. It is a big issue for 
us.
    Mr. Joyce. As you innovate and develop more sustainable 
packaging solutions, is it challenging to do so without 
compromising food safety and quality protections?
    Ms. Collier. No. I mean, we can't--we have to balance that 
appropriately. And, as I mentioned, there are food safety 
requirements to our packaging that are regulated by the FDA. We 
are fully compliant, and we work very closely with our partners 
there to ensure that.
    And that is why I made the comment about plastic. There are 
some items today where we don't have alternative materials that 
would be appropriate. But, where there are opportunities, we do 
seek to use different materials.
    But, you know, again, I think one of the big pieces here 
is, in order for most--the majority of Americans to be able to 
recycle, we really have to have more consistency in our 
recycling system.
    Today, there are winners and losers across the country, and 
we really need to be able to strengthen that so that all of the 
packaging can actually be a part of the circular economy.
    Mr. Joyce.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Joyce.
    And I am pleased to recognize the chair of the 
Appropriations Committee, Ms. DeLauro, for 5 minutes. Thank you 
for being here.
    The Chair. Thank you very, very much, and thank you for the 
testimony to our witnesses. It is really not only informative, 
but it really is, you know, direction for the future and very 
innovative, and so I am grateful for that.
    Ms. Spencer, you mentioned China's new recycling standards 
have forced Phoenix to reassess its plastic disposal methods. 
We have got many municipalities who have suffered from this 
change. I mean, Stamford, Connecticut used to earn $95,000 
selling its recyclables. But, after the policy change, it cost 
the city $700,000 to dispose of them. China's new standards 
have effectively eliminated a major foreign market for our 
plastic waste.
    And you noted the need to redevelop in the U.S. recycling 
market, the opportunity it presents in job creation, 
innovation, partnerships. And it seems that recycling hubs 
would need to be used by multiple localities to reduce the cost 
of running them and to be able to maintain them.
    Has the city of Phoenix worked with other municipalities in 
Arizona to design new recycling hubs? How could the Federal 
investment increase this effort? And, in terms of job creation, 
do you have a projection on how many jobs a city of Phoenix's 
size could create with new recycling investments?
    Ms. Spencer. Madam Chair DeLauro, thank you for that 
question. Great comments, observations, and a great question.
    When it comes to plastics, what we do know from a Phoenix 
perspective, that basically 11 percent of what was showing up 
in the garbage was actually plastics, and about 15 percent of 
what was in our recyclables was plastics as well.
    To your point, we have worked with other cities. We have 
two MRFs here in Phoenix, recycling facilities. And there are 
other cities from throughout the Valley of the Sun that 
actually send their recyclables to us, so we have agreements in 
place.
    When the National Sword hit, when COVID-19 hit, there were 
other cities who reached out to us who wanted to bring their 
recyclables to us as well.
    Right now, though, we--with the upgrade that we did at our 
north facility, through the zero-interest loan that we got from 
the Closed Loop Partners, we were able to take down our older 
plant that is located in southern parts of town and send all of 
our recyclables there. Once we bring that location back up, we 
could look at bringing in additional cities.
    So investment, in recycling infrastructure is so important, 
and, if that was available, many cities would be able to 
continue to be in the recycling business.
    It creates jobs--we know that--for the people who are 
working in the plants; for the people that are processing and 
sorting the recyclables; for the individuals who are selling 
the actual recyclables; for the people that are taking the 
recyclables and transforming that waste into a new product. So 
recycling, what we know, is great for the economy.
    The Chair. I will just say, as we think about--and I say 
this to the chair and ranking member, as we think about 
infrastructure in its broader terms, you are talking about 
recyclable infrastructure seems to be a very worthwhile effort.
    If I can, let me ask Dr. Lau a question. And this has to do 
with the concept of the Extended Producer Responsibility, which 
has not received support at the Federal level in the past, but 
there--as I understand it, there is activity at the State 
level.
    Is the lack of Extended Producer Responsibility success due 
to it not being scaled at the Federal level? What other policy 
proposals would you pair with it in the recycling system 
change? Do you think industry's support for this effort--for 
this model is sufficient, or do you think corporations should 
also work to eliminate plastic packaging?
    Ms. Lau. Thank you, Madam Chair DeLauro.
    So Extended Producer Responsibility is one of the policy 
solutions that we included in our analysis, and found to be one 
of the solutions that will be needed to help increase the 
recycling rate globally, and as well as in the U.S.
    And Extended Producer Responsibility is one of those 
policies that can help reduce the cost of recycling, and, 
therefore, making the industry more robust and more profitable. 
And it is one where, likely, it will require government and 
private-sector collaboration to make it work.
    As to whether it should be a Federal policy, it isn't 
something that we have looked at, whether it needed to be 
implemented at a national level or a subnational level, so I 
can't comment on that at the moment. But we do know that it is 
an effective policy. It can be an effective policy to make the 
recycling industry profitable and robust.
    As to it not being scaled, I think it is a newer policy, 
and it is one that more and more governments are looking at and 
trying, and, so, I think, in the near future, this is a policy 
that would likely be applied more here, I hope, at home in the 
U.S., but also globally.
    The Chair. Thank you.
    And, Madam Chair, thank you. I have gone over my time, and 
I--well, can't yield back any time. I just took over my time. 
So thank you very much for your indulgence. Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. We are very pleased to have you join us today, 
so thank you so much for your questions.
    Mr. Stewart, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stewart. Well, thank you to the witnesses. Thanks for 
being here, but also, more importantly, thanks for what you do. 
I support it. Obviously, I think all of us do. It is better for 
everyone, and it is clearly better for the environment, and, 
hopefully, better for the consumers.
    I actually am not going to ask a question. I will just 
voice my support. I have another hearing I have got to run to, 
and I want to be able to stay and listen to the answer, but, 
Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you. And thank you so much for joining 
us and hearing the witnesses today.
    So, I think that next on the list is Mr. Harder, and 
welcome to the committee, or do I see him there?
    Actually, I don't see Mr. Harder. I think he may have left 
the room. So, if he comes back, we will bring him back on.
    I don't see Mr. Amodei, who was here in the beginning, so 
nice to have had him here.
    And we will go to Mrs. Lee. So good to have you on our 
committee.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and as 
well the Ranking Member Joyce for hosting this hearing. This 
is, to me, a really important issue.
    And I want to focus on one particular approach for how we 
can incentivize industry and investments to shift away from the 
production of new plastic and towards reuse systems and 
sustainable substitute materials.
    As you know, I represent southern Nevada. We have a robust 
tourism and hospitality and convention industry. And, as you 
can imagine, plastic use is prevalent. But, you know, our 
tourism industry has the power to drive demand for plastic 
incentives and the economic incentives to make a shift towards 
more sustainable substitute materials.
    Already, some of our key industry players have made major 
steps in the right direction, including the Las Vegas Sands 
organization that added single-use plastic reduction to its 
ECO360 plan, sustainability strategy. This was back in 2018, 
and they developed a new single-use plastic plan in 2019 that 
annually replaces 6.5 million plastic takeaway containers and 
cutlery with plant-based alternatives.
    In addition, they also eliminated plastic laundry collars, 
and plastic hangers have been replaced with cardboard 
alternatives. Including, there has been several national hotel 
or global hotel chains, Marriott International, 
InterContinental Hotel Groups, that have also committed to 
getting rid of the small plastic bottles used in their hotels 
for products like shampoo and shower gel.
    So, as we know, these are steps in the right direction, but 
plenty more to be done, and I am looking forward to working on 
this subcommittee in a bipartisan manner to help promote those 
solutions.
    Dr. Lau, I want to--recognizing the cost of plastic 
pollution to the global economy, anywhere from $1.5- to $2.2 
trillion across the sectors from shipping to tourism, I want to 
ask you: Can you speak to how government procurement policies 
can help accelerate the shift away from single-use plastic 
items and towards sustainable substitutes?
    Ms. Lau. Thank you, Ms. Lee, for that question, and thank 
you for all the great work in your home State.
    For the tourism industry--for governments, procurement is a 
very powerful tool that could be used, because the government 
does spend a lot of money in our economy with its purchasing 
power. So, the government could put in place policies that put 
preferences on--away from single-use plastic to reusable 
systems directly in what they purchase, as well as in the 
vendors that you choose to work with by putting in place things 
like preferential sourcing with vendors that do not use single-
use plastic, but use refill and reuse systems. So, I think that 
could be a very powerful tool.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you.
    And, Madam Chair, we should also start with our own House. 
I am always amazed at the small little plastic bottles we have 
at every committee hearing. So, I think we can start to do some 
of that work internally.
    Dr. Lau, you also found that a comprehensive approach to 
plastic waste reduction that incentivizes reduced plastic 
production and expands the reuse and refill systems could 
collectively save governments around the world $70 billion.
    Can you elaborate on these cost savings and how this 
approach reduces waste management spending needs?
    Ms. Lau. Thank you for that question.
    So, in our analysis, a lot of the cost of plastic is in 
production, as well as the waste management piece. And, by 
substituting away plastic, we essentially take away the need to 
manage the plastic waste that would be generated, and that, as 
you said, could be substituted--we could reduce about 30 
percent of the plastic--using refill-reuse systems, as well as 
eliminating avoidable plastic.
    And then, with substitution, similarly, we could switch 
away from plastic to other more sustainable materials. Those 
materials do have waste management costs. But, for example, 
paper was one we looked at, and paper--has a very robust 
recycling industry. Currently, it is at above 50 percent. So 
that industry--the recycling--paper recycling industry can 
generate revenue.
    And then, between the need for less waste management 
capacity, as well as switching to materials that are recyclable 
and profitable, globally, we could reduce $70 billion over the 
next 20 years in the need to provide infrastructure, as well as 
the services that are associated with it.
    Mrs. Lee. Great. I am sorry I have gone over my time, but 
thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you. I think you muted yourself at the 
very end, but thank you for your questions.
    And I will say, under Chair McCollum, back in the last 
session, when we were actually meeting in the committee room--
well, under Ranking Member Joyce and Chair McCollum, we had 
pitchers of water and individual cups. So there was an attempt 
on this committee that cares deeply about the environment to 
reduce our plastic use, even though that is kind of minuscule 
in the whole picture, but important to do.
    So, Mr. Cartwright, very nice to have you here. You are 
next. I recognize you for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Chair Pingree, and it is an 
honor to join this subcommittee. And thank you to all of our 
witnesses for appearing here today.
    Now, I am from a district in northeastern Pennsylvania, 
which is far from the ocean, but we are home to beautiful lakes 
and rivers and streams and brooks and, unfortunately, we are 
also home to a huge amount of unwanted waste that could have 
been recycled. We are the home to a very large landfill, and I 
want to talk about that in a little bit.
    Recent testing completed under NOAH standards by 
PennEnvironment found microplastic and plastic fragment 
contamination in both the Susquehanna and Lackawanna Rivers in 
my district; but my district is burdened with more than its 
fair share of waste from external sources. We received shipped 
waste from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and all other 
parts of Pennsylvania at the bloated 714-acre Keystone Sanitary 
Landfill in Dunmore that is currently undergoing permitting to 
continue expanding their operation for another 50 years. More 
than 64 percent of their 7,200 tons of trash per day comes from 
out of State.
    To that end, I have introduced the Trash Act to help 
promote recycling so less unnecessary waste makes its way into 
my community. So, you see, you don't need to be near the ocean 
to have your life intimately affected by unnecessary waste and 
plastics.
    And I want to invite Ms. Collier's attention to my first 
questions. I was fascinated by the idea of a small fee that 
companies would put on their products. Ms. Collier, what do you 
call that program? You had a name for it.
    Ms. Collier. Thank you, Congressman. Extended Producer 
Responsibility or EPR.
    Mr. Cartwright. EPR, okay. I want to learn a lot more about 
that because it seems to track a lot of--I am going to jump off 
this call and I am going to go testify in a Natural Resources 
hearing about the abandoned mine lands trust fund, which 
operates on the same principle, that ongoing mine operations 
will pay just a little bit of their gross revenue to clean up 
abandoned mine lands. It is the same idea, and I like it, and I 
want to talk more about it.
    And it certainly seems that Nestle is taking many of the 
right steps in ensuring that it produces easily recyclable 
products. My question is, have you worked specifically with 
waste management centers to discuss the end-of-life phase of 
your products and whether or not its economically beneficial 
for them to recycle your products?
    Ms. Collier. Thank you, Congressman.
    That is a really big issue related to the infrastructure. 
We need to make sure that any systems that we develop or 
enhance, that it can remain profitable and sustainable and that 
there are markets for the post-consumer material.
    So, yes, we have had lots of conversations. One of the 
things that we have found to be really successful are some of 
the partnerships and coalitions that we have been a part of, 
and a lot of those coalitions, like the recycling partnerships 
coalition, and we have done a lot of work also with closed loop 
partners as well, brings together all of these like-minded and 
kind of interested parties, some of which, you know, are 
competitors.
    Like I mentioned, we are working with some of our 
competitors in the marketplace, but also some of which are not 
always aligned on how we should deal with these issues. And 
these coalitions have given us an opportunity to really talk 
about what an enhanced system, recycling system, a properly 
financed system really could look like and how do we make it 
more profitable and more sustainable for our local recycling 
centers. It is a really key stakeholder.
    Mr. Cartwright. I want to jump to my last question.
    Norway recently adopted a system that charges companies 
what they call an environmental levy on plastic bottlemakers, 
and it is a levy that declines as the recycleability increases. 
In much the same way, Britain is planning to tax manufacturers 
of plastic packaging that is less than 30 percent recycle.
    What are the pros and cons of a system such as that? And 
how can we ensure that any burdensome costs don't fall on 
consumers who may not be able to afford them?
    Ms. Collier. Is that also for me?
    Mr. Cartwright. Yes, it is, Ms. Collier.
    Ms. Collier. Yes, there are lots of systems that include--
we sometimes call that eco-modulation. It discounts the fee 
that you might pay based on innovations that you have made in 
your packaging, and we are supportive of that type of system. 
We would like to see any U.S. system incorporate the 
investments that companies have made in their packaging, 
companies like Nestle and many others.
    Additionally, we believe that businesses like us that are 
forward-looking and that are connected to the consumer will 
make the investment now because we are thinking about our 
future and tomorrow. And so there may be some costs that we 
incur and absorb early on, but that will level out as the 
marketplace changes. So we don't anticipate a lot of consumer 
costs upfront. We are trying to make a system and develop a 
system that would avoid that.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you for your testimony. I would like 
to talk further offline.
    And I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Cartwright.
    I see Mr. Amodei. Do you have any questions for our 
witnesses today?
    Mr. Amodei. Madam Chair, thank you. And I appreciate you 
giving the shout out to the world-famous sagehen at the 
beginning of the meeting. We will make sure and show you as 
good or better a time as we did last Congress' chair, so no 
worries there to visit the bird with a face only a mother could 
love.
    But anyhow, I think I want to ask, the question I have--and 
I have been doing a little of multitasking, so I hope this 
hasn't been asked before. I think I want to ask the lady who 
manages waste programs in Phoenix--is she still on?
    Ms. Spencer. Yes.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay, great, Ginger. Sorry, I don't know you 
that well, but Ginger, I know how to pronounce that, I think.
    Anyhow, as I look at the recycling programs and as a guy, I 
know people think Republicans don't recycle, but I guess I am 
an aberration. So I am a dedicated personal recycler, but one 
of the things I have noticed--and I live in an area where water 
isn't quite as abundant as it is in other areas of the country, 
which is good news for the Nestle people, because we are buying 
it in bottles and stuff like that. And my question deals not 
with the simple stuff like those bottles, but we have received 
a lot of stuff--and I think the company that has the franchise 
in my neck of the woods is headquartered in Phoenix, and they 
do the recycling as well as the trash removal; but a lot of the 
recycling stuff the rules say it can't be contaminated in terms 
of food.
    And so as you sit there and look at the products that are 
being used for doggie bags, for pizza boxes, for all of that 
health food stuff that I am sure we all know about, is there 
anything in terms of--because to sit there and go, well, 
cardboard is supposedly freely recyclable, or Styrofoam or all 
of that stuff, but I mean--and I found myself doing this. I 
know that this is a secret meeting so nobody will know this, 
but you sit there and you use water to wash the stuff that you 
are going to be able to recycle, which doesn't make a heck of a 
lot of sense.
    Help me, since it sounds like you are kind of on the 
cutting edge of all of this stuff, are we moving towards 
something where--and I get it if it is destroyed and, 
obviously, hazardous materials and stuff like that, but 
recycling being something that can't have food residue on it is 
an interesting concept if we are trying to encourage recycling.
    Ms. Spencer. Congressman Amodei, thank you for that 
question.
    So we get that a lot, and we do a lot of education with our 
residents. We actually have a tool called Recycle Wizard where 
you can actually put in an item and see if it is recyclable or 
see if it is compostable or see how you can reuse it. Food 
waste in recyclables is a contaminant, and actually what we 
have done is videos to say--first of all, because Phoenix we 
are very concerned about water use.
    Mr. Amodei. As we are.
    Ms. Spencer. We promote xeriscape landscaping and that sort 
of thing, so water is a resource, and we want to protect it. 
But what we found, I will just use a yogurt cup for an example. 
You know, instead of rinsing it out with water, what we would 
encourage you to do is just leave it out on your counter, let 
it dry up, then you can crunch the cup and scoop out the food 
waste, right, and now it is clean and you can put it in your 
recycle bin.
    When it comes to glass even, with candles, again, you can 
burn the actual candle material out, wipe it out, and then 
discard the glass. So we do a lot of education and videos to 
our residents. All of our information is free. We share it very 
freely as well with others on how you can actually recycle 
without using water to get rid of the food waste so that we can 
help the environment and be sustainable from a water 
standpoint, as well as a recycling standpoint.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay. And thank you for choosing the example 
for me that has to do with the yogurt cup. As I am sure 
everybody knows, I am a big yogurt customer. Not. But, anyhow, 
thanks for giving me a chance. I will try some sometime.
    That is all I have. I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Amodei. And if we had known you 
were such a good recycler, we would have had a member quiz at 
the beginning to see who passed and who didn't, so maybe next 
time.
    Ms. Kaptur. Chair Kaptur, thank you very much for joining 
us today.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Chair Pingree and also 
Ranking Member Joyce. What an interesting hearing. I am sorry I 
couldn't join earlier. I had a Veterans hearing as well.
    I wanted to mention that both Congressman Joyce and myself 
share a fresh water coast in the Great Lakes, and we are told 
that about 22 million pounds of plastic are dumped into the 
Great Lakes each year, half of which enters Lake Michigan 
alone, and that is enough to fill 100 Olympic-sized swimming 
pools. And my dear staff has told me that it is heavier than 
4,500 adult Beluga whales, so it is a lot of stuff. And we are 
told also that 90 percent of the litter that is picked up 
around the Great Lakes is plastic.
    I want to commend NOAA for launching something we call 
marine debris, where in our region we challenge young people to 
be conscious of marine debris and to present artwork and papers 
that raise consciousness regionally.
    So I am interested if Ms. Lau could talk a little bit about 
the regional impacts of plastic pollution, particularly on 
inland oceans like the Great Lakes. I have wondered as I have 
listened to this today, Ohio State University has been very 
involved in using a corn byproduct to actually make bags that 
used to be made out of plastic. And these bags--the first time 
they did it and I went to a county fair and I picked up a bag, 
it melted, so it didn't work. But I wonder, I think they have 
perfected it now, if part of the answer lies in science and in 
developing materials that, in fact, disintegrate at some point.
    I also, in addition to that question about fresh water 
ecosystems and some of the challenges that we face there, I 
wanted to just put this on the record, the concentration of 
microplastics in some of our tributaries.
    The Maumee River is the largest river that flows into the 
shallowest of the Great Lakes, Lake Erie, which is very sick 
right now, and we got the figure of 2.6 particles per cubic 
meter. This compares to 1.7 to 2.1 particles per cubic meter in 
the Portage and Sandusky Rivers, which are more upstream, and 
microplastics inputs to Lake Erie are estimated to be fourfold 
higher than the other Great Lakes, Lake Huron, and so forth, 
and we are told it is 80 fold higher than Lake Superior.
    Could the witnesses elaborate on what some of the long-term 
challenges these increased microplastic levels might have on 
the health, drinking water, and fisheries? And I will wait for 
the reply.
    And thank you so much for this hearing again, Madam Chair. 
You make a difference.
    Ms. Lau. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur, for the questions.
    First, with our study, we looked at plastic pollution in 
all waterways, oceans, lakes, rivers, and streams, as well as 
on land, and the trend is the same. We will be seeing tripling 
of plastic pollution across all of these different ecosystems 
in the next 20 years if we don't dramatically put in changes to 
reverse the trend.
    Our study was a global study, so we didn't look at 
individual countries or individual regions. So I am sorry I 
won't be able to provide that specific answer for you; but 
extrapolating from our global study, I would say that you are 
right in your concern that in the Great Lakes region plastic 
pollution will continue to be a very big problem and likely 
will continue to get worse and worse unless changes are put in 
place.
    In terms of microplastic, it is something that is gaining a 
lot more attention as a pollutant, and in our study we found 
that tire tread particles, in fact, made up \3/4\ of the 
microplastic pollution among the four sources of microplastics 
we looked at. So tire tread particles, textiles from our 
clothing, the pellets, plastic pellets that turns into plastic 
products, as well as the microbeads that are in our personal 
care products, those are actually smaller categories, still 
very important; but tire tread particles are extremely 
important.
    There was a recent study that looked at salmon die-offs in 
the Pacific Northwest, and they identified that it was a 
chemical from tire dust particles that was causing the die-off 
in the salmon in the Pacific Northwest. So it is quite likely 
there are these other impacts in other ecosystems, other 
freshwater systems.
    So it is going to be very important that more research is 
done on microplastics and their impacts, but also their 
sources, so that we can find better ways to reduce them and 
prevent them from getting into our environment.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
    Madam Chair, I just wanted to mention if I could--I know I 
am over time, and I will try to do this really fast.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur. But there are companies--and I will provide 
them to the record. I think one is called Re-New or Re-Gen, I 
just can't remember--where they are taking plastic because of 
their deep concern that half of the forests--the wood in the 
forests in our country, that is being cut down, is being cut 
down for pallets, and they are trying to find a substitute for 
wood in pallets, and they have been recycling plastic to a 
point where they are able to make it stronger than steel 
actually as they get it to glump together through a heat 
process I believe it is.
    And because they were worried about reforestation and 
what's happening with our forests. And I think it would be 
interesting to look at new industries that are being born by 
reusing recyclables like plastics.
    And I hear what you are saying about eliminating it in the 
first place, but I think there also are people working on the 
other end and, hopefully, we can attract some of those to do 
business, do greater business. And I will share those with the 
record.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. And thank you, Chair Kaptur. It is really a 
wonderful resource to have you and our ranking member so 
knowledgeable about the Great Lakes. Those of us on the coast 
tend to think about water bodies and think about the ocean, but 
they are such essential resources that I know we will a chance 
to talk much more about them during this year.
    And next week our committee hearing will be about forest, 
forest products, the health of our forests, so if you want to 
put that on your calendar, it would be great to have your 
input.
    We have heard from all of the committee members, but we 
have a chance for a second round. So I am just going to go 
ahead and ask another question. I recognize myself for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Collier, thank you so much for being here with us 
today, and I am very familiar with the work that Nestle does, 
especially as part of the Sustainable Food Policy Alliance. 
That has been a really great movement forward in terms of so 
many things around transparency and packaging and just a whole 
variety of things, food waste, everything else. I have gotten 
to work with you and the other companies on a variety of 
issues. So thank you for being a part of that.
    As you know, Nestle has a long history of Maine as the 
owners of Poland Spring Water. Poland Spring Water is a 175-
year old water company, and we have been thrilled in that 
capacity to see that Nestle is a brand that is using recycled 
packaging so seriously.
    We have also been excited to have the University of Maine, 
which has done a lot of work on silastic nano products to 
really look at some of these alternative methods for plastics, 
and I know there have been some alliances around the research 
that is going on there.
    But I also note that Nestle is selling off Poland Springs, 
so we will not be a long-term partner with Nestle, but I know 
that you will go on to create important things. But I was 
interested to read because we, of course, have followed that in 
Maine about the coming sale of Poland Spring, but one of the 
factors was around bottled water and some of the decline in 
people using it because of their concerns about the plastic 
waste.
    And I only bring that up because I think it speaks to some 
of the questions that have come up earlier about how--the 
importance of resolving these issues in terms of consumer 
demands. Consumers are increasingly saying, We want to use 
environmentally friendly packaging, we want to use things that 
are good for our climate, and that that factors into enormous 
decisions, like whether a company is bought and sold or what 
the future of a particular product is.
    So that I think makes this even more important and also 
emphasizes the complexity of this problem that so many of you 
have talked to us about today, whether it is how it gets 
recycled, what is in the initial product, what leaches out of 
the products, so many things.
    So I am just going to ask you because I know the company is 
doing some work on bioplastics, and that is a big interest of 
ours. In Maine--Ms. Kaptur mentioned it, you know, with corn. 
People have talked about potato-based plastics. We are 
interested in wood fiber, just the opportunities there for more 
compostable products or just the new fibers that might be used 
that may leave less toxins in the environment.
    So sorry my question was so long, but just interested to 
hear how you see that work and where you think we are with it.
    Ms. Collier. Thank you, Chairwoman Pingree. We really do 
look forward to continuing to work with you and have 
appreciated your leadership on food waste, for example, but 
certainly in these areas as well.
    You know, there are a lot of decisions and factors that go 
into business decisions like the ones we have had to make in 
the last couple of years. I won't necessarily speak to that too 
specifically, but I can say, whenever we have products--and you 
are right, our consumers are telling us that they want changes 
in our packaging and they want to see less waste and they don't 
want to feel guilty about purchasing products that they are not 
sure how to recycle or how to dispose of them, and we are doing 
a lot of work to try to communicate with our consumers about 
their packaging and about their food.
    So that is one thing for sure we have to be very responsive 
to that. And Nestle does invest in the space. As I mentioned, 
in 2019, we created this Institute for Packaging Sciences, and 
we continue to look at different packaging applications. 
Recycling is sometimes preferred for certain packaging because 
we can have that circular approach. But bio-based and 
biodegradable packaging is certainly also something that we are 
considering in doing a lot of work on.
    We have partnered with fantastic universities, like the 
University of Maine. We also partner with other universities 
around the world in this space, and we also have a partnership 
with the company, Danimer Scientific to develop a marine 
biodegradable and recyclable bottle, and there is some 
information about that that is public, and we continue to do 
work on that. That is research and development work that is not 
necessarily tied to specific businesses or divisions within the 
company.
    So we are continuing to do all of that. We want to be able 
to offer consumers a lot of variety and what they want, and we 
are also are paying attention to what's necessary for the 
quality and safety of our foods as well.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Joyce.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Spencer, I am glad to see that you came back. I was 
worried that I was going to lose you when your screen went 
blank.
    Given education is a proven tool to increasing recycling 
participation and producing more viable recyclable streams, 
last Congress I was proud to co-sponsor the Recycle Act. The 
Recycle Act would create a new EPA grant program to help 
educate households and consumers about their residential and 
community recycling programs.
    I, for one, in the local paper at home started reading 
about the problems we were having at the recycling center at 
the township, and being the guy who shuttles all the household 
recycling up there, I know my wife--mason jars, bottom will 
crack, can't go in the stream. It is glass, so why would it go 
in there. Obviously, we need to be educated.
    I was especially pleased that in fiscal year 2021 Congress 
provided up to $1.5 million for these efforts. Can you take a 
moment to discuss how community outreach, communication, and 
education about sustainability efforts to residents and 
businesses were critical in helping Phoenix reach its 
sustainability goals?
    Ms. Spencer. Thank you, Ranking Member Joyce, for that, and 
also thank you for your leadership and for the Recycle Act. 
That is huge, that is huge, and it will go a long way to help 
communities with increasing education for our residents.
    In Phoenix, that is our first fear when we looked at 
developing our Reimagine Phoenix Program so. So the very first 
part is how can we educate our residents, the second part was 
new programs and services, and the third was public-private 
partnerships. So, again, it starts with our residents.
    One of the things is we need to be consistent in our 
messaging, and we need to have technologies that will allow all 
cities to be able to recycle the same type of products. You 
mentioned glass. In Phoenix we are very fortunate, we can 
recycle glass. We have optical sorters that allow us to do it, 
and we have a company that is located here that actually can 
take that glass and repurpose it.
    But the one thing that will be very helpful working with 
EPA, as well as other organizations and coalitions, if we can 
have consistent messaging. And, again, if we can have the 
technology that will allow our MRFs, whether you have a MRF in 
your own township or your own city or if you are using a 
regional approach or if you are even working with the private 
sector through their MRFs, that we can actually take the 
material in the first place, process it, and, most importantly, 
have a market for it so that it can sell and then be 
repurposed.
    So we do a lot when it comes to education. And, again, for 
us, the residents, they are at the top of the food chain. They 
are our bosses, and they want recycling, and we have to engage 
them. We surveyed them, and that is really what helped us with 
our efforts here in Phoenix is hearing their voices and knowing 
that they value it and that they expect it and that they rely 
on us.
    Mr. Joyce. Now, is it, in fact--it has been helpful to you 
to do that, but isn't the--like I said myself, when you schlep 
this stuff up there in the township, and then the township--the 
article was about it is not cost effective for them, people 
were throwing too much junk into the stream. If it is not going 
into the recycling stream, then it is just basically going to 
the lots or to the----
    Ms. Spencer. To the landfill.
    Mr. Joyce. Correct, thank you. I was going to say junkyard, 
but I knew that wasn't it.
    Ms. Spencer. That too. And so, yes, sir, it is just very 
important that we keep our recycling messages very simple and 
that we give our residents options, but we should be clear 
about if we are taking a material, right, and our residents are 
paying us to do that, that it is being recycled at the end of 
the day and not sent to the landfill.
    So, again, it is about keeping up the infrastructure and 
keeping up the technology so that we can take that material and 
we can recycle it, and it is also about creating those local 
markets and partnerships so that, at the end of the day, it is 
being recycled, it is being repurposed, it is creating new 
products or turned to fuel, whatever the case may be.
    So we want to keep the message simple, and we definitely 
want to work with our residents, and we do community meetings, 
you know, prior to COVID. Now we do a lot of information 
online, a lot of videos, a lot of tools for our residents.
    Mr. Joyce. And it is not a question, but I would like to 
follow up and be able to view some of those things offline 
after we get through with this hearing.
    Ms. Spencer. Yes, sir, be glad to do that.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
    And it looks like, once again, it is you and I, Madam 
Chair, and I know these ladies, we have put them through a 
couple of hours here, and I apologize for being late to begin 
with, but all of us get stuck in other meetings.
    But I know you are in good hands with our chairwoman, and I 
really appreciate the opportunity to hear from all of you 
today. It is very enlightening, and thank you for your service 
and work.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Pingree. I want to thank all of you. You have been 
really wonderfully informative to all of our colleagues, and I 
know we will have follow-up questions going into the future, 
and you are all great resources for us as we work towards these 
issues, all of which are very critical and need our attention 
and resolution now. I can see from all of the statistics this 
is not something we can continue to put off for so many 
reasons, so----
    Mr. Joyce. Madam Chair, before we close, I would like to 
enter a letter into the record from my distinguished colleague, 
Tim Ryan, about a company in his district and some of the 
processes that they use to help eliminate waste.
    Ms. Pingree. Absolutely. Without objection, so moved.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  

        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Pingree. Absolutely.
    Okay. So, again, thank you to all of the witnesses. We 
really do appreciate your questions. And if there are no 
additional questions, the hearing is now adjourned.
    Thank you.

                                           Tuesday, March 23, 2021.

  WOOD INNOVATION: SUSTAINABLE FOREST PRODUCTS TO REINVIGORATE RURAL 
                               ECONOMIES

                               WITNESSES

CYNTHIA ``CINDI'' WEST, DIRECTOR, FOREST PRODUCTS LABORATORY AND 
    NORTHERN RESEARCH STATION
STEPHEN SHALER, PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF MAINE, FOR/MAINE, 
    SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES
PETER MACKEITH, DEAN AND ARCHITECT, FAY JONES SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE 
    AND DESIGN, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
MARC BRINKMEYER, OWNER, IDAHO FOREST GROUP, IDAHO FOREST PRODUCTS 
    COMMISSION
    Ms. Pingree. Good morning. This hearing will now come to 
order.
    As this meeting is fully virtual, we must address a few 
housekeeping matters, and I will read the opening verbatim.
    For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the 
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. 
If you notice you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if 
you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate 
approval by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will 
retain the balance of your time.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will 
turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the 
gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired. When 
your time has expired, the clock will turn to red and I will 
begin to recognize the next member.
    In terms of speaking order, we will follow the order set 
forth in the House rules, beginning with the chair and ranking 
member. Then, members present at the time that the hearing is 
called to order will be recognized in the order of seniority; 
and, finally, members not present at the time that the hearing 
is called to order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    All right. That is the end of the technical stuff, so we 
can go ahead and open this up.
    Well, I am very excited to be having today's hearing in our 
committee. It is a really important time to talk about some of 
the exciting developments in the forest product industry. This 
industry is critical to my State, and I know it is to many 
others in this country.
    Just as an aside, our State is 90 percent forested. We are 
the most forested State in the Nation. And unlike a lot of 
western States, we are mostly, 90 percent, privately owned, so 
quite a difference.
    As another small aside, I just want to say, I live on a 
200-acre piece of property that is covered by an old-growth 
spruce-fir forest. So I've spent much of my life around 
forestry and harvesting, and we know some of the challenges 
that are happening given the droughts that we are experiencing 
now, the invasive species, the end of the useful life of many 
of these trees and the importance of replanting and harvesting 
for good use. So we have a lot of engagement in that.
    So there are a lot of innovations in sustainable, climate-
friendly products that really could be important to 
reinvigorate a sector hit hard by reduced demand for certain 
traditional wood products like pulp and paper. We certainly 
know in our State the heartbreak of losing a paper mill, losing 
the jobs, losing the heart of the community. So these 
innovations and new markets are particularly important to us, 
as they have been in many other places. The nice thing about 
this emerging market for climate-friendly products, it is also 
a good opportunity to promote rural job growth.
    Today's hearing will explore the ways in which innovative, 
new forest products could function as excellent alternatives to 
traditional materials while also being climate-friendly because 
they are renewable resources and they store carbon once in 
buildings. We will have a chance to discuss mass timber and how 
the widespread adoption of new timber products in the 
construction industry could have a major impact on the carbon 
footprint of the construction industry as a whole.
    Research shows that wood products can have multiple layers 
of benefits. In an agriculture policy committee hearing that 
was held last year, Michael Goergen of the Endowment for 
Forestry and Communities testified about the potential for 
biodegradable and recyclable food packaging made from forest 
products. The University of Maine has participated in this 
research, and I am pleased that one of our witnesses today is 
from the University of Maine and can tell us more about 
projects like this.
    Coincidentally, last week, we held a hearing on plastic 
waste and recycling, and we learned that plastic pollution 
costs the global economy over $1.5 trillion a year due to 
impacts on a variety of sectors. Packaging alternatives created 
from forest products could help solve some of this crisis.
    Much of the innovation in the wood industry is credited to 
the research and support provided by the Forest Service. In 
fiscal year 2021, we appropriated $20.3 million for the Forest 
Products Laboratory. FPL's research ranges from fiber and 
chemical science to composites, and its work has allowed a wide 
range of wood products to emerge and develop into viable 
consumer products, from nanocellulose-enhanced flooring to wood 
cellulose supporting films and electronics, to advanced 
composites and many things in between.
    I look forward to hearing how we can continue to support 
progress and innovation in the wood products industry through 
support of the Forest Service.
    So, to discuss this important issue, I am pleased to 
welcome Dr. Cindi West from the U.S. Forest Service and the 
Director of the Forest Products Laboratory in the Northern 
Research Station.
    Joining Dr. West today are three witnesses with a deep 
knowledge of forest products development and research into 
emerging products and their uses in construction: Dr. Stephen 
Shaler, director and professor at the School of Forest 
Resources at the University of Maine, representing FOR/Maine; 
Marc Brinkmeyer, owner of the Idaho Forest Group, representing 
the Idaho Forest Products Commission; and our final witness is 
Dean Peter MacKeith joining us this morning.
    And we are very fortunate to have him introduced by 
Representative Womack. Thank you so much for joining us today, 
and I will turn the introduction over to you.
    Mr. Womack. All right. Thank you so much, Chairwoman 
Pingree. And what a great honor it is to be with this 
subcommittee this morning and my colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee.
    To all of you, I want to welcome from the Natural State 
Peter MacKeith. If you hear someone mention ``the Hill'' in 
Washington, they refer to Capitol Hill, but in Arkansas we 
refer to the University of Arkansas campus. So, while Dean 
MacKeith would need little introduction on the Hill in 
Fayetteville, I do want you, my colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee, to know a little bit about his 
background.
    He's a professor and the dean of the Fay Jones School of 
Architecture and Design at the University of Arkansas, a 
cornerstone of higher education in my district. He was 
appointed as the fifth dean of the school in 2014 and has made 
his mark in the industry as a nationally recognized scholar, 
teacher, and administrator.
    Since his arrival on campus, he has expanded academic and 
outreach programs and fostered innovative design thinking 
across the State and well beyond. A long list of accolades 
includes a Fulbright fellowship, multiple Design Educator of 
the Year titles, and recognition of the Design Futures Council. 
I could go on, but I am positive his expertise will be 
demonstrated in his testimony this morning.
    Before joining us in northwest Arkansas, he was an 
associate dean, professor of architecture, and adjunct 
associate curator for architecture and design at the Sam Fox 
School of Design and Visual Arts at Washington University in 
St. Louis. Prior to his tenure at WashU, he served as director 
of the Master of Architecture International Program at the 
Helsinki University of Technology in Finland from 1995 to 1999.
    Superb academic achievement laid the groundwork for Mr. 
MacKeith's success in the field. A participant in the 
prestigious Echols Scholar Program, he received his Bachelor of 
Arts in literature and international relations from the 
University of Virginia in 1981 and his Master of Architecture 
from Yale in 1985.
    He is also currently serving as chair of the Advisory 
Committee for the Northwest Arkansas Design Excellence Program, 
in addition to overseeing the design and construction of the 
Anthony Timberlands Center for Design and Materials Innovation, 
a regional center for research and development of new wood 
products and new approaches in sustainable construction 
materials.
    Mr. MacKeith is also an accomplished author and has served 
as the editor of Perspecta, the Yale Architecture Journal, in 
addition to the SOM Journal.
    As even a cursory examination of his record makes 
abundantly clear, he is an excellent asset to the University of 
Arkansas and the greater Fayetteville and northwest Arkansas 
community. His substantial experience will elevate today's 
discussions, and I am pleased to welcome him to today's 
hearing.
    Before I yield back, let me take a shameless opportunity to 
note that the Razorbacks are headed to the Sweet Sixteen for 
the first time in 25 years. And I know Mr. MacKeith is just as 
excited about that as I am.
    So, Mr. MacKeith, thank you for joining us. And go, Hogs.
    Ms. Pingree. There you go. Okay. Well, I am sure we will 
hear about some other favorite teams as the day goes on, but 
very exciting news for Arkansas. And thank you so much for 
being here to introduce your witness from your State.
    Now I will yield to Mr. Joyce for any opening remarks he 
would like to make.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chair Pingree.
    And special thanks to my friend and colleague, Congressman 
Womack, for taking the time to help introduce our witnesses 
this morning.
    I would also like to extend a warm welcome to Dr. Cindi 
West, Peter MacKeith, Dr. Stephen Shaler, and Marc Brinkmeyer. 
I want to thank you all for participating today. While I regret 
that we cannot be together in person, I look forward to hearing 
your perspectives on innovative wood products and their impact 
on rural economies and the health of our Nation's forests.
    Our Nation's forests, both public and private, offer 
substantial environmental and economic benefits. Forests 
improve our air and water quality, provide habitat for plants 
and wildlife, reduce carbon in the atmosphere, and help control 
floods and erosion. Forests also furnish recreational 
opportunities; timber, mineral, and energy resources; but, most 
importantly, quality jobs, especially in rural areas, for 
communities across the country.
    I have seen these benefits firsthand in my home State of 
Ohio. Nearly 8 million acres of forestland help support over 
120,000 forest-related jobs that contribute more than $20 
billion to Ohio's economy. When considering the economic impact 
of forest products nationwide, the industry directly employees 
over 900,000 workers and manufactures nearly $300 billion worth 
of products annually.
    I recognize, though, for our forests to meet the needs of 
current and future generations, we must commit to finding ways 
to utilize, manage, and protect our Nation's forests while 
maintaining a viable market for wood products. Innovative wood 
products provide us with an opportunity to meet these 
challenges. By developing and exploring new uses for wood, 
especially low-value or low-quality wood, we can create new 
jobs and market demand and reinvigorate rural economies.
    Innovative wood products also provide landowners with more 
opportunities for active management of our Nation's forests, 
which helps us ensure that our forests are more resilient to 
insect infestations and diseases as well as reduce the risk of 
catastrophic wildfires.
    I look forward to hearing today about how the U.S. Forest 
Service is accelerating the development of innovative wood 
products through research efforts at the Forest Products 
Laboratory. I am also keen to learn about the agency's work to 
help create new, expanded markets for wood products through 
partnerships and grants.
    Additionally, I hope to hear more about the benefits 
associated with the diverse range of innovative wood products, 
including cross-laminated timber and other mass timber 
products, in addition to wood products derived from 
nanotechnology.
    With that, I look forward to this discussion ahead of us. 
In Ohio, we have no more teams left in the NCAA tournament, but 
I always like a underdog, so I will take Oral Roberts, since 
they knocked off the Buckeyes.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Pingree. There you go. Thank you, Mr. Joyce. I guess I 
better quickly pick a team.
    Would any other members like to make opening remarks?
    Mr. Simpson. Chairwoman Pingree.
    Ms. Pingree. Yes, Mr. Simpson.
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
    I would like to introduce a friend of mine, but, before I 
do, I haven't had the opportunity yet to thank you for putting 
on this hearing and congratulate you on being the chairwoman of 
the Interior Appropriations Committee. I look forward to 
working with you.
    And I notice you have a bunch of books behind you, and so 
do I. We are going to have to exchange titles and see what we 
can do.
    And just as an aside, I like the Razorbacks, but they 
haven't met Gonzaga yet. So the Bulldogs are going to eat 
everybody up, just so you know that and you are not 
disappointed when it comes.
    But let me introduce a friend and advisor of mine for many 
years, Marc Brinkmeyer. He is the owner and chairman of the 
board of the Idaho Forest Group, as was mentioned. One of 
America's largest producers across Idaho and Montana, the Idaho 
Forest Group owns six sawmills and a finger-joint facility with 
capacity of over 1 billion board-feet per year. Marc is an 
accomplished business leader, a champion of education and 
innovation, and a longtime philanthropist.
    Based in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho Forest Group grows, harvests, 
manufactures, and distributes lumber and other wood byproducts 
to customers in the United States and abroad. The company 
emphasizes a talented workforce of more than 1,000 employees 
and 2,000 partner contractors. IFG's mission statement is to 
``enhance the lives and livelihood of our employees, customers, 
and partners and the communities in which we operate by 
providing the Earth's best renewable building products.''
    He is a champion in the forest products industry, and I 
look forward to hearing their testimony.
    Welcome, Marc. Thank you for participating today.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. And thank you for your 
kind words. It is wonderful to have someone from Idaho today 
here with us, and it will give us a chance to decide who has 
the better forest and the better potatoes, Maine or Idaho. It 
is always a competition.
    Let's start off our witnesses with Dr. Cindi West.
    Thank you so much for being here, Ms. West.
    Ms. West. Thank you, Chair and Ranking Member and members 
of the committee. I appreciate this opportunity to share with 
you information about how the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
Forest Service supports innovative wood products and their 
impact on our Nation.
    The investment by the Federal Government in wood innovation 
and research started in 1910, when the National Center for 
Forest Products Research was established in Madison, Wisconsin. 
We had a critical need for the Nation to lengthen the life of 
wood rail ties to fuel economic development of this country.
    Today, the Forest Service uses all of its authorities 
across the agency to support wood innovation. In addition to 
research, State and private forestry grant programs support 
early adoption and application of wood innovations across the 
spectrum. They provide technical assistance and market 
development.
    We develop and trial many of our new technologies on 
national forest. We demonstrate their benefit and their 
efficacy and use demonstration to transfer and speed up 
adoption of these innovations.
    We work from the smallest components of wood today at the 
nano scale to mass timber for multistory structures at the 
largest scale. And although we started as a national center, a 
single research organization within this country, we now work 
through a collaborative of university, industry, and NGO 
partners to innovate and address the most pressing issue of our 
time: how to build a sustainable future.
    Now, the year I was born, the world's population was around 
2.9 billion. Today, it is 7.8 billion. And at the end of the 
century, when my grandchildren will be 85 and 82, the world's 
population is projected by the U.N. to be at 11 billion. It is 
urgent that we develop the technology to sustainably provide 
for the needs of 11 billion people across the world--solutions 
that address ecological, economic, and social needs.
    Nature offers us a sustainable path [inaudible] Through the 
best [inaudible] Practices for forests and also for use. Wood 
is our most abundant, renewable, and versatile raw material on 
planet Earth.
    Today, you may not really realize how many wood products 
you touched before getting to work this morning. They included 
maple syrup, toothpaste, of course your wooden house, your 
home, your furniture, clothing, cardboards, paper, and in 
aspirin that was compounded originally from a tree.
    The United States is a world leader in sustainable forest 
management. We are blessed with very abundant natural 
resources. However, climate change is increasing the risk to 
these resources and to our forest. The amount of biomass 
accumulated in areas of increasing drought is not sustainable. 
As we have seen over this last decade in the Intermountain 
West, warming temperatures and invasive species, such as the 
emerald ash borer, are transforming the composition and 
regeneration of northern forest.
    We cannot take for granted our forests will continue to 
provide wildlife, recreation, clean water, carbon sequestration 
in the same abundance as in the past. We need to take action 
now unless we want to see impacts from these types of stresses 
on our forest.
    Sustainable management of our forest will continue to 
provide our Nation with a positive carbon sink, reduce the loss 
of wildfires to forests, and provide benefits that enhance our 
quality of life--water, habitat, outdoor recreation, and 
economic opportunities for rural communities.
    Increasing markets for renewable wood materials and 
products makes a positive economic incentive to retain private 
forest as forest and to mitigate the effects of climate change. 
Innovative wood products diversify and support a vibrant forest 
private sector, which is essential to forest health and 
sustainability.
    My written statement provides many details on how the 
Forest Service is contributing to sustainable solutions through 
research, innovation, and market development with a wide 
variety of partners. But let me just talk a little bit about 
how we are advancing from the lab to putting discovery and 
innovation to use in growing a wood products sector, economy, 
and opportunities for good forest management.
    Together with our partners, we are increasing wood use in 
the Nation's industrial building sector by supporting the 
development and application of mass timber products such as 
cross-laminated timber, CLT, in the construction of tall, 
multistory buildings.
    To meet building code requirements in the United States, we 
are working with organizations like the International Code 
Council, WoodWorks, the Softwood Lumber Board, the American 
Wood Council, and, importantly, the Department of Defense to 
support the changes necessary in building codes to use this 
technology. We have conducted numerous and necessary seismic 
and fire performance tests, blast tests, to gain code support 
required for this construction.
    The Wood Innovations Program has supported education and 
technical assistance for architects and engineers to design and 
build these systems.
    In 2014, when the Forest Service initiated engagement in 
the CLT sector, the U.S. had zero manufacturing facilities. 
Today, there are 10 operational mass timber manufacturing 
facilities, and we anticipate additional plants coming on line 
soon.
    We are building the collaborations with businesses and 
organizations to help develop markets for CLT and mass timber 
products through the agency's competitive Wood Innovations 
Grants Program.
    And, finally, we are working to develop and refine new mass 
timber material, consistent with the goal of utilizing low-
value and small-diameter trees. And, thus, we can provide 
forestland owners and managers viable markets to support 
management activities to improve forest conditions.
    The Forest Service is fulfilling a Federal role as an agent 
to coordinate national capacity across different entities to 
develop a sustainable future and competitive advantage for 
forest owners and wood product businesses and industries. Using 
the materials that nature provides ensures our forests will 
continue to provide for the Nation and the world.
    We appreciate the committee's interest in our work related 
to innovative wood products and look forward to working 
together to ensure these programs are delivered in the most 
efficient and effective manner possible. I am happy to answer 
any questions you may have.
    Thank you very much.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Dr. West.
    Dr. Shaler, it would be great to hear from you next.
    Mr. Shaler. Good morning, Chair Pingree, Ranking Member 
Joyce, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Steve 
Shaler. I am director of the School of Forest Resources at the 
University of Maine, a land, sea, and space grant university 
located in the homeland of the Penobscot Nation. Thank you for 
the opportunity to testify about increasingly innovative wood 
products and their growing markets.
    The intent of my remarks today will be to illustrate the 
importance of forest-sourced products to rural communities, 
their role in promoting sustainability, and opportunities for 
carbon sequestration in wood building materials and other wood 
products.
    Maine, home to the first sawmill in North America, is the 
most heavily forested State in the country, at 90 percent of 
the land area. The health and sustainability of our rural 
communities is entirely dependent on that of the forest. These 
forests are the economic heart of many of our rural 
communities, supporting forest products, outdoor recreation and 
tourism industries, while providing vital habitat for wildlife, 
improving water and air quality for all life.
    We live in a challenging time where the impacts of climate 
change on forest health are increasingly evident, whether it is 
through temperature, drought, fire, invasive pests, muddy roads 
from early thaws, and heavy rain events. The need to adapt how 
we manage the forest depends on the presence of markets. And, 
conversely, the ability to meet increased demand for wood 
products from forest systems requires the forest be healthy and 
sustainably managed.
    There has been incredible disruption in the forest products 
industry over the last two decades with the closure of many 
pulp and paper mills that have long been the region's largest 
economic engines and the biggest buyers of wood. But exciting 
opportunities are emerging that will diversify, strengthen, and 
sustain the forest economy and the communities dependent upon 
it.
    Accelerating innovation in forest products and their 
applications is key to meeting increasing global demand for 
low-carbon materials, chemicals, and fuels that come from 
forests. But that innovation must occur within the context of a 
vibrant, interconnected network of the environment, society, 
and economy.
    An example of a collaboration building upon strengths 
through innovation to shape the future of the forest economy 
and forest-dependent communities can be found in Maine in the 
Forest Opportunity Roadmap/Maine, also known as FOR/Maine.
    FOR/Maine is a unique cross-sector collaboration between 
industry, communities, government, education, and nonprofits. 
We have come together to ensure that Maine strategically 
adapts, capitalizes on changing markets to maintain our leading 
role in global forest economy, and to support prosperity in the 
State while sustaining our natural resources.
    FOR/Maine evolved from a Federal Economic Development 
Assistance Team initiated in 2016 and is currently funded 
through the U.S. Economic Development Administration. The 
University of Maine is proud to play a central role in this 
effort, serving on FOR/Maine's executive committee, a number of 
its subcommittees, including those focused on emerging 
technologies, market attraction, workforce development, and 
wood supply analysis.
    Our research and development are critical to Maine and the 
Nation's ability to add value to existing industries and create 
new ones. We are increasingly seeing demand driven by industry 
interest for sustainable and renewable feed stocks, which 
actively managed forests can provide. Since 2016, over $1.1 
billion in CapEx has been invested in Maine forest industries, 
including pulp and paper, lumber, wood energy, and wood 
composites.
    In 2019, the University of Maine was awarded 1 of 10 
university mass timber grants funded by the U.S. endowment in 
the Forest Service to support demonstration projects showcasing 
mass timber technologies on university campuses. The project 
helped to support the conceptual design, engineering, and 
pricing of a cross-laminated timber laboratory facility.
    To capture the full carbon picture of the project, a 
preliminary cradle-to-grave whole-building lifecycle assessment 
was performed, and the study highlighted that the materials 
sourcing is a key driver of embodied carbon and that storage of 
biogenic carbon in wood-building materials is a clear positive 
attribute for the life of the structure.
    Opportunities for wood product innovation in the building 
space beyond load-bearing solutions also exist. Use of low-
grade biomass or mill residuals for low-density wood fiber 
insulation materials is one example. Wood fiber insulation is 
currently being imported into the U.S., but high shipping costs 
have kept it an expensive niche product. Active collaboration 
with emerging domestic manufacturers in Maine are projecting 
wood fiber insulation to be a cost-neutral, drop-in replacement 
for petroleum-based insulation products.
    A final example is a $1.5 million investment by the U.S. 
Forest Service to build a pilot plant for production of 
cellulose nanofibrils as part of a joint venture in 2011. Since 
inception, the University of Maine has shipped cellulose 
nanomaterials, including those produced at the Forest Products 
Laboratory, to 50 countries, 305 companies, and 276 
universities to support R&D and product development. Though 
global in reach, 60 percent of samples have gone to U.S.-based 
organizations.
    This supports a large community of researchers and startups 
using cellulose nanofibers in a wide variety of applications, 
including adhesives, foams, packaging, building materials, and, 
yes, even bones. Many of these will replace products made with 
petroleum products.
    To summarize, collaboration involving industry, government, 
universities, and local communities are central to leveraging 
the maximum impact of wood innovation, as is sustained Federal 
investment that fosters that collaboration while supporting 
research and development.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to speak and for your 
ongoing interest and investment that is sustaining the forest 
economy, the communities, and the citizens dependent upon it.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much. Thank you for your 
comprehensive remarks.
    Mr. Brinkmeyer, we are excited to hear about the message 
from Idaho.
    You might need to unmute, or we can unmute you.
    We still can't hear you.
    Can our tech team unmute Mr. Brinkmeyer?
    Staff. Madam Chair, it looked like he was unmuted on the 
Webex, but he was not getting audio through. So we will have to 
have somebody look into that.
    Ms. Pingree. Okay. Why don't we work that out.
    Sorry, Mr. Brinkmeyer. We are anxious to hear from you, but 
I will put Dean MacKeith first, and then we will come back, and 
hopefully it will all be settled by then.
    Mr. MacKeith. Yes?
    Ms. Pingree. We hear you.
    Mr. MacKeith. Good morning, Chair Pingree, Ranking Member 
Joyce, and members of the committee.
    Thank you for the invitation and opportunity to speak with 
you regarding the importance of America's forests, of our 
Nation's timber and wood products industries, and of the rural 
communities which reside within these forests, but, in 
particular, to speak of the essential role that the vision, 
commitment, and innovation of our Federal Government should 
play in enhancing our Nation's forests and our Nation's 
environmental future.
    I serve the University of Arkansas, the State's land grant 
university, as dean of the Fay Jones School of Architecture and 
Design. While I will speak to the specifics of Arkansas's 
forests and its timber and wood industries today, I also speak 
on behalf of many schools and many universities across the 
United States engaged in similar endeavors.
    I offer here an Arkansas case study in the effectiveness, 
value, and essential importance of innovative research and 
development in the cause of America's forests. Two questions 
frame our work: What does it mean to be a Nation of forests, of 
forested States? What is the value of funding innovation in our 
forests in the cause of the Nation?
    By focusing on the potential of Arkansas forests, 
timberlands, and wood products industries, the Fay Jones 
School, together with our School of Forestry and Natural 
Resources and with significant assistance from the U.S. Forest 
Service and its Wood Innovations Grant Program, as well as the 
Forest Products Laboratory, we have been able to stimulate both 
greater economic environmental health for this essential 
renewable resource and greater economic development in the 
State, with attention to our rural communities and a more 
sustainable low-carbon future.
    In 2017, a U.S. Forest Service Wood Innovations Grant 
funded research into the viability of building new mass timber 
residence halls at the University of Arkansas. Design research 
studios funded by this grant developed residence hall 
prototypes constructed from mass timber. In validation of this 
effort, the university built a new $79 million residence hall 
out of mass timber, currently the largest such building in the 
United States. The Forest Products Laboratory has now provided 
funds further to our school for important research on this 
completed building.
    Our School of Forestry has also received Wood Innovations 
Grant funds, and with these we are forming a statewide 
consortium of forestry, timberlands, and wood-products 
stakeholders so as to maximize the environmental and economic 
benefits of Arkansas's forests.
    Collectively, the effects of this funding and the design 
research it yielded have been remarkable, as the University of 
Arkansas has become perhaps the most significant supporter of 
advanced timber construction in higher education. With more 
than $100 million in construction so far and with the new $20 
million Anthony Timberlands Center for Design and Materials 
Innovation, a home to our numerous wood initiatives and a new 
applied research center, now in the early stages of design, we 
are now a critical actor in the stimulation of the 
architecture, engineering, and contracting industries in the 
State, as well as turning our attention to our rural economies 
and communities.
    The impact of these initiatives now extend statewide, as 
our proof of concept at the university informs significant 
private enterprise in Arkansas. Structurlam, the leading mass 
timber manufacturer in North America, from Canada, is now 
investing $90 million and hiring 130 Arkansas employees for its 
first U.S. facility, producing CLT panels in Conway, Arkansas. 
Structurlam's first primary project will be Walmart's new mass 
timber headquarters in Bentonville, a 3-million-square-foot 
campus which will use 1.1 million cubic feet of Arkansas 
timber. And more projects, public and private, are on the way 
across the State.
    In total and in constant growth, this is the Arkansas 
timber project, stimulated by innovation funds from the USFS 
and collateral partners.
    I will be emphatic now in summary. The United States of 
America is a forest Nation. The forests are inextricably 
engaged with our history, our society, our politics, our 
culture, our environment, our future. The forests of the United 
States must therefore be wisely conserved, stewarded, and 
employed for the greatest good, for the greatest number, for 
the greatest benefit. These last words echo, of course, the 
credo of Gifford Pinchot, the founder of the USFS.
    This ambition can only be achieved through the concerted, 
farsighted efforts of both public institutions and agencies and 
private stakeholder and corporate interests and organizations. 
The ideals, the purposes, activities, people, and funding 
mechanisms of the USFS are central to this larger goal. The 
specific work and collaborative funding of the Forest Products 
Laboratory and the specific funding of the USFS Wood 
Innovations Grant Program are demonstrably essential, valuable, 
and impactful across a broad range of actors and audiences in 
this mission across the country.
    If what we have achieved in Arkansas is any measure of 
effectiveness and value, then, on behalf of my colleagues, 
partners, and allies in Arkansas and across the country all 
engaged in the larger America's Forests Project, I confirm 
today the absolute value of a federally supported emphasis, 
with enhanced and accelerated funding, on America's forests, on 
America's timber and wood industries, and on America's timber 
and wood innovation initiatives to the greater good of our 
society and our Nation.
    Thank you. I will be happy to take questions when that 
moment comes.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
      
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Dean MacKeith. Always 
wonderful to hear someone quote Pinchot and know about the long 
history of our Forest Service.
    My understanding is, there are still some technical issues 
with Mr. Brinkmeyer. Kind of looks like it. But we could go 
ahead and start questions, and I will hear from the technical 
people as soon as they have that resolved. I know it was 
working earlier, so it is just that the internet has a mind of 
its own. So, if we go to questions, we will just come back to 
his testimony.
    And I am going to yield for my first question to Ms. 
McCollum, because she needs to be at her Defense hearing 
shortly. And so I am happy to yield to her my time, and I will 
ask some questions later.
    Ms. McCollum. Well, thank you, Chair Pingree, for allowing 
me.
    And I want to say, as long as we are speaking of defense, I 
want to acknowledge the partnership between the Army's 
Development Command Research Laboratory and the Forest Products 
Laboratory and the extraordinary story of how leaders of their 
joint projects sent legacy mahogany wood that was over a 
century old here to the Capitol to repair the damage endured on 
the January 6 attack.
    So, once again, Chair Pingree, we find ways in which we can 
cross-pollinate through our work. I want to particularly just 
say that this priceless lumber, it is going to rebuild the 
heart of our democracy. And I hope when we can all go back in 
the Capitol and look at it again that we get an opportunity to 
see the wood replacement.
    But I wanted to take a second to just talk about FPL's 
ability to help our Nation rebuild every day in every way 
throughout our communities. As we look forward to making 
serious investments in infrastructure across America, I would 
like to hear more about the role that FPL sees its forest 
products playing in sustainable source construction and new 
facilities, even in structures like bridges.
    So I am going to give Minnesota a shout-out. Mr. Joyce and 
I are often stuck in the middle between Ms. Pingree and Mr. 
Simpson talking about their potatoes and their timber, but Mr. 
Joyce and I, just saying, we do have the greatest lakes.
    So the University of Minnesota has been working with the 
Resources Research Institute, their division at the university, 
and they have published some amazing and interesting research 
on the efficiency and durability of bridges that use timber 
alone or in a combination with other materials.
    And here is why timber bridges can be very exciting. They 
can be constructed in all weather conditions, and the wood is 
not damaged by continuous freeze and thaw conditions, and it 
can hold up to deicing road salt. So there are combinations 
where the bridges use timber in the construction.
    So could you maybe elaborate a little more, if you could, 
on how we could see these forest products in recent years help 
prepare for that role of more sustainability and, in some ways, 
be very green with reducing carbon footprint?
    Ms. West. Thank you very much, Congresswoman McCollum. I 
appreciate that question.
    I have worked for the last 7 years in looking at green 
products and their benefits, particularly in carbon 
sequestration and sustainability. And wood is, again, the only 
renewable material that is part of a biogenic cycle for carbon. 
By utilizing wood, we are taking wood out of forests, we are 
allowing new trees to grow and accumulate carbon, all while 
taking that material that we removed that will continue to 
accumulate carbon.
    And let me just give you an example. I live in a 125-year-
old house. I have flooring that needed to be replaced, so I 
went down to my local mill, and they had beams from a barn that 
was probably 150 years old. They sawed those beams into new 
flooring to match my old house. These trees probably for the 
barn building were at least 150 years old. So you begin to add 
up, 150 years, plus another, you know--and 150 years of carbon 
sequester in the forest, in the tree, 150 years in use at the 
barn, now going into my old house, you know, which will add 
another at least 125 to 150 years of carbon sequestration, and 
you begin to add up and look at across 400 to 500 years of 
carbon sequester from when that tree or that seedling grew in a 
forest to where it is in service in life in my home.
    Now, wood in service accumulates and--or it is a body of 
carbon. We can use lots of materials. We can substitute many 
materials that are nonrenewable and combine them with other 
materials.
    So, for example, just recently, we have taken the smallest 
particles from wood, nanomaterials, combined that with cement 
to create concrete that has higher strength properties, which 
means that we could reduce the amount of concrete that we use 
by adding nanomaterials from wood by 20 percent.
    And you begin to add up the road miles, as the U.S. 
endowment calculated, a one-road-mile four-lane highway would 
help us to thin and improve forest--about 26 acres of forest 
per road mile of using this material for road servicing. And I 
could go on and on.
    Bridges. I started my career a number of years ago, and I 
remember the startup of the timber bridge program to be able to 
utilize eastern species, particularly hardwood species, that 
had low-value markets to create a higher-value product using a 
technology that was easy to implement--low capitalization--that 
local communities could develop.
    And so the bridge program is mature, but we are looking 
forward. We have had a lot of requests for looking at different 
applications. I can look forward to the future and say, we will 
have a next generation of bridges that combine wood and other 
products, are higher performance, low cost, and to create local 
jobs and businesses.
    Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Pingree. Chair McCollum, Dean MacKeith wanted to give a 
quick answer. And I know you are over time, but I know you 
won't be here for a second question.
    So, Dean, if you could just give a quick answer before we 
lose Ms. McCollum.
    Mr. MacKeith. Yes. Two issues, one related to defense.
    Currently, in concert with the U.S. Forest Service, the 
U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities, there is a three-
university project underway led by Clemson University's wood 
utilization laboratories and Pat Layton, but together with 
Arkansas and Oregon, Oregon State, looking at prototyping new 
designs from cross-laminated timber for defense facilities 
across the country. It is a very important growth of innovative 
research and collaborative research all together.
    Second, the Forest Products Laboratory is doing important 
work in moisture sensing, believe it or not, of newly 
constructed cross-laminated timber buildings. We are doing one 
here on campus with them.
    And then even more importantly, I would say, is lifecycle 
analysis of the full life of a building, from pre-construction 
all the way through 2, 5, 10 years on the road, to really prove 
as much as possible on an evidence-based approach that these 
buildings constructed this way are of ultimate value to the 
consumer as well as to, really, the manufacturer.
    Ms. McCollum. Well, thank you. It looks like Mr. Kilmer and 
I have some extra homework in the Defense committee.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you.
    Now, I think we have it all worked out for Mr. Brinkmeyer.
    Please accept our apology for the technical problem. 
Hopefully we will be able to hear you now.
    Mr. Brinkmeyer. How is this?
    Ms. Pingree. I can hear you.
    Mr. Brinkmeyer. Wow. Sorry, Madam Chairwoman.
    First of all, I am pleased to be here, and want to thank 
our Representative Simpson. He casts a big shadow in Idaho. And 
he already put in Gonzaga, so we dispensed with that 
requirement.
    There has been a lot said. And, just quickly, we, in our 
company and myself personally, have had a significant appetite 
to learn, and our training ground has been Europe. We have been 
heavily involved in the European community for the last 20-some 
years. Our company is 40 years old, and, as the comment was 
made in the opening remarks, our company has grown with 
technology.
    And cross-laminated timber was invented by Wolfgang Weirer 
at the University of Graz, which is really the bastion of 
research on wood that we have found. Universities in the States 
are certainly picking up and making progress, but cross-
laminated timber factories, laminated beam timber factories in 
Europe are significantly advanced. And it is technology that 
will benefit the U.S. as the U.S. begins to adapt.
    I am here representing the Forest Products Commission in 
Idaho, which was started in 1992. And it was an earlier version 
of the Softwood Lumber Board, which I had the opportunity to be 
involved in from the very beginning.
    I am especially pleased with Secretary Vilsack being back, 
because the Softwood Lumber Board was created under his watch. 
It is a check-off. And like the Forest Products Commission, it 
is embedded in our State. All the forest products companies pay 
into the fund, and it is for education, conservation, forest 
health, and so forth.
    The Softwood Lumber Board is the lumber producers in the 
United States, including all lumber producers that import. We 
are in our eighth year. We have just increased our dues. And we 
will, over the next 7 years, put $125 million into mass timber.
    Now, we call it mass timber, but really it is a moniker for 
nonresidential housing. Residential housing in the United 
States is approximately--94 percent is wood-related. 
Commercial, on the other hand, is not. And our competitors in 
that regard are steel and concrete. Wood has certainly a better 
carbon footprint than steel and concrete, but, really, all 
building materials have their rightful place in the 
construction environment. And our goal is for wood to have its 
rightful place.
    And we are accomplishing this through WoodWorks, which 
Softwood Lumber Board supports significantly. I believe that we 
are their largest supporter economically. And the other is the 
American Wood Council, which is a group of unsung heroes who do 
marvelous work and are involved with the Forest Lab to some 
degree.
    But it is through the efforts of the Softwood Lumber Board 
and the American Wood Council that, last year, in the code 
cycle, they were successful in changing the codes to allow mass 
timber construction for buildings 18 stories.
    We had asked for 12 when we started that process. We were 
able to go to 18 because of the science of work from 
universities, work from the Forest Products Lab, research done 
by the industry through the American Wood Council. There were 
comments earlier about some of the bomb tests that were done, 
and for schools to be built on military bases, extensive fire 
testing, which is one our competitors use against us from time 
to time as being a risk.
    But mass timber has a huge opportunity to grow in the 
United States. And I think, with what you heard today in 
testimony, there is a lot of very capable people, very bright 
people focused on this.
    And I might add that WoodWorks' sole job is to talk to 
people building in the commercial space and convert those 
buildings to mass timber. And so far, they have been successful 
and have converted over 4.5 billion feet of lumber being 
utilized in projects.
    For us and what we see in the future is----
    Ms. Pingree. Uh-oh, I think we lost your audio again, just 
when you were--you are back.
    Mr. Brinkmeyer. I am back?
    Ms. Pingree. Yep. You were starting to say what you see in 
the future.
    Mr. Brinkmeyer. What I see in the future is, we will have 
continued focus with mass timber as we have more and more focus 
on climate change, which is real. It is not perceived; it is 
real. We experience it in the Intermountain West, and I will 
talk about that in a moment.
    But one area that we need focus--and our company is focused 
on it now--is what we call ``all of the fiber that is 
nonrectangular.'' Because, at the end of the day, lumber 
producers make precision rectangles. And we have--approximately 
30 percent of a log is residual fiber.
    And we just lost in July one of the most modern newsprint 
plants in North America at Usk, Washington. And, without any 
notice, they closed the plant, paid out the WARN Act obligation 
to the employees, and handed the keys to the bankruptcy judge 
in Spokane, where it still exists today. No one will buy it. 
That is a message, one we should pay attention to.
    We feel that wood fiber--you talk about plastics. We know a 
lot about biofuel. We are working with the National Lab in 
Idaho now and with the experts. A particular group we are 
working with and I am fascinated with are the fellows that came 
together and manufactured the bio-jet fuel that Alaska Airlines 
used to fly from Seattle to Washington, D.C., here a few years 
ago.
    There is the area that is the most promising. Mass timber 
will take care of itself. It is a great product, and it will 
find its place. And the architects and the engineers, it is now 
up to them to bring it into fruition. But we see the fiber side 
of it as a huge opportunity.
    As we address forest health in the West, we have 
submergible material that is a fire loading on the lands that 
we need to deal with. And my hope is that this body, as you 
look at an infrastructure bill going forward, that you will 
consider infrastructure funds for forest health, and, in that 
infrastructure bill, you look towards what to do with this low-
value fiber. It is nonstructural fiber in its current state, 
but it can be used from a BTU point of view with respect to 
carbon.
    The U.K. has huge investments in pellet plants in the 
South, because it is proven technology that current coal-fired 
power plants, if they are fired with 80 to 90 percent pellets, 
they can maintain that electrical generation infrastructure. 
And you can look to Enviva, you can look to Drax, you can look 
at those companies now that are building very large pellet 
facilities all around the U.S. that take advantage of this 
fiber situation and how it fits into the carbon equation. And 
these are things that we need to pay attention to.
    One other area of----
    Ms. Pingree. I am going to need to have you wrap up, but we 
can ask some more of these things in the questions later. Can I 
get you to say----
    Mr. Brinkmeyer. Okay. I want to make one last comment. And 
I am sorry, Madam Chairwoman, for going over here.
    Ms. Pingree. It is perfectly fine.
    Mr. Brinkmeyer. We are working with Oxford University in 
Cambridge, and have been for the last 4 years, on satellite 
imagery. Our Intermountain Forest, where our mills are located, 
comprises approximately 16 million acres. It was discussed 
early on of the problems of the wildfires in the Intermountain 
Forest. And that exposure is huge.
    And for our particular company, the future of our company 
is the Intermountain Forest. And, as a result, we took it upon 
ourselves that--I personally wanted to understand and know, 
because of our species diversity, what that forest is going to 
look like today, tomorrow, and 20 years from now.
    And with Oxford University and its emerging technology 
group, from what they call the satellite catapult, we have been 
doing research on the Intermountain Forest and have completed 
roughly 9,000 plots and using artificial intelligence to train 
the algorithms, where we can look at habitat, we can share 
information with our friends in the conservation community and 
others.
    And this is something I personally and our company are 
taking on. We have great leadership in a gentleman by the name 
of Tom Schultz, who has taken this and has [inaudible] 
Understand this.
    I just muted out. It is time to quit, Madam Chairwoman. I 
will take any questions when the time is right. Apologize for 
all this. You would think a technical company wouldn't have 
technical problems, but apparently we do.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
    
    Ms. Pingree. Yeah, well, that is because the internet has a 
mind of its own, so certainly not your fault. But we really 
appreciate it. And thank you so much for your wonderful 
testimony and all the experience and work that you are doing.
    I will yield to Mr. Joyce for questions.
    Mr. Joyce. I thank you, Chair Pingree.
    You know, Marc, the loss of your internet makes a good case 
on why we need to increase broadband throughout the country. 
And I disagree with you on the big shadow of Mr. Simpson. He is 
half the Congressman he used to be when I first got here. He is 
losing weight at a rapid pace every year.
    But, Dean MacKeith, good to see you.
    Last Congress, I was proud to cosponsor Congressman Bruce 
Westerman's bill, the Trillion Trees Act, to plant 1 trillion 
trees globally by 2050 and promote sustainable forest practices 
to make our forests more resilient to disease and wildfires 
while also reducing carbon in the atmosphere.
    To increase carbon storage, the Trillion Trees Act sought 
to incentivize innovative building practices with a sustainable 
building tax credit.
    Dean, consistent with the policies in the Trillion Trees 
Act, can you take a moment to discuss the potential benefits of 
building with innovative wood products, especially how products 
like cross-laminated timber store carbon and reduce 
CO2 emissions during construction?
    Mr. MacKeith. Thank you very much, Representative Joyce.
    I have appreciated very much coming to know Congressman 
Westerman and his constituents in the State of Arkansas, as 
well as his advice, certainly. As you know, he is the only 
forester in the House of Congress. So there is a great deal to 
be learned.
    The benefits--and I was--speaking as the dean of a school 
of architecture and design, I want to, in fact, resound what 
Mr. Brinkmeyer has said. All materials have a use value that 
can be understood. At a very basic level, I am quite ecumenical 
on the subject of steel and concrete as much as timber. Each of 
these materials has a role to play.
    And yet the use value, the lifecycle value, certainly can 
be estimated and even calculated at a higher value when 
considering the use of wood products and mass timber more 
generally. This is partially what the Forest Products 
Laboratory is doing now in concert with universities and 
schools across the country.
    I think there is an important aspect to be understood, 
certainly, here from the State of Arkansas and, I think, across 
the Southeast of the United States more generally, which is a 
southern yellow pine fiber basket, along with significant 
hardwood stands. And that is to say that, currently, in 
Arkansas and elsewhere across the Southeast, we are, in a 
sense, growing more than we can reasonably harvest and utilize. 
We had a growing issue of surplus, which is either still 
standing in the forests or on the ground.
    This is, you could say, a negative value, so to speak, in 
the sense that it sets us up for potential forest fires, for 
insect infestation, as is being experienced elsewhere, and a 
range of other environmental effects, including into the 
groundwater supply.
    So there is a benefit which needs to be noted from the 
outset, which is: A dramatic surge in the development of new 
products and markets for those products, as well as just 
expanded markets for the products we have, will bring 
environmental benefit by--it is beginning to address, in part, 
this surplus condition. Surplus has to be seen as an 
opportunity. So above and beyond what we see in terms of the 
built constructions, there is, I think, an underlying 
environmental benefit which I believe all of us can understand, 
and it goes to the heart, I think, of the discussion today.
    The other question, having to do with the character of the 
construction itself--this is to say, making use of, as was 
already discussed, smaller-dimension woods, off-cuts or tree 
thinnings, making maximum use of every tree, in a sense, that 
is taken down.
    This, to me, is, I think, an ultimate principle of economy 
and environment at the same time. And it means that our 
buildings can be built less wastefully. It means that they can 
be, in many ways, built more quickly and more efficiently. And, 
ultimately, although there is still significant ways to go in 
terms of the research, residing within a timber building is 
beginning to be shown to have advantageous psychological 
effects. We work better, we work more productively, we work 
more optimistically from working within a wood-based 
environment.
    So there is a range of issues. I could go on. I see my time 
is up, but I am happy to continue to expand at request.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Joyce.
    Mr. Kilmer has another committee, so I happily defer to him 
for the next question.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Based on that last comment, I am thinking about asking for 
a bill to turn the U.S. Capitol into a wood building.
    My first question is for Dean MacKeith.
    You know, we know that building with wood has the potential 
to reduce embodied carbon in buildings. The data suggests 
massive emissions reductions over the next 50 years, about 870 
million tons of CO2, you know, which is powering 
about 100 million homes for a year. That is equal to the 
emissions gains in that regard. That is a huge deal.
    And, you know, now that we have seen the 2021 edition of 
the International Building Code include an update to allow wood 
buildings up to 18 stories tall, which captures most 
residential and commercial buildings in the U.S., it feels like 
the time is right to see a significant increase in tall wood 
building construction.
    But we haven't seen that shift really materialize quite 
yet, and I am just curious what you think the holdup is. Is it 
just a natural adjustment period, or are there remaining 
barriers that you see that are preventing the private sector 
from transitioning to more tall wood construction? Do we have 
the manufacturing capacity to meet the demand? What is cooking?
    Mr. MacKeith. Thank you. And, again, this is a multifront 
question, or a multifront discussion, and you have identified 
some of the significant factors here.
    Manufacturing, yes. Seven years ago, when we began to look 
at what was possible in the State of Arkansas, I showed 
Governor Hutchinson a map of the United States indicating where 
the fiber basket was in the Southeast, where Arkansas was, and 
where the cross-laminated timber facilities were in North 
America, let alone the United States. And, of course, they were 
in Canada; there were two or three coming into being in your 
State and elsewhere, in Oregon and Idaho and so forth; and 
there was one, potentially, on the books in Alabama. But there 
was nothing in the center of the United States, where arguably 
the Mississippi River has a great presence still in 
transportation.
    So there is a supply question, a manufacturing and supply 
question, no doubt, that brings this into greater reality for 
anyone thinking of a new building. That is certainly one 
aspect.
    The other aspect, I think, has to do, as you have noted, 
with the building codes, their relationships to insurance 
costs, their relationship to pro forma costs as developers and 
other commissioning agents see those costs.
    The IBC has, yes, advanced significantly, but, of course, 
building codes are still maintained at the local or at the 
State levels. And, therefore, it does take a while for the new 
building code to be brought into, I guess, code compliance or 
code agreement, even at the level of a city or a State or a 
county. So there is work to be done there too.
    I do want to--so, yes, code, insurance, and also financing, 
right, which has to do with how buildings are financed, how 
they are underwritten. And there are an increasing number of 
banks and other financial concerns which see the value of this 
to their bottom line. I attended a significant conference 2 
years ago organized by Bank of America, which you may know is 
seeking to invest significant amounts into a low-carbon future. 
This is very much on their agenda.
    The last thing I want to note, again, looking at just 
keeping an eye on the clock, is, for me--and I am not alone in 
this, but others could differ--the real challenge here is not 
the tallest building in the world. That is, I think, always 
something of an architect's dream, perhaps, but it is not 
really the sweet spot for mass timber and wood product 
construction. The sweet spot is the 8- to 10-story building, 
whether it is speculative or commercial, cultural or academic. 
And, equally, it is into the residential market, especially 
multifamily, multistory.
    And this is where we come to building our small towns and 
communities--building our rural communities, at that--by really 
addressing the ability for mass timber to move into the 
residential market.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you for that.
    And thank you, Madam Chair, for fitting me in. I may come 
back after testifying to Budget. So thanks so much. This is a 
great topic, and I appreciate the subcommittee taking this up. 
And I yield back.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Kilmer.
    Mr. Simpson is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman. I have to leave after 
this question, also, for another meeting and stuff, and 
hopefully I will be able to come back after it.
    But, Marc, I wanted to ask you, you know, one of the 
important things is--we can talk about all the interesting 
things that happen in the forest products industry and what 
they are developing and so forth. One of the most important 
things is getting that wood from the forest to the mill so that 
they can actually do those types of activities that are 
necessary.
    In a 2015 ruling, in the Cottonwood, it has created a 
barrier that stands in the way of improving health of our 
Federal forests. How has the Cottonwood decision created 
uncertainty in your supply chain, and what can we do about it?
    Mr. Brinkmeyer. Great question, Congressman. Thank you.
    Cottonwood is one of those red-herring lawsuits that, once 
we go through the whole collaborative process on a timber sale 
or work in the woods, whatever it be, it is still subject to 
exposure if there is new science that may be unrelated that 
shows up in another issue, in another place, and it can be used 
to hold up that particular timber sale.
    And so what the whole purpose with Cottonwood--and Senator 
Daines and another Senator from California have legislation 
that we hope will be passed to clean up the Cottonwood. As you 
know, there was great work done on the farm bill here years 
ago, and we have not had the benefit, because of Cottonwood, 
really to continue the efforts in the woods.
    Our position and the work we have done with the Western 
Governors' Association, which is something that deserves a 
shout-out--and you are aware of it through our Governor, Butch 
Otter, who was a huge proponent of that. It is the bipartisan 
effort of the western States coming together on western health 
issues. And it is through that focus we will get to the 
Cottonwood issue.
    I am not for closing the doors to the courthouse, but we 
have to have some action against serial litigators. And 
Cottonwood is used by the serial litigators to stop timber 
sales.
    You are aware we have Good Neighbor Authority in Idaho. 
Good Neighbor Authority is coming in Montana, where the State 
foresters have the ability to work with the Federal forest 
professionals in administering timber sales. All the right 
pieces are in place for our forest health and continued effort 
on the forest floor, but those are important.
    One other area that I didn't mention in my earlier comments 
is, the true tools for forest health are our loggers. And our 
loggers need certainty for timber under contract and so forth 
so they can invest in their equipment and keep their businesses 
going.
    We have over 2,000 logging families that work for our 
company in the Intermountain. And, to me, it is really 
important that we look out for them and advance their 
technology, logistics, and other attributes that we can bring 
in helping them. Because it has been overlooked for some time. 
I am not sure what has gone on in other States in that regard, 
but it has certainly in the Intermountain. It is the Federal 
forests that have the issue with Cottonwood.
    Mr. Simpson. Well, thank you. I appreciate that answer. And 
we look forward to working with you on this.
    Just for the sake of the other members, I will tell you 
that--we have mentioned here Mr. Westerman's bill on the 
trillion tree planting or whatever. There is also a bipartisan 
bill that I am the lead cosponsor of called the REPLANT Act 
that been reintroduced in the House, which would help the 
Forest Service plant 1.2 billion trees over the next 10 years 
and create 40,000 new jobs.
    And it is okay to have--it is okay to cosponsor both of 
those bills. I think both of them would be beneficial to get 
through Congress. So I look forward to working with all of you 
on that.
    And thanks for this hearing, Representative Pingree.
    Ms. Pingree. [Inaudible] Great having you on the call.
    But I wanted to ask you, since the university has had the 
opportunity to kind of look at this broad range of products, 
from, you know, the cellulosic fibers to CLT and now the new 
innovation around wood-related building insulation, where do 
you see the most promise? And I know that is kind of a big-
picture question, but there are so many things on the 
forefront, I would just be interested to hear from your 
perspective on that.
    Mr. Shaler. Thank you for the question.
    Yes, ``most promise'' is a big question. I think one of the 
real values and important themes about innovation is that, 
there isn't one solution. And it is this broadening of markets 
mass timber that we have had discussions about, putting in the 
insulation, new materials, from nanocellulose, the small fiber. 
Markets have natural ups and downs, so having that diversity 
for the manufacturing sector is really important.
    A characteristic of the industry in the State, if I may be 
so bold, is that it has a variety of markets. I think in 
Arkansas they say, ``Use everything of the hog but the 
squeal.'' In Maine, you tend to use, if you have the ability to 
use the pulp, if you have the ability to use the lumber, if you 
have the energy, if you have the new products from the 
nanocellulose, you have the ability to use every part of the 
tree for its highest value as markets change. You are not stuck 
in a single paradigm. And, as the world changes, we need to 
have that flexibility and that innovation moving forward.
    So we need it all; it is that connection. And we have had a 
discussion about the life cycle analysis. We also think in 
terms of circular economy, where we are looking at--the end of 
that 120 years or 60 years or 3 years in packaging or 6 months 
in packaging, designing and innovating so it continues to be 
reused and has the lowest carbon and sustainable impact.
    I didn't exactly answer your question directly, but 
everything is important, and how they work together is really 
vital.
    And that ties in with the mass timber. What happens when we 
deconstruct that building? Will we be able to put it into 
flooring? How do we design that building? What is the connecter 
system innovation? All of those come into the long view. We are 
solving some of today's problems right now, but this is really 
the long-view solution.
    Ms. Pingree. Yeah. Thank you for that.
    And it kind of leads into another question that I was going 
to ask Dr. West, and Mr. Brinkmeyer brought it up as well. But 
when we talk about harvesting the forest, one of the 
opportunities--because you mention it--is the, sort of, full 
use of everything in the forest. That can be kind of helpful on 
two fronts, in terms of managing the forest and cleaning up 
some of the left-behind that could put us in a better position 
when it comes to forest fires in the future. And that is 
something we have to invest in quite a bit.
    But some people raise concerns about what does get left 
behind and how we sustainably do that. So, before I go to Dr. 
West, do you want to make any comment about how that has been 
perceived in Maine in terms of, like, sort of, you know, snout-
to-tail use of the forest, in a sense?
    Mr. Shaler. Thank you for the question.
    I don't know how to answer that, to be honest.
    Ms. Pingree. Okay. That is fine. Well, why don't I just 
skip to Dr. West and then see what time I have left.
    But, well, you know full well, Dr. West, because, you know, 
hazardous fuel reduction is a big part of our budget. And I 
think Mr. Brinkmeyer mentioned putting it into an 
infrastructure package. And we have looked at that, the idea of 
the massive amount of cleanup that needs to take place, either 
in forests where there has been a burn or just in the cleanup 
and maintenance of it.
    So how do you sort of see that fitting in the picture? And 
is there a way to do some of these good forest products, turn 
things into a usable product, but also maybe save us some money 
on the forest cleanup budgets?
    Ms. West. I want to talk a little bit--we talk about 
hazardous fuels, and that has been a term that has been used 
for a couple decades. I want to suggest that, right now, in 
many of our places across the Nation, that the environmental 
conditions our forests are growing under now in this century 
are fundamentally different from the environmental conditions 
that they were growing under when we developed all those 
guidelines for foresters to manage, right? So how many trees 
per acre, what size, what species.
    And what we know from what we have experienced through 
drought, massive drought, more than a million acres of beetle 
kill, you know, earlier this century in the Intermountain West, 
to 4 years of drought setting up massive die-back and beetle 
kills and fire in California--in the Intermountain West now, we 
are seeing, and across several States, where, for the first 
time since we have been collecting data, that we are losing 
carbon. So we are not getting more carbon in our forests, but 
they are becoming emitters.
    So I would say that, you know, part of it is hazardous 
fuels, in that we have too much material in there to burn, but 
also, in order to keep our forests healthy so that they can 
withstand insects and disease that will cause death, dry fuels 
in the forest, it is a bigger picture and a bigger cycle. We 
need to go in and remove material from this forest. There is 
not enough water on this landscape to support all of that 
biomass in addition to fire.
    And when we take this material--we have lost--and several 
folks have spoken to this. We have lost our low-value residual 
wood markets, right? And that was our pulp industry. And so, 
with the loss of that, we are looking at, where can we utilize 
this material? What technology can we develop?
    Well, we have technologies. We know how we can take and use 
this material. But what we need to put in place and think about 
are policies that help us to make those technologies 
economical, whether we are converting wood to various types of 
fuels, bio-char, whether we are removing these and putting them 
into a composite or an engineered wood product.
    We know how to do this. We just need the policies to help 
us work across both Federal and State agencies, with the 
private sector, to make these things economical. So technology 
we have got, but--and if we can advance the science. But that 
is where I think we our biggest gap right now.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you. That is very helpful.
    I recognize Mr. Stewart for 5 minutes. Thank you.
    And your clock is wrong. I think it is 2 hours later here. 
So I don't know. You have got that ``9:30'' on your clock.
    And you are muted.
    Mr. Stewart. Thank you. I was saying it is a beautiful day 
out here in Utah, and you are right, a couple hours behind. Ms. 
Pingree, thank you for hosting us, and, of course, to the 
witnesses today.
    Ms. Pingree, you started out talking about some of the 
differences in the forest between the West, generally, that, of 
course, I represent, and the East. And I have had a chance to 
enjoy the beautiful forests in the East.
    And, Dr. West, you alluded to the thing I wanted to talk 
about today, and that is, there are some differences--private 
forest versus public forest, public lands.
    One of the things we know about out here in the West, as 
you said, Dr. West, is that, in some cases, our forests--in 
fact, in many cases, far too many, our forests are overgrown, 
that we do need a healthy restoration. And the threat of 
catastrophic wildfire is one of the things we have to live with 
because of that overgrowth.
    One of the problems we have here in Utah--and I think it is 
not only within my State; I think it is broadly in the West--we 
don't grow these enormous trees. Many of them are small-
diameter trees. And the market for these small-diameter trees--
and when I say small-diameter, I am talking now 8, 12, 14 
inches. They are not, you know, tiny. They are certainly viable 
on the market, except for only for special uses.
    And we are experiencing a couple interesting things right 
now. One of them is an incredible inflation in timber. If you 
are in the housing or if you are trying to buy a home or build 
a home right now, that is certainly reflected, as we have seen 
timber prices double over, really, a matter of less than a 
year. And yet we can't use these small-diameter trees that are 
so common out here in the West. And if we could, it would help 
reduce the threat of these catastrophic fires.
    There are a couple alternative sources, you know, like bio-
char or wood shavings. And I am asking, I guess, the Forest 
Service, how can we help match the demand for timber products 
with the challenges of the small timber and, at the same time, 
you know, reduce the threat of the forest fires and become part 
of the healthy restoration as well?
    And, Dr. West, if you could maybe lead.
    Ms. Pingree. I think, Mr. Stewart, your camera is off. I 
think it probably was a mistake too.
    Who is it?
    Chris Stewart, your camera is off.
    Mr. Stewart. For some reason, when I go to unmute myself, 
it turns my camera off. You tell me. It has been that way for a 
couple weeks, and we are trying to fix it.
    Ms. Pingree. That is fine. We know you are there, so please 
continue.
    And, Dr. West, I think you are next.
    Ms. West. Thank you for that question.
    I have family that live on the Wasatch Front. And I have 
talked with water utilities and concerns of Salt Lake City, 
where 60 percent of the water comes down through the Cottonwood 
Canyon and the extreme conditions in those canyons and impact 
on water quality and quantity.
    So what we need is a solution to take small trees and make 
them into higher-value wood products. We have limited uses and 
capacity in your State and, actually, throughout the 
Intermountain West to be able to utilize this material with 
current technologies that typically would make an engineered 
product or a composite product that requires high 
capitalization costs with a lot of uncertainty for timber 
supply for those types of investments.
    So what we need is something that is to scale, that can be 
capitalized at a lower cost, and will take these small stems 
and convert them to a higher-value product. And that is one of 
the areas of research that we have targeted. And some promising 
technologies that we have identified to be able to take the 
stem and convert it with lower-capitalized technology that we 
can put in at the right scale in these communities to address 
this problem.
    And so that is a future use. And----
    Mr. Stewart. And, Dr. West, if I could, on that, very 
quickly, the market has just shifted, as I said, although I 
actually think that I didn't express it very well, in the sense 
that, in the past, the market didn't demand these small-
diameter trees, but in talking with the people in the market 
and people here in the West, that is no longer true. There is a 
market for this.
    But what we don't have, as you said, is the infrastructure 
in the market. But we can't develop the infrastructure if there 
is not the promise that we would have large-scale tracts that 
would be available. And that is what I am encouraging the 
Forest Service to do.
    It is a little bit of a ``chicken or the egg, what comes 
first?'' If the Forest Service would commit to make large 
tracts available for these small-diameter trees, the market 
would move in and provide the infrastructure. I am convinced of 
that. But we need the forest to be more accommodating to tract 
sales that they just haven't been willing to do in the past.
    Ms. West. The Forest Service is aware of this challenge and 
working with States and others as we advance, you know, our 
stewardship work and our shared stewardship program across the 
West to find solutions to the problem that you just described.
    Mr. Stewart. All right. And my time has expired. But, 
again, thank you. We look forward to working with you and 
others as well.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
    Mrs. Lee, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Chairwoman Pingree and Ranking Member 
Joyce, for this hearing, as well as all of our guests and 
witnesses. It has been fascinating.
    I am proud to represent the State of Nevada, where we have 
had the fastest-growing population of any State during the last 
five decades. As we have grown, the demand for affordable 
housing has rapidly outpaced our supply, and today we have a 
shortage of roughly 80,000 affordable units for low-income 
renters.
    So, while we may not have large swaths of forest in 
southern Nevada--although my counterpart, Mark Amodei, from up 
north has a different scenario--we are certainly invested in 
wood innovation and, in particular, the impacts it has on 
building materials and construction.
    One innovative wood product that I am particularly 
interested in is mass timber. We have heard today how mass 
timber can be made from the smaller and weaker trees that are 
removed from forests during thinning operations to prevent 
wildfires. Another big concern in the drought Southwest is we 
are basically in a mega-drought. We have also heard that, when 
produced sustainably, mass timber building materials have the 
potential to be stronger, more fire-resistant, and promote 
faster, cost-efficient construction.
    So I want to direct my question to Mr. MacKeith.
    You have described how sustainably sourced mass timber can 
be used as a low-carbon alternative for building materials. And 
as we tackle our housing crisis here in southern Nevada, I am 
particularly interested in the potential cost benefits of using 
mass timber in building construction.
    Can you comment on that and talk about how you see that 
transpiring?
    Mr. MacKeith. Thank you very much for the question. And 
very much thank you for saying the word ``housing.'' Housing is 
critical to our future as a Nation and certainly critical in 
any State, whether it is here in Arkansas or in your State of 
Nevada.
    We believe that there is a role for mass timber and wood 
product development within the housing industry, within the 
housing market, within the housing territory altogether. As I 
alluded to earlier, this is where the financial metrics as well 
as the quality-of-life metrics can potentially be most broadly 
realized.
    This is also where I would say the universities and the 
research enterprises in the universities can be of real 
importance. And just to quote one example, I know this is being 
worked on at Clemson. I know it is being worked on at Oregon, 
Oregon State. I can tell you it is being worked on here in 
Arkansas, where we have our own design-to-income issues for 
affordable housing.
    We know that stick-frame construction, of course, is a 
major market for the existing wood industry as it is, but, at 
the same time, the dimensions really pertain to what is, in 
essence, a private-market-driven territory in which we can 
either reduce the cost of land, reduce the cost of design, or 
reduce the cost of construction.
    I can certainly be addressing the cost of design. And what 
we can do within our schools and universities is to produce 
prototypical affordable-housing unit-based design based upon 
mass timber panelized construction that can reduce that line 
item on a pro forma to make this attractive to a developer, 
whether that is a government agency or a private-market 
developer. That is what we can be doing to then leverage the 
manufacturing capacity that is currently in development in the 
United States.
    There are a lot of wins that we can achieve out there, but, 
as was said earlier, it has to be done in a consortium-based 
approach--government, industry, and, really, the economy--to 
further this along.
    Our approach is to say we will prototype design, and then 
we will provide those designs at minimal cost to developers or 
nonprofits alike in order to incentivize their use of mass 
timber in a repetitive way. That, for us, is the real next 
horizon.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you.
    And my time is up, so I have to yield. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Pingree. Sorry. I forgot to unmute myself.
    Mr. Amodei, would you like to be recognized for 5 minutes 
for questions?
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    A couple of preliminary things. I noticed that the vice 
chair was talking about something to do with the Great Lakes. 
As an individual who represents the greatest single lake, that 
being Tahoe, we are happy to welcome those lakes where they 
needed five or six of them to go ahead and make the ``great'' 
thing. But, you know, no hard feelings. But that old saying 
that I believe you folks in Maine are familiar with: Quality is 
preferable over quantity.
    But, anyhow, let's get on to the hearing.
    Thank you.
    I was intrigued to hear the discussion a little bit earlier 
about low-value fiber and forest health and fuels management. 
You have touched on it; other people have. I believe Mr. 
Stewart referred to it as low-diameter trees or something along 
those lines.
    And as the home--of which represents my colleague Susie 
Lee's district in Mount Charleston and the Spring Mountains--
the home of the HumboldtToiyabe National Forest, which I think 
is the largest one acreage-wise in the Nation, the challenges 
are such that--I am glad to hear the discussion about all the 
innovation and stuff like that, and I certainly support all 
that, but I think we need to talk about, as the committee does 
its work, talk about the 800-pound gorilla in the room, which 
is forest health, which is also fuels management.
    And so, when we talk about that and we also add in carbon--
I am guessing that maybe some of the folks on the panel can 
answer this question. But when we lose wood in the forest, fuel 
in the forest, through the forest-fire mechanism, the carbon 
release and the air-quality implications are nothing short of 
catastrophic.
    We don't highlight that a lot, but, nonetheless, when we 
talk about--I was intrigued to hear the discussion about 
turning biomass into pellets to make that--dealing with carbon 
release, whether it is biomass or fuel generation or other 
stuff, is eminently manageable compared to rapid oxidation.
    And I can tell you, no offense to my colleagues in the 
Golden State, but when there is a big fire in the forest in 
California, Nevada's air quality goes right out of sight, in 
terms of, you can't see anything, there are health district 
warnings, there is all that stuff, which has become all too 
common.
    So I would like to hear if any of the folks on this panel 
have information regarding what the air-quality carbon-release 
realities are--and I know that it differs based on what the 
fuel is for the acre that is burning, but none of it is good--
if there is any existing data on that.
    And then, also, if there are one or two clearinghouses, if 
you will, that talk about the low-value fiber products and how 
that can be basically looked at in a responsible infrastructure 
policy going forward.
    Ms. Pingree. It looks like--Mr. Brinkmeyer, did you want to 
take that?
    Mr. Brinkmeyer. Yes, please. Is my audio working?
    Ms. Pingree. Perfectly.
    Mr. Brinkmeyer. It is. All right. Well, great question, and 
I have a couple comments here.
    I think I mentioned earlier that we are building a new mill 
in Mississippi. And the reason we are going to Mississippi is 
assurance of supply. And with respect to the gentleman that 
asked the question about the small trees in Utah, if there is 
certainty available with respect to raw materials supply, the 
industry will come.
    And we have the technology to deal with small logs. That 
technology going to the State of Maine--knowing Mr. Irving and 
other producers, your logs are quite small. Your trees are 
quite old. They are slow-growing. They have structural 
integrity used in I-joists and other products. Nature's own 
engineered wood, if you will. And so the technology exists to 
economically handle the small material.
    With respect to forest health, the answer is pellets. In 
the infrastructure bill--there are pellet manufacturers now. 
There is technology that is emerging. It has been in Europe for 
some time. And to give an example, residual--let's just pick--
sawdust, in Europe, sells for 80 euros a ton. In the United 
States, we get $5 to $7 per ton.
    The whole point being, this is about--because natural gas 
in the United States versus in Europe, that they don't. And it 
is used for energy, so the BTU value in Europe is much higher 
than the United States, hence the pellet plants being built in 
the Southeast for export to Japan and other places in Europe.
    So the answer to the small-diameter wood and the recipes 
that have come out of the pellet industry is that it will take 
bark. So it is chippers, to the logging community, to be able 
to remove this small material and economically put it into 
pellets and use it for fuel, as was mentioned earlier.
    So my point is, we have solutions. The industry will rise 
to the occasion to be able to deal with it. But we are just a 
tool. And we are not--we are an industry that is not 
subsidized. We are not looking for a subsidy. What we need is 
certainty. And the mills--there are other families in the 
industry that would build mills and have the technology and 
ability to do it. But that would be the issue.
    So these are all solvable.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you.
    Mr. Amodei yields back.
    And Mr. Cartwright is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Chair Pingree.
    And thank you to all our witnesses for being with us today.
    Thank you, particularly, to Dr. MacKeith, Dean MacKeith, 
for mentioning Gifford Pinchot, who hails from my district, 
from Milford, Pennsylvania. Started the forestry school at 
Yale, the first U.S. Forest Service chair. And great friend of 
Theodore Roosevelt, the both of them terrific conservationists.
    And Gifford Pinchot went on to become the Governor of 
Pennsylvania in 1931, largely through the efforts of his wife. 
Many people don't realize Cornelia Pinchot was basically the 
leader of the suffragist movement in Pennsylvania, enabling an 
entire gender of voters to come on line. And it was his 
popularity because of his wife that really ushered Gifford 
Pinchot into the office of Governor of Pennsylvania in 1931.
    And he had this summer camp for the Yale forestry school at 
his home in Milford, Pennsylvania, as well. And there is no 
coincidence there. As you all may be aware, Pennsylvania is 
home to many beautiful forests. The name ``Pennsylvania'' means 
``Penn's woods.'' Over 58 percent of Pennsylvania is covered in 
forests right now. Many of the forests are publicly owned, but 
there are 750,000 people who are private owners of forestland 
in Pennsylvania, with less than 3 percent of the land owned by 
the forest product industry.
    The first question I have is about invasive insects and 
diseases. The introduction and spread of non-native invasive 
insect, pathogen, and plant species are causing significant 
harm to both urban and rural forests.
    I recently introduced the Native Plant Species Pilot 
Program Act to try to understand the cost-effectiveness of 
using native plant materials in land management activities.
    Dr. West, the first question goes to you. What efforts is 
the Forest Service taking to combat invasive species and 
reestablish native species?
    Ms. West. Thank you for the question.
    As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, invasive species are 
significant throughout particularly our eastern forests. We 
have seen many of these species, both insects, invasive 
diseases, that have affected the composition of our native 
forests.
    So, you know, there is not a one-track solution. We are 
working, and working with universities, with other Federal 
agencies, with State agencies, first of all, to early 
detections of any new invasives coming in, and then, once 
detection, trying to eradicate quickly.
    When we have lost the game there, now we have to manage and 
control. So, working on that front, we are also looking at 
developing biological control methods, we are looking at 
managing that with different chemical treatments, as well as 
looking at what comes after.
    So, even though we have lost the game, we have to look at, 
how do we restore behind? I think the Chief may have mentioned 
in her testimony in another hearing about we need to, you know, 
begin to think how we re-ash our forests. The chestnut white 
took out chestnuts. We are looking at challenges for oak 
regeneration.
    And, in the face of this, we are facing changing climatic 
conditions around climate change.
    But the good news is, nature is resilient. And with our 
help and the work we are doing to find solutions, including 
genetic selection of solutions for trees that could become 
resistant to diseases, we can help to shape the forests of the 
future. And I think that is where we need to be looking to, is 
the future.
    And there are a lot of great biologists, ecologists 
working, of course, with State universities. We are working on 
Federal lands, State lands, through our State agencies, to 
better understand the trajectory of our forests and what we 
need to do as managers and as well as developing the 
technologies and the treatments for the future of our forests. 
And I can provide you with a great more details on that, if you 
would like, Congressman.
    Mr. Cartwright. I think we are going to follow up.
    And I have gone over my time. And, Madam Chair, I yield 
back.
    Ms. Pingree. Mr. Cartwright, it looks like we might have a 
brief second round of questions.
    So thank you to our witnesses, if you are willing to have a 
few more questions. I will start with myself.
    Mr. Brinkmeyer, thank you so much. It has really been 
helpful to have your perspective, you know, from the business 
side.
    Everyone has been great, so thank you for all of the 
testimony.
    But you mentioned a couple things in your first testimony 
that I am just interested to ask you more about. I think you 
said that you have long turned to Europe to look at some of 
their best practices and seen that as a source of, kind of, 
looking into the future of wood products. And, also, you 
mentioned the check-off system.
    So I guess my two questions are: Do you think we still--do 
we adequately utilize the forest practice and products that are 
being developed in Europe right now? Is there more we could do 
with that, sort of, shared information?
    And are we using the check-off system enough--I know that 
is in the Ag Committee, but not here--but just in terms of this 
whole question about developing markets, getting more built 
with some of these wood products, particularly the new and 
innovative ones? What is your perspective on that?
    Mr. Brinkmeyer. Well, thank you very much for the question.
    With respect to Europe, the European sawmill community and 
the forest products community is virtually all family-held. And 
I have had the opportunity to be part of the international 
association and have gotten to know the families over the years 
and their embracing of technologies. So there aren't public 
companies and large public infrastructures. So they're quite 
conservative.
    Their sustained yield program in Austria and Germany is 
over 200 years old in how they manage their forest. And so 
there is a message there. And they, for example, have 
processes, because of their energy costs, where the actual 
slash is bailed and bundled and brought in and converted to 
energy. So there are messages in those states--same thing with 
respect to Finland, Sweden, and so forth. So we, personally and 
professionally, in our company, we look to Europe first.
    And, for example, in processing logs, just to give you an 
example, it is all done with laser data points. On a 20-foot 
log, we have 20,000 data points. And what we are doing is we 
are extracting precision rectangles out of a truncated cone.
    Three or four years ago, we invested in a CT scanner, and 
the reason we did that--all we can do is saw from the outside 
in. Today, we can saw from the inside out. We know where the 
knots are, we know where the defect is. And so all of this can 
lead to a higher grade of lumber.
    This is all European technology; it didn't come from the 
United States. And so our new mill in Mississippi will employ 
not only that technology but other technology as we study that 
log for better yield and better products.
    Cross-laminated timber is very vibrant. New mills are being 
built in Europe, and that is where the technology is. The 
University of Graz is a bastion of utilization of wood fiber.
    Keep in mind that they do not have a dimension, structural 
American lumber standards for it like we have here in the 
United States. So they don't have commodity lumber. North 
America is ahead of the game in that respect. But Europe, from 
a managing forest point of view, their plants, how they handle 
energy, and their product development is quite good. Necessity 
drives investment, and necessity is the mother of invention in 
Europe.
    Cross-laminated timber really gained market momentum in the 
European communities because, as was mentioned earlier, the 
sweet spot with respect to buildings is 8 to 10 stories. So 
just imagine, in the large metropolitan areas--pick London, 
pick any of the large European cities that have six-story 
buildings--have been utilizing cross-laminated timber to add 
two stories to those buildings. Because wood is 20 percent of 
the weight of steel and concrete and has the same strength 
characteristics. That is where the innovation comes from, and 
that is where it is fascinating.
    And so we believe that, from a forest health point of view, 
managing their forests, there is a lesson.
    There is also another lesson here in the United States. The 
fires on private lands and public lands are minimal, on a 
percentage basis. The fire situation is on the Federal lands. 
Now, there are issues with respect to sagebrush and other forms 
of wildfires that are an issue and contribute to the fire 
situation. With respect to managed forests, there is less fire 
exposure than there is on the national forest, and it is purely 
because of the forest health.
    And that is what we feel that--we don't feel it is 
appropriate to complain about it. We feel it is appropriate to 
work with folks, such as yourself and the western Governors and 
others, to bring this information forward to see if we can't 
show you and have you look at it with the same optics that we 
do. Because we are operating people. Our world is the woods, 
our world is fires. We have had some fires that we have had to 
deal with. But that is all part of the forest products 
community.
    But management of the Federal forest, allowing us to do our 
job, allowing the professionals in the Forest Service--who are 
super. The State foresters we have, the Federal foresters we 
have, they know what they are doing. Give them a chance to do 
their job. They will do the right thing.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much. I have to cut you off right 
there. I am out of time. Thank you.
    Mr. Joyce, do you have another question you would like to 
ask?
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chair Pingree.
    Dean MacKeith, if you wouldn't mind, can you tell us how 
the advancements you have witnessed in Arkansas's timber and 
wood industries have impacted rural communities throughout the 
State? And just take a moment, as well, to discuss the 
importance of Forest Service funding in achieving those goals.
    Mr. MacKeith. Yeah. Thank you very much for the question.
    As I indicated in my remarks, the first, I think, advantage 
and the first appeal on this, beyond the evident need to 
address the surplus condition, the environmental condition, 
there is, I think, as well, the need to address the economic 
vitality, the quality of life in the rural communities of the 
State.
    If you were to map in a somewhat laminated way the presence 
of the forests in the State of Arkansas, the presence of 
sawmills and other wood product operations in those forests, 
you would also be mapping rural communities as well. So these 
are all interrelated. That is, I think, vital to this 
understanding.
    The first thing, then, is in terms of jobs. And whether 
that is the restoration or creation of new jobs in logging and 
in sawmill operations or new jobs in the sense for the 
development of new markets--new products and new markets. And 
that is where, for instance, our ability to attract a cross-
laminated timber manufacturer to set up operations in the 
middle of the State is job creation of immediate residents 
around that facility and then further and further residents 
out.
    So this is about job creation. That is one thing which can 
be of great benefit to rural communities. Equally, then, we 
believe that there is a role that we can play, as a school, in 
quality of life in those communities. And I come back to the 
issue of housing.
    So we are now working with a combination of a foundation 
grant as well as USFS funding to look at the issue of 
affordable housing in rural communities situated in the forest 
in such a way that we can truly provide affordable housing for 
those citizens of those communities in a way that makes 
absolute sense to them. It is made of wood, and its essence is 
something that they can identify with.
    This is the value chain that I continue to emphasize, not 
only the partnership between government, industry, and 
university, but also the responsibility that we have to our 
citizens in these rural communities to really demonstrate the 
value of their work directly to the places where they are 
living.
    So, again, the USFS funding has been critical for us all 
along the way. And then, coming in the wake of everything that 
we have done, everything we have built, Forest Products 
Laboratory research funding just enhances that and furthers it 
down the line.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you. I appreciate it.
    Chair Pingree, I know we have other folks who want to ask 
additional questions, so I would defer to them. Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. Yeah. Thank you for that.
    Let's see. Mr. Cartwright was going to go next, but I think 
he has disappeared, so that would bring us back to Mr. Kilmer 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I just, actually, want to mention, in response to the last 
comment around housing, there is actually some interesting 
stuff that is happening in my neck of the woods. We have 
another interesting product, composites, recycled composites, 
that are being used in coordination with cross-laminated timber 
to build tiny homes for homeless veterans in our area. And if 
there is interest in learning more about that, I would be happy 
to pass on some of the interesting work that is happening in my 
neck of the woods.
    I also wanted to just ask, again, trying to get at what we 
can do--you know, I am conscious of the fact that the Federal 
Government is our Nation's largest builder, and so I think 
there is a lot of opportunity to sort of move the needle by 
getting the Federal Government to lead more in this space. You 
know, on this committee, you know, I have worked with GSA and 
with the Department of Defense to try to update their 
procurement policies to reflect the carbon benefits of wood 
construction.
    But I would love to get a sense--and I am not sure who to 
direct this to, maybe Dr. West or Dr. Shaler--of what steps can 
the Federal Government take to help lead the shift toward wood 
construction and to solidify the role of advanced wood products 
as low-embodied-carbon building material that will be key to 
meeting our net-zero goals?
    Ms. West. I am glad to take that question and really 
appreciate the question.
    The Federal Government has the power through the sheer 
number of buildings that we put in place. And many of these are 
not those tall, 18-story buildings, but they are the lower-rise 
buildings that we are putting in place. And whether it is 
through our programs with HUD for affordable housing, or with 
FEMA and HUD to address replacing housing after major disasters 
from fires and from major storms, and where it is that we are 
building upon our own facilities.
    We had a program and a plan about 12 years ago called our 
Green Building Strategy, and part of that strategy that we put 
together with our partners identified incentives for the 
Federal Government to lean into building from wood. And 
resurrecting those recommendations and incentives--you know, we 
have made some progress. I mean, this is in the Forest Service 
and other agencies and within USDA. With the new sustainability 
office and the department sustainability plan and forum, we 
have an opportunity to lead out on that. So we certainly can do 
that.
    Department of Defense is a huge organization with many 
needs and structures. So we have innovations, from using, you 
know, thin nanocellulose material that has been combined with 
cement and concrete to create thin walls to put up to withstand 
blasts for temporary housing for military personnel--is one 
thing. If we can develop some of these systems with these CLT 
panels that we can ship flat, we can move houses around the 
country from where we put our component parts together.
    So we have a lot of opportunity in working, again, 
resurrecting what we started with 12 years ago in Green 
Building Strategy for Federal agencies.
    Mr. Shaler. If I could briefly add on: part of the other 
issue is--in the low-carbon procurement standards. Details 
matter in terms of how those calculations are made. I think 
that is an important area.
    And the other part of this: We talk to contractors and look 
at how they de-risk. We know that once a company has built 
these, they reduce time to market because they are comfortable 
with the new building technology, and they can price that into 
their models moving forward. Demonstration giving these 
companies the experience so that they have confidence in 
putting more projects forward--is an important component.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks very much. And to the credit of some of 
the leaders in my State, they are doing some demonstration 
projects using CLT. And I mentioned the work on the veterans' 
housing using recycled carbon fiber and CLT. It is entirely 
with an eye towards doing that sort of demonstration.
    So thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Kilmer.
    I see Mr. Harder has joined us. So it will be Mr. Amodei, 
if you would like to ask another round of questions, and then 
Mr. Harder.
    Mr. Amodei. Thanks, Madam Chair.
    Just to follow up on the earlier stuff, which is, in terms 
of your committee's work, Madam Chair, and also the members' 
work in terms of fuels, forest management, all that sort of 
stuff, if there is--and I don't know whether that is Dr. West 
or any of the other panel members--but if the data is out there 
that talks about, for instance, the carbon effects of wildland 
fire and also the cost to produce whatever creates a BTU or 
whatever of coal with existing technology versus the cost to 
create the same unit of measure, whether it is BTU or a ton or 
something like that, regarding wood pellets, I think those 
would be phenomenally persuasive facts when we go forth and 
say, ``Hey, we need money to do this. You want clean air, and 
pellets are cleaner than coal and the cost to create them is 
competitive, if those are the facts. Oh, and, by the way, all 
of that stuff is not going into the air in the form of the next 
forest fire during these drought times'' or climate change or 
whatever. I would think that would be phenomenally persuasive 
for us to go to our colleagues.
    So my request would be, if there is an entity or entities 
that have that information, please share that with the 
committee so that we can develop that and use that to make our 
other colleagues aware of it and go forth and try to get the 
right thing done.
    Ms. West. Congressman, we do have quite a bit of 
information that does those comparisons. We do quite a bit of 
monitoring for air quality and emissions during forest fires. 
And we are glad to put together some additional information and 
share that with you.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you very much.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Pingree. Great.
    Mr. Harder, I recognize you for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Harder. Thank you, Madam Chair. No questions from me. 
Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Pingree. I think that Mr. Brinkmeyer had a hand up. I 
don't know if he wanted to answer Mr. Amodei's question or just 
weigh in.
    Mr. Brinkmeyer. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just 
wanted to share that, together with Dr. West, we can help with 
the information on pellets and the value proposition.
    One of our team members supplied me the information on the 
last round of wildfires. It is 112 million tons of carbon that 
went up in the air. And so, just looking at California and that 
issue--and then we can break it down based on forest versus 
wildland fires and so forth.
    But we would be happy to--and there is independent valued 
research that has been done in this space that we can share 
with this committee, however you would like to receive it, if 
we bring it in through Dr. West or however you would want us to 
bring that information forward for you.
    Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, we will follow up with you on 
that, and we will follow up on Mr. Amodei's question, because I 
think we could gather a lot of very useful information from 
these witnesses that we have had today.
    So we have kept you for 2 hours, and you have all been 
really generous with your time. Unless any members want to ask 
any more questions--and it looks like we can let you off the 
hook.
    So I just want to thank our witnesses for appearing in 
front of us today. We really appreciate your testimony. This 
has been an important, really helpful conversation to all of 
us. And, as I said, we would love to follow up with you. You 
all have a wealth of information, and I think you are really 
such useful resources for our committee in making some of these 
challenging decisions going forward.
    So there are no additional questions and we won't have any 
more additional comments, so this hearing is now adjourned. 
Thank you all very much. Thank you so much.

                                          Thursday, March 25, 2021.

      THE EFFECTS OF COVID-19 ON ARTS AND HUMANITIES ORGANIZATIONS

                               WITNESSES

KATHLEEN MUNDELL, CULTURAL RESOURCES
CALEB CAGE, NEVADA HUMANITIES BOARD OF TRUSTEES
DEBORAH LENK, MUSEUM DIRECTOR, MUSEUM OF GLASS
ULYSSES SLAUGHTER, PROJECT MANAGER, CHESTER MADE
    Ms. Pingree. Good afternoon. This hearing will officially 
come to order.
    As the hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few 
housekeeping matters, and I will read this verbatim.
    For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the 
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise. Members are responsible for muting and 
unmuting themselves.
    If you notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will 
ask if you would like staff to unmute you. If you indicate 
approval by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will 
retain the balance of your time.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will 
turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the 
gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired. When 
your time is expired, the clock will turn red, and I will begin 
to recognize the next member.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order 
set forth in House rules, beginning with the chair and ranking 
member. Then members present at the time the hearing is called 
to order will be recognized in order of seniority, and, 
finally, members not present at the time the hearing is called 
to order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings and markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    Okay. That is the end, so I will begin.
    Well, thank you so much to our witnesses for being here and 
to committee members for taking up this important topic. COVID-
19, as we all know--I don't have to say this--has taken a grave 
toll on communities across the country, and the dire impacts 
have been far-reaching. Today, in this committee hearing, we 
will examine how the pandemic has affected the arts and 
humanities sector.
    By nature, many of these organizations, like museums and 
performing arts groups, are inherently dependent on interaction 
with their consumers. So workers in these industry have faced 
high unemployment, lost income and benefits, and challenging 
decisions on how to protect their health while preserving their 
livelihoods.
    Last year, Congress provided much-needed relief, 
appropriating $75 million to each of the endowments through the 
CARES Act. Still, I think we all knew that the needs were far 
greater than that, and I am pleased that an additional $135 
million has been provided for each endowment in the recent 
American Rescue Plan.
    The National Endowment for the Arts' Office of Research and 
Analysis estimates that these funds will support about 2,300--
234,000 jobs in the arts. These are largely good, stable, 
middle-class jobs and provide much-needed respite for 
organizations until normal funding streams can resume.
    In April 2020, the National Endowment for the Humanities 
estimated that museums and historic sites were reporting losses 
of $1 billion a month.
    The NEA estimates that while the national endowment rate 
for the fourth quarter of 2020 was approximately 6 percent, the 
unemployment rate for dancers and choreographers was 77.8 
percent; for actors, 47.6 percent; and for musicians, 21.5 
percent.
    Those are sobering statistics about the state of our arts 
and humanities sectors across the country. And it is important 
to remember, even though those are numbers, there are real 
people behind all those numbers, and that is the purpose of our 
hearing today.
    Today's witnesses represent a wide swath of arts and 
humanities groups from across the country, and they are 
integral to arts and humanities in their communities. I look 
forward to hearing from them what Federal funding through the 
NEA and NEH has done to help these organizations and their 
communities and what needs we may need to address as a 
subcommittee going forward. I hope they will help us to 
understand the on-the-ground reality and the outlook for 
recovery in this sector.
    I will now welcome our panelists, Kathleen Mundell, who is 
the director of Cultural Resources in Rockport, Maine--pleased 
to have a Mainer here with us today; Debbie Lenk, who is the 
executive director or the Museum of Glass in Tacoma, 
Washington; Ulysses Slaughter, who is the project manager for 
Chester Made in Chester, Pennsylvania; and Caleb Cage, Nevada 
Board of Humanities, who I think we may hear more about from 
Mr. Amodei.
    Before the--before hearing the opening statements from our 
panel, I would like to yield to our yanking--ranking member, 
Mr. Joyce, for any opening remarks he would like to make.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you for yielding, Madam Chair.
    Today's oversight hearing provides an opportunity to 
understand how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected arts and 
humanities organizations across the country and how Federal 
resources are being used to mitigate the virus' impact.
    Like the chair, I would like to welcome our witnesses, 
Caleb Cage, Deborah Lenk, Kathleen Mundell, and Ulysses 
Slaughter. I appreciate you taking the time to join us this 
afternoon.
    COVID-19 has brought unprecedented hardships and tragedies, 
and it has turned a lot of lives upside down. It has disrupted 
our communities and left no industry untouched. I recognize 
that COVID-19 has hit the arts and humanities sector especially 
hard, given the industry's characteristics and their reliance 
on in-person experiences.
    Last spring, Congress passed, and President Trump signed, 
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, more 
commonly known as the CARES Act. The CARES Act provided $75 
million in emergency funding for the National Endowment for the 
Arts and also for the National Endowment for the Humanities to 
help State and regional councils, as well as cultural 
organizations and institutions, blunt the financial impacts of 
the pandemic.
    Madam Chair, while I wish we could have held this hearing 
in advance of another $270 million being provided, I am hopeful 
that through our discussions today we can understand how groups 
across the country are using funding to stay afloat, support 
at-risk jobs, and protect ongoing projects during the pandemic. 
And whether these funds more broadly benefited local economies 
and communities, including students and teachers displaced from 
their classrooms during the pandemic.
    I know we are all looking forward to the day when we can 
return to a full concert venue, a gallery opening, or a museum 
exhibition. In the meantime, it is helpful for us as 
appropriators, who want to ensure we remain good stewards of 
taxpayer dollars, to hold these oversight hearings to 
understand the impact COVID-19 emergency funding has had on 
various industries like the arts and humanities. And to 
recognize the industry needs have continued to evolve 
throughout the pandemic, which could help guide our future 
funding considerations.
    Thank you for yielding, Madam Chair. I look forward to this 
discussion ahead, and I yield back.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Joyce.
    Would any other member like to make opening remarks?
    Seeing none, we will start with Ms. Mundell. Thank you very 
much, and welcome to a fellow Mainer.
    I think you might be muted. There you go.
    Ms. Mundell. Great. Thank you.
    Thank you, Chair Pingree and Ranking Member Joyce and other 
members of the subcommittee, for inviting me to speak this 
afternoon.
    My name is Kathleen Mundell, and I am the director of 
Cultural Resources, a nonprofit based in Maine, that for the 
last 30 years, has worked with local communities on developing 
strategies, alliances, and programs that help sustain their 
traditional culture.
    Franco-American step dancing in Lewiston, Wabanaki basket 
making in Princeton, Rwandan drumming in Portland, almost every 
community in Maine has cultural traditions worth sustaining. 
These traditions are passed down informally, usually face to 
face, from one generation to the next, and are rooted in the 
way of living, reflecting shared cultural values.
    Drawing on a set of skills acquired over a lifetime of 
practice, traditional artists are often recognized by fellow 
community members as the ones who are doing it right. Such 
mastery calls for a deep understanding of natural materials, 
places, and cultural practices. Where there is a longstanding 
sense of place, people know what works and what doesn't, what 
is useful and what is beautiful. And although some of these 
people, who live in an area for a long time, sometimes are 
reluctant to call themselves artists, they are definitely 
keepers of their culture.
    Cultural Resources works with communities and artists to 
sustain this culture. We do this through fieldwork and 
community gatherings, resulting in the development of 
apprenticeship programs and traveling exhibits.
    Our longest working relationship is with the Wabanaki 
traditional artists and Tribal members. These are members of 
the Passamaquoddy, Penobscot, Micmac, and Maliseet Tribes. With 
support from the National Endowments for the Arts' Folk and 
Traditional Arts Program, Cultural Resources has worked with 
members of the Wabanaki Tribes and the Maine Arts Commission in 
developing a highly successful apprenticeship program that 
contributed to the resurgence of the ash basketry tradition and 
also helped create a new generation of basket makers, many who 
have gone on to national recognition, including four National 
Heritage winners, as well as many award winners at the Santa Fe 
Indian Market.
    The apprenticeship program was also instrumental in the 
formation of the Maine Indian Basketmakers Alliance, a native-
run nonprofit dedicated to sustaining this endangered 
tradition.
    More than just one-on-one instruction, apprenticeships help 
communities maintain traditions by connecting elders with 
younger students for an exchange of techniques and cultural 
knowledge, which includes language and selection and 
preparation of natural materials.
    Being able to utilize nearby natural resources has great 
resonance in Maine, especially the North Woods. This part of 
Maine is America's oldest working forest and is home to the 
remarkable range of traditional artists. Given the harsh 
climate and limited economic opportunities, to be a practicing 
traditional artist requires a strong sense of purpose, 
resourcefulness, and ingenuity.
    Last year, as eight new apprenticeships were about to 
begin, everything came to a grinding halt when Governor Janet 
Mills issued a stay-at-home order. As a result, many of the 
apprenticeships were postponed, as well as the development of a 
new exhibit called ``Always Home: Wabanaki Traditional Arts,'' 
which was to open in Monson Arts in northern Maine.
    With CARES Act funding from the National Endowment for the 
Arts, Cultural Resources will be able to move forward with the 
apprenticeships and continue to develop this exhibit, which 
will open at the end of May 2021.
    This past year has been one of tremendous loss--of lives, 
of jobs, and of human connection. We have also witnessed the 
extraordinary capacity of the human spirit to find ways to keep 
going. I believe supporting traditional arts anchors people, 
helping to support communities through such difficult times by 
honoring people, their places, and their culture.
    It is through the support of this committee and the 
National Endowment for the Arts that such programs are 
successful and will continue for future generations.
    Thank you for your support and for all that you do.
    [The statement of Ms. Mundell follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much.
    Ms. Lenk.
    Ms. Lenk. Thank you, Chair Pingree, Ranking Member Joyce, 
and members of the committee.
    As mentioned, I am Debbie Lenk, executive director at 
Museum of Glass. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you 
about the devastating effects of COVID-19 on museums and 
communities we serve.
    Museum of Glass, affectionately known as MOG, is based in 
Tacoma, Washington. Long known as the Gritty City, we have a 
reputation for hard work, a large military presence, and a 
willingness to roll up our sleeves to make life more equitable 
and accessible for all.
    We are also known for glass. The Pacific Northwest is home 
to the largest concentration of glass artists in the world, 
making MOG a vital player in shaping the future of glass 
nationally and internationally. Unique among museums, we are a 
hands-on maker space where creativity becomes art every day.
    But the crowning feature of the museum is our Hot Shop, 
with an amphitheater and two furnaces each filled with a 
thousand pounds of molten glass. We invite artists to 
experiment and work with our renowned team, and use the glass-
making shop for community programs that heal, inspire, and 
educate.
    While most Museum of Glass programming is offered onsite, 
MOG frequently provides in-class programs in local schools, 
designed to foster critical thinking skills and instill a 
passion for lifelong learning. We have also been working to 
develop greater partnerships among historically underserved 
communities to bring access to our youth programs.
    We never imagined a world where Museum of Glass would 
operate only 4 months in 2020. Last March, for the first time 
in 20 years, our exhibitions, Hot Shop, and programming went 
idle. Without vital Federal funding, including the grant from 
the National Endowment for the Arts, Museum of Glass would not 
have survived this past year.
    Thanks to the NEA, we have deepened our understanding of 
arts as healing through our Hot Shop Heroes program, which 
supports the individual therapies of soldiers and vets with 
visible and invisible wounds, injury, or illness. The NEA was 
one of the first to support the museum's effort to engage the 
military in their recovery and work towards understanding why a 
structured series of glassmaking classes seemed to profoundly 
impact wellness.
    Throughout this extraordinary year, we have remained 
concerned about the financial and human impacts of our closure. 
An independent news site here in Seattle, Crosscut, recently 
surveyed 118 local arts organizations on the impact of COVID-
19. The majority, 72 percent of the respondents, said they 
don't have enough cash on hand to cover operating expenses for 
the next 12 months. This is the reality for nonprofit arts 
organizations like MOG.
    Fifty percent of our museum's revenue comes from earned 
sources--admission tickets, hands-on activities, classes, et 
cetera. To sustain the organization for the long term and 
position us for a very unpredictable year, we placed all staff 
on furlough immediately after closing. It was difficult, and it 
took an emotional toll on our people.
    The financial instability of families, stress of parents 
homeschooling children, the social and political climate, fear 
of coronavirus, and a constant state of evolving restrictions 
have pushed people to their limits. Our communities need art 
more than ever.
    CARES Act, PPP, and EIDL loans were critical lifelines for 
us to cover ongoing site costs and to adapt key programs to 
virtual formats. We also received a special COVID CARES Act 
grant from the NEA to bring our Hot Shop staff back to evolve 
our techniques and create safe processes to blow glass with 
masks on.
    On April 2, Museum of Glass will reopen, and we believe 
guests are ready to return. We look forward to reengaging 
programs that had to be put on hold.
    At the institutional level, this next year will still be 
uncertain. The health of museums is dependent on Federal 
programs and funding provided by organizations like the 
National Endowment for the Arts, which enable us to do what we 
do best, heal our communities through art.
    Thank you. I appreciate the chance to tell MOG's story and 
let you know how much we appreciate your support.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much for your testimony.
    And since my birthday is April 2, I really appreciate you 
recognizing that day for your reopening--for me.
    Ms. Lenk. Happy to do that.
    Ms. Pingree. Mr. Slaughter, we would love to hear your 
testimony.
    Mr. Slaughter. Good afternoon. My name is Ulysses 
Slaughter. I am the senior project manager for the Pennsylvania 
Humanities Council and the project manager for the arts and 
culture initiative called Chester Made.
    Today, I would like to talk with you about how COVID-19 has 
impacted places like Chester, Pennsylvania, and cultural 
organizations throughout the State, and how CARES funding is 
helping to continue--to help us to continue to reclaim, 
repurpose, and rebuild our lives and communities.
    I want to thank you, subcommittee chair, Congresswoman 
Pingree, and the members of the subcommittee for inviting me 
during this very, very difficult time.
    The Pennsylvania Humanities Council is one of the many 
State humanities councils across the Nation that partners with 
the National Endowment for the Humanities. We put the 
humanities in action to create positive change. We are the 
voice and the leader for Pennsylvania's cultural sector, 
including our museums, historical societies, and public 
libraries.
    Over the last two decades, I have worked on the ground with 
Chester's creatives in cultural communities, and now manage a 
project we call Chester Made. I am proud to be both a witness 
and an actor on the stage of Chester's relentless fight to 
bring joy, peace, and harmony to a town that refuses to be 
defeated.
    Chester, Pennsylvania is the first city of Pennsylvania, a 
city of 30,000, that lies just outside of Philadelphia. Founded 
in 1682 by William Penn, Chester thrived in the early 20th 
century as a manufacturing hub. Like many industrial cities, 
however, fortunes fell when factories closed. Nevertheless, we 
see people--boarded-up buildings, and people think that this is 
a disinvestment. Well, the artists in Chester see this as an 
asset. They see this as an opportunity. That is what artists 
do. They know that the most important and precious resource in 
a town is its city.
    I want to be clear that Chester is, in fact, one of the 
hardest hit places in Pennsylvania, but not just because of the 
pandemic, but because of a long history of racial, 
environmental, and economic injustice. People like legendary 
martial artist Freda Cheetah Gibbs comes from Chester. Reverend 
Dr. Martin Luther King studied in Chester, and a woman named 
Ethel Waters was inspired here in this city called Chester.
    Chester Made was a name that was given by the people to 
Chester Made, and it flows off of the slogan ``What Chester 
Makes, Makes Chester.'' It is a humanities-based initiative 
that is designed to celebrate and promote arts and culture in 
the city of Chester. It is a project of the Pennsylvania 
Humanities Council and one that is co-created with the 
Pennsylvania Humanities Council.
    Chester Made is based on a simple idea that community 
revitalization can be accomplished by building on the strengths 
and talents of community residents.
    One of the more painful results of COVID-19 was watching 
all of the vibrant and vital spaces in the community that 
housed Chester Made programs and opportunities for connection--
to watch them close their doors was painful. But Chester is 
resilient and creative and is no stranger to adversity.
    With the support of the Pennsylvania Humanities Council and 
the National Endowment for the Humanities, we went viral--
viral. We went virtual--excuse me--and some of them that were 
virtual did go viral.
    The people of Chester built new platforms and found new 
ways to engage. We put together a digital storytelling project 
that allowed people the opportunity to reclaim their history 
through video.
    It is no coincidence that President Joe Biden visited 
Chester this month. Chester, like many cities, is at the 
forefront of the meaningful change that needs to happen 
everywhere across our country. We have towns across 
Pennsylvania, including one called Carbondale, where committee 
member Congressman Matt Cartwright's district is located.
    One of the things that we want to pay attention to is that 
the Americans for the Arts last year said that in 2020, our 
creative and cultural sector in PA experienced a $4.4 billion 
loss in revenue. More than half of our creative and cultural 
workers are now out of jobs and have no savings. In a 
nationwide study by the Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society 
Studies says that it is going to take 26.4 months to improve 
this situation.
    I want to close by thanking you again for having us. And I 
want to reemphasize that the cultural sector is resilient and 
our residents have the talent. And it will come back stronger 
than before, but it needs substantive help at the Federal level 
to support the work of PHC and the NEH.
    Thank you so much.
    [The statement of Mr. Slaughter follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you for your testimony.
    Before we hear from our last witness, I think Mr. Amodei 
may like to add some remarks of introduction before Mr. Cage 
begins. Is that true?
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And, listen, I won't do a keynote introduction, because it 
is Caleb's testimony that we are looking for, not my intro. But 
I will just say that your committee staff has done an excellent 
job of identifying someone from a nationwide perspective who is 
basically a utility infielder for public service, whether that 
is service in his younger years--not that he is old compared to 
me--but as a--in our Nation as a graduate of the U.S. Military 
Academy, serving in the Middle East, returning to Nevada, 
fulfilling a variety of roles there, some of which involve 
veterans in terms of standing up some new offices for veterans 
services, as well as State director of emergency management and 
those sorts of things.
    In his latest role, he is directing the State's COVID-19 
efforts in terms of managing, coordinating that stuff. But he 
is here today, and you have got a great--you have got a great 
witness, because he is a volunteer member of the Nevada Board 
for Humanities.
    So, without further adieu, if I haven't ruined Caleb's 
reputation, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you.
    And thank you. We look forward to hearing from you, Mr. 
Cage.
    Mr. Cage. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of 
the subcommittee. And thank you for that introduction, 
Congressman Amodei. Thank you for the opportunity to present 
testimony on behalf of State humanities councils and State 
affiliates of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
    As you know, my name is Caleb Cage, and I serve as a 
Governor's appointee to the Nevada Humanities Board of 
Trustees. I also currently serve as the COVID-19 response 
director for the State of Nevada. In this role, my job is to 
help the State of Nevada and Nevadans navigate the current 
pandemic crisis.
    Since March of last year, I have worked to implement Nevada 
Governor Steve Sisolak's vision to protect Nevada's public 
health, to maintain our economy, and to ensure our ability to 
provide services to the public in the future. These factors and 
others, in short, amount to our best efforts to ensure that we 
are resilient as a State.
    The humanities provide us the essential and necessary tools 
of reflection and understanding that contribute to this 
resilience. Using these tools, we interpret the pandemic 
through our world view and values to determine how we will 
handle and respond to the challenges the crisis represents. 
This is the act of assessing our current situation in terms of 
what we have experienced throughout our history and having the 
vision and wisdom to both look forward to and create a 
different future.
    As we find meaning in crisis our Nation is experiencing 
today, we determine how we can persevere as individuals and 
also collectively as members of a society, of a culture, and of 
our local communities. This is the work of the humanities.
    This is also the work of Nevada Humanities, as Nevada's 
leading cultural organization, collaborating with libraries, 
historical societies, and museums, folklife centers and other 
cultural organizations of many kinds.
    On behalf of the National Endowment of the Humanities and 
the State humanities council, I would like to thank you for the 
2020 CARES Act COVID-19 relief funding that has provided 
necessary funds to keep local humanities organizations open 
during the pandemic.
    On a national scale, the American Alliance of Museums 
estimates that one-third of museums in the United States will 
permanently close as a result of COVID-19, while over 52 
percent of museums have 6 months or less of operating reserves, 
and 53 percent have had to furlough or lay off staff. These 
challenges have also been felt acutely by humanities 
organizations in Nevada, and our organizations mirror the 
national crisis.
    The National Endowment for the Humanities received $75 
million in CARES Act funds, which became a lifeline for 
cultural and educational organizations. In Nevada, Nevada 
Humanities distributed $368,873 in CARES Act grants to 46 
organizations across the State, providing rapid response, 
short-term operating support for Nevada nonprofit humanities 
and cultural organizations facing the crisis of the pandemic.
    I would like to share some examples of some of those 
programs at the local level.
    Marilyn Gillespie, executive director of the Las Vegas 
Natural History Museum, notes that through her programs, 
southern Nevada children and their families could remain 
connected with humanities-focused programs and high-quality 
educational resources despite the numerous changes in their 
daily lives presented by COVID-19--because of COVID-19.
    In northern Nevada, the David J. Drakulich Art Foundation, 
a small nonprofit organization founded by the family of fallen 
U.S. Army Sergeant David J. Drakulich. As a veteran of the Iraq 
war and former director of veterans services at the State, I 
worked closely with this organization and can tell you of the 
great work they do.
    But in the founder, Tina Drakulich's words, as she shared 
with us: ``The Nevada Humanities CARES grant came at a time of 
great uncertainty. It helped the David J. Drakulich Art 
Foundation employ veterans to sew masks for their community 
using donated supplies and military uniforms at the time when 
PPE was unavailable to individuals scrambling to protect 
themselves from COVID-19.''
    And, finally, in reference to the National Cowboy Poetry 
Gathering, or The Gathering, the founder--or the executive 
director notes: The National Cowboy Poetry Gathering normally 
injects several million dollars into the local economy at a 
time of year when it is needed most, but this year, the 
pandemic prohibited us from holding an in-person event, 
resulting in a 60 percent loss in operating income. Funding we 
received from the National Endowment of the Humanities and 
other CARES Act grant funding allowed us to continue.
    Thank you very much.
    [The statement of Mr. Cage follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
       
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much for your testimony.
    I don't think we have ever had a panel of witnesses that 
were so perfectly timed to 5 minutes each. It is quite an 
impressive panel, and you are impressive in so many other ways.
    We will begin the questions, and I will start by 
recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    So, Kathleen, thank you again so much for being here and 
representing the work that you do in Maine. We are all really 
grateful for the many years you have put in to preserve such 
important Maine traditions.
    And I want you to know that the baskets behind me always 
are there. I didn't just bring them up for this particular 
meeting, but I would have, because we are so proud of our 
Wabanaki basket makers, and you have just done an incredible 
job at expanding their reach and helping to build their 
national notoriety.
    So much of the work that you do in your program is 
dependent on this apprenticeship, mentor, one-on-one 
interaction. And could you talk a little bit about how you have 
managed to navigate that during this really challenging year, 
and then maybe just a little bit about how the NEA money has 
been beneficial to the work that you do?
    I think you are still muted.
    Ms. Mundell. I was very glad to see the baskets behind you. 
It was like seeing friends back there.
    Well, first, I just want to say that this program, the 
National Endowment for the Arts, does support apprenticeship 
programs throughout the country, and Maine is one of the oldest 
ones. And it was so instrumental in the resurgence of this 
basket-making tradition, because it really focused on elders 
passing on skills to a new generation, and it basically was 
almost 30 years this has been going on.
    But I think, in COVID times, it was very difficult on a 
couple of levels. One was that sometimes the master student 
would live close to the apprentice and would know the person, 
but they didn't really want to risk it because the person was 
elderly, so they would do it virtually.
    And I think one thing about the apprenticeship program is 
it really is about that one-on-one healing connection, where 
people have to meet, they have to go outside, they have to 
spend a period of time getting to know one another for it to 
really take hold.
    So I think a lot of people got discouraged kind of early on 
and decided they were going to wait till they were vaccinated, 
which in many of the Tribal communities in Maine, they had 
early vaccination, so they were one of the first communities to 
be fully vaccinated. So some of those master artists are now 
starting their apprenticeships, which is great to hear.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you. And thanks again for the work that 
you do.
    Mr. Slaughter, it was fascinating to hear your testimony. 
And I wish you could talk a little bit more about the role that 
the arts play in revitalizing communities that have been 
economically challenged, as you have discussed.
    Mr. Slaughter. The role that the arts play in revitalizing 
the communities? So it is so important for people to be 
creative in spaces that are restricted, and there is a lot of 
restriction that people have had to deal with.
    Ms. Pingree. Sure.
    Mr. Slaughter. And in places like Chester, in places in 
like Carlyle, people have had to figure new things out. And a 
lot of times, madam, people will say that they are not an 
artist. And what we find is that, in fact, it is the art that 
inspires people to think outside of the proverbial box. People 
are thinking very different than they used to. They are trying 
to figure out what is the answer, what is the way, and what is 
the strategy.
    And so having arts as a model gives people an opportunity 
to say, well, you know what? I actually can figure out another 
road to take, or we can figure out another road to take.
    So the fact that people don't see themselves as art in one 
context, it is interesting to see them in this new context, 
because everybody has to try to figure it out. And so the arts 
is a model for what everybody else wants to be now. They want 
to figure it out. And, you know, from people literally creating 
masks to doing whatever they have got to do, suddenly everybody 
is an artist. And it is a beautiful thing to see, because art 
will always find a way.
    Ms. Pingree. Great. That is a wonderful way to look at it.
    I only have a few minutes left, so I will yield back and 
yield to Mr. Joyce for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Madam Chair. If you beg my 
forgiveness, I would like to yield to my dear friend, Mr. 
Amodei, so he can cross-examine--I mean, ask questions of Mr. 
Cage. I will pick up my time later on. Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. Mr. Amodei.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the 
yanking member. Nice slip, Madam Chair, but I think you hit the 
nail right on the head.
    Anyhow, listen, I am very interested in hearing what Mr. 
Slaughter just said, and whether we are talking to Tacoma or 
Pennsylvania or the folks up in Maine, my experience with the 
National Endowment and the arts folks have been that they have 
always been very responsible with the money that they have got. 
And my impression is what we have done with the COVID moneys 
that they have been provided in these various forms of 
legislation, it is no different. They are trying to spread it 
wide. They are using transparent processes, all good, hats off, 
way to go.
    But I think as we are talking about the arts, I would be 
interested, because it is almost like we have got a patient 
here who is sick and the arts, quote/unquote, ``are the heart 
of the program,'' but there is problems with the lungs and the 
other organs, if you will, that need treatment too. And so what 
we are saying is, well, maybe shuttered venues got some help as 
a name specifically, and certainly they are worthy of help, but 
then when we look at the SBA and say, hey, basically if you 
have got chairs bolted to the floor and unless you have a stage 
and a curtain and fixed lighting, you are not eligible for any 
of this.
    I don't think I need to tell anybody of the witnesses on 
this program--it is like, listen, there are all sorts of things 
that are intertwined with attending a performance, whether it 
is a play or whether it is a musical performance or if you are 
simply going to a street fair--when Mr. Slaughter says, you 
know what, there is a lot of people who don't think they are 
artists, but art will find a way, whether that is balloon 
races, special events, all sorts of things that are part of our 
cultural heritage and our cultural lifeline.
    And so, Madam Chair, I would like to hear some thoughts 
from these folks in terms of--of course we continue to support 
who we have supported. But when we have agencies that are 
basically saying, oh, by the way, you haven't been impacted, 
when we think about those street fairs--the Boston Marathon, is 
that a cultural thing, you know? Or how about the St. Patrick's 
Day parade in Boston? Or we all have things in our--you know, 
we have got national championship balloon races in Reno.
    Those things, in terms of supporting culture and the arts, 
which I think are pretty much intertwined, are all things that 
I think we need to take a look at in terms of trying to make 
sure that where those impacts are is where we are trying to 
make sure we look all the way around the neighborhood as 
opposed to just some narrow ones.
    And I am not accusing anybody on this panel of doing that 
sort of thing, but I am looking for your recognition or 
disagreement that, quite frankly, arts and appreciating the 
arts often involves travel, whether that is in your car, or 
beyond that.
    So anybody on this panel got any thoughts? And let me--and 
let me make it real objective. I mean, when you look at the 
U.S. Travel Association's coding on things, I mean, they talk 
about tour operators, destination and marketing organization, 
performing arts productions and festivals. You know, these are 
all things that, quite frankly, are in phenomenal need, and 
other than some programs for employment, unemployment, that 
sort of thing, because, look, they have all had losses and 
impacts.
    So I would appreciate it if I could start with Mr. 
Slaughter, maybe you have some thoughts on that? Quite frankly, 
I think we need to treat the whole patient instead of just 
parts of it.
    Mr. Slaughter. I couldn't agree more, sir. And I think that 
one of the things that I have been saying is that we have to 
demystify what the arts are all about. There is this thinking 
that arts are over here and everything else is over there. And 
the fact of the matter is that art is integrated in everything 
that we do, and, therefore, we have to treat the whole system.
    The whole system has to be re--it is almost like, you know, 
coming up, my grandmother was--she did a lot of sewing, and, 
you know, she had a jumpsuit back in the 1970s--dating myself 
here--had a jumpsuit. You know, the whole jumpsuit was 
connected. You slipped it on. The arms, the back, the legs, the 
whole thing had to be taken seriously or otherwise the jumpsuit 
didn't come off well.
    So I think that we have to figure out a way to look at the 
whole thing artistically speaking and make sure that we are not 
saying, no, the hardware store is not an art place. Absolutely, 
it is an art place. It is where we get our tools from. The 
mechanic is an art place. The hair salon is an art place.
    All these places are art places, and it is just a matter of 
switching our perspective on the arts that will make the 
difference in how we fund these different things.
    Mr. Amodei. I appreciate it.
    I yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Joyce, for letting me take cuts.
    I yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. Oh. Oh, sorry. I was not unmuted. You would 
think I, after I have to tell everybody else to unmute, could 
remember.
    All right. I recognize Chair McCollum for 5 minutes.
    Ms. McCollum. Well, thank you so much. And I want to thank 
all the witnesses for sharing your work in your communities and 
how the pandemic has impacted your organizations, as well as 
the creators and the performers and the audiences you all work 
with.
    Chair Pingree, this is a fabulous hearing to start out 
with, and it is important, because sometimes people don't think 
of the arts and the humanities and their importance as job 
creators and economic development opportunities in our 
communities. The crisis that has been facing the arts and the 
humanities is just so important to our economy, and it is a job 
engine. It is one in my district.
    So workers in the arts and the humanities sectors, you 
know, they range from everything from proud union members that 
I work with to independent artists, people in the academics, 
and our nonprofit employees.
    In normal times, these creative professionals in the arts 
power a sector that generates 4.5 percent of our country's GDP, 
and that is supporting 5 million jobs. But we know because of 
COVID-19, the arts sector has now lost over $15 billion in 
economic activity, and a lot of people, our fellow Americans, 
are out of work.
    And I just want to give a shout-out to our subcommittee, 
while I was chair, and our subcommittee worked very hard to 
include in the CARES Act a supplemental relief funding, and 
that was $75 million to the National Endowment for the Arts and 
the National Endowment for the Humanities. And I am very proud 
that Congress continued those investments under Chair Pingree's 
leadership with an additional $135 million in the American 
Rescue Plan.
    But when it comes to this pandemic, we are going to need 
the arts and the humanities to be there for us in order to 
heal, in order to move forward. I can't tell you how many 
people are eager to take their first trip back to the theatre--
I am ready to go to Penumbra--or an art class in a studio. I 
think my sister is ready to sign up. And then I hear from 
families all the time how they want to go to their favorite 
museum and cultural institution.
    But I heard from all of you today of how many institutions 
are at risk of never opening their doors again. So that would 
leave a devastating hole, not only in our economy, but in the 
richness and diversity of our community life, especially for 
our artists of diversity who are struggling on a shoestring, 
most often, to begin with.
    So I want to assure you I am going to be working hand-in-
hand with Chair Pingree. I know we will all work together to 
build on the investments we made in the NEA and the NEH.
    So building a little bit more on what Mr. Amodei said--and 
he went broad; I am going to go narrow again. I would like all 
of you to kind of take, in the next 2 minutes, what do your 
institutions anticipate needing to do to successfully reopen 
and reengage? And does the arts and humanities sector--do we 
need to do some additional flexibility in the use of funds or 
in language that is surrounding the use of these funds to help 
your communities through these tough times?
    Ms. Pingree. Any of you like to answer that?
    Ms. Lenk. I will jump in here if that is okay.
    Ms. Pingree. Absolutely.
    Ms. Lenk. You know, since we are right on the verge of 
reopening, if you will, we are looking at what we are excited 
about and what we are concerned about. And one of the issues 
is, as we were closed, we could really control our costs. And 
along with the funding we were getting, we could keep things 
balanced and not suffer huge losses.
    But one of the keys for us is, as we reopen and we bring 
all the staff back to serve the community and we start up all 
of our programming, costs really will go back to pre-COVID 
levels, and there is a concern on how quickly our audience will 
return.
    And we believe people, like you have mentioned, are eager 
to get back and see the arts, but there is a reality to how 
will that balance occur, and could there be funding that helps 
fill in those gaps while the visitorship numbers are increasing 
and improving and while we are getting our feet on the ground.
    Ms. McCollum. Good.
    Ms. Pingree. Anyone want the last 30 seconds to reply?
    Mr. Cage. Chair Pingree, this is Caleb Cage from Nevada, if 
it is okay?
    Ms. Pingree. Absolutely.
    Mr. Cage. I think that it is a great question and one, of 
course, we are asking in every sector here in the State, from 
restaurants and our resort industry and everything else, is one 
of recovery. And I will just say that I believe that humanities 
councils are essential to that statewide recovery, and I think 
that the support that you are providing going forward--and I 
will end it there, but it will be critical.
    Ms. McCollum. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And as a social 
studies teacher, the arts and the humanities, for me, they go 
hand-in-hand.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you.
    Mr. Kilmer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair.
    First, I just want to thank all of our witnesses. And I am 
pleased that Director Lenk is here from the Museum of Glass in 
Tacoma. I have the honor of representing that museum, and it 
really is just a crown jewel of our community.
    I have to tell you, we have a lot of memorable moments in 
these jobs, and, to me, one of the most memorable was visiting 
the Museum of Glass and hearing from a veteran who participated 
in the museum's Hot Shop Heroes program, which provides access 
to arts programming for servicemembers and veterans often 
experiencing post-traumatic stress and other disorders.
    And he said something to me that I will never forget. He 
said, I spent years in the Middle East learning how to break 
things, and now it means a lot that I have a chance to learn 
how to make things and create things.
    And so I wanted to start off, Director Lenk, just asking 
you: How is the NEA funding advancing your museum's Hot Shop 
Heroes program for wounded soldiers and for veterans, and how 
can Congress be a partner in the continuation of this type of 
important programming?
    Ms. Lenk. Thank you. You know, participants in Hot Shop 
Heroes are different people when they leave the program from 
when they entered it. And they are much more social, they feel 
a greater sense of belonging to the community, greater self-
efficacy.
    And the NEA has been a partner with us all along that 
journey of developing this program. They helped us initially 
understand why glassmaking was therapeutic. And they have been 
a partner in creating the relationships that we have here with 
the bases, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, and the Veterans Affairs 
Medical Center here locally. Those therapists that work on base 
and at the center are key in providing participants that can 
benefit from the program.
    We wanted to document and develop the curriculum for our 
program so that it could be expanded to other sites around the 
country where there is a military presence and glass-blowing 
capability. The NEA has supported that, and we were actually on 
the verge of just moving that to the next--this program to the 
next location when COVID hit.
    And so it has just been very, very crucial to us to have 
this partnership and the funds, and then the recent CARES Act's 
funds, which allowed us to learn how to adapt the blowpipes and 
the classes so that we could resume doing this with the 
soldiers now that we are opening up again.
    Again, without that funding, we wouldn't have been able to 
bring the team back ahead of opening and really get to the 
bottom of how to do that. So it has been very, very important 
for us.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you for that. And I know the impact that 
you are having.
    I was taken by all of the witnesses' comments around just 
the financial strain that the pandemic has meant.
    I know, Director Lenk, that your museum has--and like a lot 
of arts institutions, have really made the effort to reach out 
to underserved communities and make sure that these cultural 
institutions are serving everybody.
    I am curious how the pandemic has impacted the museum's 
ability to engage with underserved communities. And I will 
start with Director Lenk, but if others want to weigh in on 
that, I would welcome that too.
    Ms. Lenk. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, initially, we were out 
working with community centers in neighborhoods and wanting to 
take more programs off site, but one of the silver linings of 
COVID was bringing back our education team and converting some 
of the key programs, like Science of Art, for instance, that 
connects scientific principles with the properties of glass, 
and being able to convert that to a video program and connect 
with our schools. And we piloted that with the underserved 
schools and the Tacoma Urban League, for instance, and made 
those connections. Glass Breaks, which are videos of great 
moments in the Hot Shop that we were able to develop.
    One of the silver linings is that our reach will be 
extended even after COVID because of having programs that will 
endure and can reach into these neighborhoods that maybe can't 
visit our site or are not within driving distance.
    So I think there has just been a lot--you know, that is one 
thing we can look to and say we will be better in the end for 
having done that.
    Mr. Kilmer. I see my time is up. So, with that, Madam 
Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you.
    Mr. Stewart, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am not going to take 
5 minutes. I actually had a few questions, but some of the 
previous members have already asked those questions.
    I am going to make a comment, though, and it is a little 
bit outside of the intent of the hearing. But before I do, I 
would like to thank the witnesses. I know that they traveled 
here. They sacrificed their time. I appreciate what you do. I 
appreciate the community that you represent.
    I don't consider myself an artist, although, in a way, 
perhaps I am in the sense that I have spent much of my life 
writing, made a living as a writer, and I guess that is a bit 
of an art in a way.
    And I have an appreciation for the community that--the Utah 
Cultural Alliance is an organization I work with frequently. I 
consider many of them friends. I certainly support their goals. 
We do as much as we can to help them, and we have since I have 
been in Congress. And I would extend that same help to the 
witnesses and their organizations.
    I would maybe make this comment. And this isn't directed 
towards the witnesses as much as it is towards the other 
Members of Congress, and that is: The money that we have 
appropriated for this--for these efforts, although I support, 
we also have to recognize that it is entirely unsustainable. 
The additional--and it is an additional $135 million for NEH or 
for National Endowment for the Arts. I mean, at some point, we 
have to ask ourselves again, as Members of Congress: How much 
money can we spend? At what point do we say we think we have 
spent too much? And what are our priorities for that?
    I know that that is another conversation, and it is not the 
point of this hearing, but to--again, to the witnesses, the 
people who have shared their arts and their talents, the 
Federal Government can't be the only source of revenue for 
these artists. We can help, and we should, but they have to be 
sustainable on their own as well.
    And I think most of these artists, that is their goal. They 
want people to appreciate their art and to be willing to pay 
for the appreciation of that art. And, again, the Federal 
Government can have a role in sustaining them in some way, but 
it can't be the only source for them.
    Again, the questions that I was going to ask related to the 
pandemic have already been asked. And I will yield back my 
time.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
    And let's see. I recognize Ms. Kaptur for--or Chair Kaptur 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Chair Pingree. This is 
just a fantastic hearing. I am having a good time. I hope that 
the wonderful witnesses are.
    The first thing I want to say is, in my hometown of Toledo, 
Ohio, which is the [inaudible] Museums in the country, the 
Museum of Art has posted and is actively recruiting for a 
curator of American art, the first position of its kind in its 
120-year history. The museum was able to move forward with 
hiring because of a grant opportunity awarded through the 
National Endowment for Humanities.
    So I wanted to give a big salute to the endowment. I know 
this organization of the Toledo museum. They are--they are 
extraordinary.
    I wanted to say, secondly, that I don't know, Mr. 
Slaughter, if I am allowed to steal your phrase of ``What 
Chester Makes, Makes Chester,'' but I would like to apply that 
to every community I represent. And, frankly, what America 
makes, makes America, and one of our problems is we are not 
making enough anymore.
    And so I don't know who invented that phrase, but I hope 
you have trademarked it. If you haven't, I will shamelessly 
steal it and probably put up billboards. I just think that is a 
way of capturing people's attention and thinking about how one 
creates real wealth--real wealth in this country. Every single 
individual who has testified this morning--or this afternoon is 
doing exactly that.
    I wanted to mention the baskets. As I look at the baskets 
and listening to the--Ms. Mundell discuss some of the Maine 
work that is done, I keep thinking about artists I represent, 
and they are beautiful people, but they are not necessarily 
good businesspeople. In other words, they are creative. They 
don't think about the worth of what they do.
    And I am wondering if any of our witnesses have found that 
the National Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment 
for the Humanities creates a 10,000-village sale site or helps 
our artists go to that and breach the market they are in?
    So, for example, in Chester, you probably have items that 
can be sold beyond Chester. Have you ever accessed that kind of 
opportunity? I have found that extremely difficult in my area. 
I have found it very difficult to provide trademarks and, for 
instance, artists that do--we do an arts competition of young 
people every year, the Congressional Arts Competition. And 
there are pieces submitted where we could design belt buckles. 
We could design fabric for Martha Stewart. We could do all 
these things, but they don't have the business advice.
    So my question is: Have you found NEA, NEH helpful in 
breaching the boundaries of where you live, and should we be 
aiming more toward that? Boy, I have got more--more goods here 
that could be sold, but we can't breach our own market.
    Do you have any comments on that?
    Ms. Mundell. I would like to comment just in terms of one 
of the things that we have built into our work with Wabanaki 
basket makers through this nonprofit that was created was to do 
marketing and business development, so that each of these 
artists were trained in how to present their work, how to get 
into shows, how to go to Santa Fe.
    So that was built into working with the artists at the 
beginning so that, over a period of time, they became more 
self-sufficient.
    And the previous comment about sort of the idea of always 
having to have grant funding, they actually are now sustaining 
their own incomes and get very good prices for their basket.
    So I think if that becomes part of the training or the 
grant program, where artists are also skilled in marketing and 
promotion and business management--and I think there is a lot 
of that that is going on in the country. So--because to be a 
practicing artist today, you have to have those other skills 
too.
    Ms. Kaptur. Yes. I appreciate--let's see. Is this on? I 
appreciate your comments, because I have found that is a 
difficult hurdle. And many of these artists are businesses that 
are under stress, and they need to have a piece where they can 
produce or hire others to do their work, but then selling to a 
broader market. And I find that is really where there is a big 
problem.
    We have individuals making little cards, you know, where 
they sell a stationery and so forth, but for them to sell 
outside their market is a step above where they are. They could 
be creating new enterprise, not just for our region, but, you 
know, exporting to different towns, to different places, 
obviously first in North America, but not necessarily only 
here.
    So I just wanted to put that out there. Maybe you can give 
comments to the record also as we seek to--as the prior member 
mentioned, you know, create more business.
    Oh, I just see a--it is like a volcano. It is there, we 
just haven't found a way to lift it further.
    Thank you, all.
    Ms. McCollum. Chellie, you are muted.
    Ms. Pingree. Yeah, I don't know why I can't get it straight 
now. Sorry. Thank you, though.
    Marcy--Chair Kaptur yields back.
    And, Mr. Joyce, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Slaughter, can you discuss how Chester Made was able to 
use support from the NEH to build new platforms and find 
creative ways to engage with people amid the pandemic? And, 
further, what impact did these platforms have on the community?
    Mr. Slaughter. I almost jumped out of my seat when the last 
speaker was talking about the things that we have been able to 
do through arts and humanities with NEH funding to help artists 
become businesspeople. I couldn't agree more. A lot of times, 
the best artists are not the best businesspeople.
    So we actually started an entrepreneurial process in 
conjunction with some of our artwork. We have artists in the 
city of Chester that have taken what we would call junk and 
turned it into treasure. So we have got a concept we call 
Broken Pieces, where people have learned how to take pieces of 
throwaway stuff and create art out of it.
    And I think it is extremely important for people to be able 
to use what they have got around them to make business out of 
that. And it is a strange thing, except when you look at, you 
know, the Picassos and you look at some of the other things 
that some people would look at and go, that is just a piece of 
junk. The way that we are able to take some of these pieces of 
stuff, re-create it into a beautiful piece of art, is 
impressive.
    And when we add the humanities to that--because there is a 
slight difference between the arts and the humanities, and the 
humanities is the talking forum part of this whole thing. We 
need to be able to talk this out. We need to be able to put it 
in a museum. We need to be able to get into the libraries with 
this stuff.
    In Chester, we have been thinking constantly about ``What 
Chester Makes, Makes Chester.'' And that is just--that is not 
just the conversation of it; it is also the promotion of it. It 
is the things that we are building. It is the conversations. 
And it is the things that we convert from conversations to 
concrete stuff.
    So we are looking at a--we are trying to figure out a 
continuity here that says build, promote, sell. That is very 
important to us. We want to make sure that people can make a 
living with this stuff, not just feel good. The feel good is 
good, but we actually have to be able to make this thing 
sustainable, and that is where the humanities, talking it out, 
becomes very important for us.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
    Mr. Cage, as humanities organizations have closed, delayed 
programs or canceled events due to the pandemic, what impact 
has this had on local economies and businesses across Nevada?
    Mr. Cage. Thank you, Ranking Member. Caleb Cage for the 
record.
    You know, what impact it has had, you would have to really 
define what sort of metrics and measures you are looking at, 
and I think that I can talk about it as a whole in the State.
    We have seen in the State of Nevada considerable--
obviously, the public health crisis associated with an economic 
and fiscal crisis for State and local governments, but also a 
public mental health and behavioral health crisis that we have 
seen here throughout our educational institutions and 
throughout our communities here in the State that, you know, I 
don't want to draw too sharp of a causal line between the 
closure of humanities organizations and these things, but I 
would say the fact that we have had to isolate and quarantine 
and reduce social interaction and social distance and all of 
those things seems to have had a direct impact on our ability 
as communities and otherwise to be resilient to the pressures 
that we would normally be able to endure or persevere through 
and be able to address.
    If that answers your question, sir.
    Mr. Joyce. Yes. Thank you.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you.
    Chair Cartwright, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Chair Pingree.
    And, first off, I want to acknowledge our friend and my 
classmate, Congressman Stewart, and his comments about, you 
know, this program can't go on forever. And I want to say, 
let's not lose our nerve. We all recognize this is not going to 
go on forever, but COVID-19 is an emergency, and we need to 
keep all corners of our economy alive--all corners, even parts 
that people don't think of frequently.
    And this is not new either, the idea of supporting all 
parts of our economy, including the arts and humanities. During 
the depths of the Great Depression and into the early years of 
World War II, the Federal Government supported the arts in 
unprecedented ways. For 11 years, between 1933 and 1943, 
Federal dollars employed artists, photographers, musicians, 
actors, writers, and dancers, and that--in fact, the legacy 
goes on.
    I made my living as a courtroom jury trial lawyer and tried 
a lot of cases in Federal courthouses that were built during 
that time. Federal courthouses at that time were filled with 
murals that still remain, and are amazing, sweeping things. I 
mean, anyone venturing into these courtrooms would see these 
murals and not fail to be struck by the enormity and the 
solemnity of the delivery of justice.
    So this is not unprecedented that we do these things.
    I want to invite the attention of Mr. Slaughter for a quick 
question. In your testimony, you briefly discuss one of the 
Pennsylvania Humanities Council's signature programs, 
Pennsylvania Community Heart & Soul, which applies a 
humanities-based approach to community and economic 
development.
    Can you elaborate on the importance of incorporating the 
humanities into community and economic development, 
particularly as communities look to heal and rebuild after 
COVID-19?
    Mr. Slaughter. In Pennsylvania, the Heart & Soul project is 
a phenomenal project where people get an opportunity to discuss 
what needs to happen in their communities. These Heart & Soul--
and we have got 14 of them across Pennsylvania. These Heart & 
Soul communities--and one is in your district.
    These Heart & Soul communities are the place where people 
have an opportunity to evaluate their culture, to talk about 
what they are, where they have come from, where they want to 
be. And it is in these conversations, these symposiums, these 
forums, where people build the actual concrete stuff.
    The money that we get gives us an opportunity to plan. That 
is what these conversations are. These are real planning 
conversations. You know, nobody wants to just try to do 
something without any consideration for the variety of 
cultures, the variety of people, the variety of ideas that 
there are in any given community.
    So to be able to have funding to sit and discuss these 
things so that we can build the best communities possible is 
crucial. Without it, we get real sloppy. I just don't think 
that we can do our best if we don't have a certain kind of 
support that says, yeah, sit, take your time, and figure this 
thing out, because the future is depending on you figuring this 
thing out. So spend the time to talk it out, figure out how 
your differences can be complementary versus competitive, and 
let's move forward with some good ideas based off of a 
collective approach to getting things done.
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, Mr. Slaughter, you read my mind about 
Community Heart & Soul being in Carbondale, Pennsylvania, in my 
district. It is one of the greatest places in northeastern 
Pennsylvania. It is home to the first commercially successful 
railroad in the United States and one of the cities that fueled 
the industrial revolution. Carbondale is steeped in history.
    And, if you would, tell me, how exactly would the Community 
Heart & Soul program in Carbondale work to incorporate this 
rich history and the other untold stories into that community's 
revitalization efforts?
    Mr. Slaughter. That community, like the others, sir, what 
they would do is they would get together, and I think getting 
together, whether it be virtual or whether it be face to face 
when that can happen, they are going to look at their historic 
assets and that history that you talked about as crucial--they 
are going to look at those historic assets. They are going to 
look at some of the emerging ideas, and they are going to 
figure out how can we package this stuff so that Carbondale 
might be a destination for people to show up to again.
    I think that that is important. And so a lot of people are 
talking about, how can we get people to show up here? The first 
thing we have got to do is figure out who we are together, what 
our culture represents, and the value and richness that will 
have people coming our way.
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, terrific. I thank you for your 
testimony.
    And I yield back, Chair Pingree.
    Ms. Pingree. Mrs. Lee, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Chairwoman Pingree, Ranking Member 
Joyce, for this hearing, as well as all of our participants.
    I am especially thrilled to welcome one of our own Nevadans 
here with us today, Mr. Cage. Although you are representing 
Nevada Humanities today, I want to--I would be remiss if I did 
not point out the important role you have taken during this 
past year as the response director helping Nevada navigate this 
horrific time for our State.
    I also appreciate it--I think nothing to me exemplifies 
this year than the statement, absence makes your heart grow 
fonder, especially with respect to the arts and the humanities.
    And so, you know, I appreciated how you mentioned the role 
of the humanities in helping nurture resilient communities, and 
I couldn't agree more. And I am happy to point out that there 
are some incredible programs in southern Nevada that really 
highlight this, one of them being the city of Henderson hosting 
a community performance and educational workshop celebrating 
Nevada's past, present, and future. And, you know, these 
workshops really foster community, especially during these 
difficult times.
    Or even Boulder City, in my district as well, the 
Chautauqua, which is bringing history alive through the great 
American humorous performing arts community event. Those are 
just a few of the many that, you know, especially during these 
times, we have missed so much. But not only are these programs 
educational, they also--you know, they drive community activity 
and resilience.
    And, Mr. Cage, can you tell us about the broad benefits of 
arts and humanities programming and how Federal funding for 
endowments multiplies far beyond individual organizations that 
initially receive those grants?
    Mr. Cage. Yes. Thank you very much for the question, and I 
agree with your comments introducing that.
    So a couple--at least three kind of key points I would like 
to make in response to the various questions included there, 
and I will try to be brief. But we--as an emergency manager 
previous to my current role with the pandemic, we tend to look 
at emergency response and emergency disaster recovery in very 
engineering-based mathematical terms, which is very important. 
We know a bridge in a community is very important, and buying 
down the risk through FEMA programs and mitigation programs for 
that bridge is going to help sustain that community in the 
event of an earthquake or flood or otherwise. That is an 
extremely critical way of looking at this.
    The resilience approach allows us to look at it from a 
human and community-based perspective as well and to look at 
what does it mean to not just allow people to continue to go to 
hospitals and grocery stores on the other side of that bridge, 
but how does this--how do crises, disasters, emergencies affect 
them on a very personal and human level? How do we work with 
them as a community in order to better understand what the 
vision of that community--a very bottom-up driven approach to 
recovery and resilience looks like?
    And that is done through human interaction. That is done 
through making meaning. That is done through all of the aspects 
that I talked about previously with the humanities.
    The dollars that were provided through the programs that we 
have talked about today have been absolutely critical in 
addressing the profound impact for local arts and--or--excuse 
me--humanities organizations that have--they have relied on 
these dollars in order to keep their doors open, and they have 
provided a lifeline to these organizations.
    And I will point out--and I will stop here, but my final 
point will be, these dollars and programs are woven into State 
and nonprofit and other community support dollars that are 
provided to support the humanities, such as our university and 
college system here in the State, which is providing humanities 
education and training to tens of thousands of Nevadan 
students.
    Thank you.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Cage.
    You know, what we have also seen during this time, many of 
our humanities organizations pivot to virtual programming. What 
is the importance of ensuring public humanities remain 
accessible in our community especially during these crises?
    Mr. Cage. In a State like Nevada, Congresswoman, you know, 
with its huge, vast geography, we have seen it in education, we 
have seen it in the humanities, but just the ability to have 
folks throughout the State, whether they are in our population 
centers like Hart County and Washoe County or throughout the 
remainder of the frontier and rural State, is absolutely 
critical just to make sure we are serving everyone and 
providing that access.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you. And, you know, I couldn't agree with 
you more on the human-to-human interaction that gets fostered 
through arts and the humanities and how it was so important in 
bringing our communities together, you know, whether it was 
setting up food banks to help people, you know, it is sort of 
weaving that resilience in the community that really helped us 
get through this difficult time.
    And, with that, I will yield. I don't have any time to 
yield, but I am finished. Thank you, Chair.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mrs. Lee.
    Well, I want to thank this panel. You have really done a 
wonderful job of talking to us about the importance of the 
funding for the arts and some of the COVID relief funding, the 
challenges that your organizations are experiencing.
    I know we all noted when, you know, Mr. Stewart expressed 
his concerns about what the future of funding can be and how 
we, you know, support the organizations in the future, but I 
think all of you have made some really important points about 
how you treat this as an emergency and really look to ways to 
make sure your organizations are sustainable for the long run 
and that you are supporting artists and communities in being 
sustainable in the long run.
    It is a great privilege to serve on this committee and to 
have the interaction that we do with the NEA and the NEH and to 
both see what happens behind the scenes and also to understand 
how the funding is used.
    And it is also occasionally a challenge, because I think it 
is our job as well to explain to our colleagues and to the 
taxpayers the importance of this funding, and it often takes 
extra explaining so that people understand the number of 
professions that are impacted, the number of employees, the 
importance to the economic sector in, you know, urban and rural 
areas across the country, and you certainly represent a broad 
range of that.
    So I appreciate all of you helping us in helping to explain 
to our colleagues and to the taxpayers why this funding is so 
important, why it has been so critical during the pandemic to 
try to keep as many organizations afloat and artists working as 
we possibly can. And we look forward, like all of you, to 
seeing the end of this pandemic and making sure that you can 
put your organizations back together and people can get back to 
pursuing their work.
    So thank you again to all of our witnesses. We really 
appreciate your time today.
    And if there are no additional questions, this hearing is 
now adjourned.
    Thank you.

                                          Thursday, April 15, 2021.

                          U.S. FOREST SERVICE

                               WITNESSES

VICTORIA CHRISTIANSEN, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY 
    ANDRIA WEEKS, ACTING DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC PLANNING, BUDGET, AND 
    ACCOUNTABILITY, U.S. FOREST SERVICE
    Ms. Pingree [presiding]. Good afternoon. This hearing will 
now come to order.
    As the hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few 
housekeeping matters.
    For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the 
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise. Members are responsible for muting and 
unmuting themselves. If I notice that you have not unmuted 
yourself, I will ask if you would like the staff to unmute you. 
If you indicate approval by nodding, the staff will unmute your 
microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will 
retain the balance of your time. You will notice a clock on 
your screen that will show how much time is remaining. At 1 
minute remaining, the clock will turn to yellow. At 30 seconds 
remaining, I will gently tap the gavel to remind members that 
their time is almost expired. When your time has expired, the 
clock will turn red, and I will begin to recognize the next 
member.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order 
set forth in House Rules, beginning with the chair and ranking 
member, then members present at the time the hearing is called 
to order will be recognized in the order of seniority, and 
finally, members not present at the time of the hearing is 
called to order. Finally, House Rules require me to remind you 
that we have set up an email address to which members can send 
anything they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings 
or markups. The email address has been provided in advance to 
your staff.
    So now, we can begin.
    I would like to welcome back to the subcommittee the 19th 
chief of the USDA/Forest Service, Vicki Christiansen. We are 
very excited to have you here and look forward to hearing your 
thoughts on the fiscal year 2022 budget request for the Forest 
Service. Joining the chief today is Andria Weeks, acting 
director of strategic planning, budget, and accountability.
    Our hearing today will address the President's 2022 budget 
request for the USDA Forest Service. While we do not yet have 
the full details of the President's budget, I am encouraged by 
the themes highlighted so far, including conservation and 
climate science. To this end, the budget includes such items as 
$1.7 billion for hazardous fuels and forest resilience 
projects, an increase of $476 million over the 2021 enacted 
level, significant investments to encourage private forest 
conservation, and a major increase for USDA's climate hubs. I 
am confident this budget will change course from the budgets of 
the past few years, which proposed critical shortfalls in 
research and State and private forestry, which play important 
roles in maintaining the health of our forests across the 
Nation.
    Our forests do and will play an important part in the fight 
against climate change, and the Forest Service plays a crucial 
role in ensuring the continued health of those forests so that 
we can depend on them to continue to store carbon. One of the 
keys to maintaining healthy forests is to reduce the amount of 
high-intensity fires which are affecting our landscapes. I look 
forward to hearing today how increased investments in 
preventing these fires are helping and what more needs to be 
done.
    I would now like to yield to our ranking member, Mr. Joyce, 
for his opening remarks. Mr. Joyce.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you for yielding, Chair Pingree. I 
appreciate you holding today's hearing with the U.S. Forest 
Service to learn more about the Administration's fiscal year 
2022 discretionary budget proposal. I would also like to 
welcome Chief Christiansen back to the subcommittee, as well as 
Ms. Weeks for joining us this afternoon. I look forward to 
discussing the Forest Service's ongoing work to manage and 
protect our Nation's forests and grasslands. I regret that we 
cannot be together as we officially kick off this year's 
appropriations process, but I am hopeful that we will be able 
to hold a few budget hearings in person again soon.
    Last week, the Administration released its initial fiscal 
year 2022 budget request, which proposes over $1.5 trillion in 
discretionary spending. Over half of the proposal, $769 
billion, is for non-defense programs, including the Forest 
Service. Though the Administration has not provided a 
comprehensive budget proposal, today's hearing remains an 
important first step in the fiscal year 2022 process. It 
provides us with an opportunity to hear directly from the 
Forest Service about the Agency's initial funding priorities 
and goals outlined within the request. In the coming months, 
this information will be critical as the subcommittee works 
together to examine the programs under its jurisdiction to 
ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent most effectively to 
benefit our natural resources and the American people.
    As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress has provided 
trillions of dollars in economic stimulus and relief to help 
Americans tackle unique challenges. On the heels of this 
unprecedented spending, it is essential that we, as 
appropriators, work together to restore fiscal responsibility 
when examining this request, which calls for more than a 15 
percent increase in non-defense spending.
    Chief Christiansen, I was pleased to see the Administration 
prioritize funding for high-priority hazardous fuels and forest 
resilience projects. Now that we are entering the 3rd year of 
the fire funding fix and have largely eliminated the need for 
fire borrowing, it is important to focus similar attention on 
non-fire programs that improve forest health. Effectively 
managing and treating our forests helps improve wildlife 
habitat, mitigate the risk of catastrophic wildfires, and makes 
forests more resilient to diseases and invasive species. Though 
the details are limited, I am also interested in discussing how 
the fiscal year 2022 request will support and build upon prior 
year funding for State and Private Forestry programs.
    In my home State of Ohio, 85 percent of the forest land is 
privately owned. Programs like the Urban and Community Forestry 
Program and Forest Stewardship Program are critical to keeping 
our State and private forests healthy so that we can continue 
to provide communities with clean air and water, recreation 
opportunities, mineral and energy resources, and jobs. Finally, 
I am sure many of us, especially Mr. Simpson, would like to 
discuss the Forest Service's efforts to implement the Great 
American Outdoors Act, particularly how the bill will help the 
Forest Service conserve public lands, tackle maintenance 
backlogs, and increase visitor access and recreational 
opportunities.
    Chief Christiansen, thanks once again for joining us today. 
As more budgetary details become available, my colleagues and I 
anticipate working with you to move forward a budget, within 
reasonable spending caps, that provides the Forest Service with 
the necessary resources to protect our Nation's forests and 
help the communities who rely on them. I look forward to our 
discussion. Thank you, Chair Pingree. I yield back.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Joyce. And, Chief Christiansen, 
before I yield to you for your opening remarks, I just want to 
apologize in advance. We have multiple votes this afternoon, 
and because of our voting schedule, we have to vote in groups, 
so it makes it a little more complicated for the members. I 
know they are all anxious to hear from you, but please don't be 
surprised if you see a lot of coming and going on the screen. 
And we will make sure that we fill anyone in who misses some 
part of the hearing because I know everything that you all have 
to say and all the questions will be important. So with that, 
Chief Christiansen, we would love to hear your opening remarks.
    Ms. Christiansen. Wonderful. Chair Pingree, Ranking Member 
Joyce, and members of the committee, thank you for the 
invitation to come before your subcommittee. Today, I would 
like to highlight the work we are doing to steward the Nation's 
forests and serve the American people. I will share how this 
work lines up with the new Administration's highest priorities. 
Specifically, I will detail how the Forest Service is backing 
the effort to end the COVID-19 pandemic. I will share our 
resolve to employ science to tackle climate change, fight 
wildfires, and sustain productive, resilient forests. We are 
also doing our part to spur job growth, and boost economies, 
and rebuild infrastructure. Lastly, I will touch on our staunch 
commitment to advance racial equity as we create an inclusive 
workplace where every employee at the Forest Service feels 
respected and valued.
    So, I am proud to say that last year, despite the pandemic 
as well as historic natural disasters, the Forest Service, we 
rose to the challenge. We hosted three times the number of 
forest visitors and recreationists as they sought respite from 
the surge of the COVID-19 pandemic on their national forests. 
We continue to respond to FEMA's request for emergency medical 
technicians and other incident management support for 
administering the vaccine. The Forest Service played a sizable 
role in helping all of USDA recently administer a million 
COVID-19 pandemic vaccines over the past two months.
    For the long challenge, we must confront the crisis facing 
America's forests and grasslands. The crisis results from a 
changing climate, and it induces severe wildfires, droughts, 
insects, disease, and invasive species infestations. The 
severity and the frequency of wildfire seasons is increasing 
significantly, impacting our Nation's forests at an 
unprecedented rate and destroying homes and businesses. The 
2020 fire year became a call to action. We saw the most acres 
burned on Forest Service lands since the Big Burn of 1910. In 
many places, forests will not come back on their own, which 
impacts the potential for carbon storage and limits the land's 
capacity to mitigate further climate change.
    Despite the pandemic, the Forest Service sustained our 
hazardous fuels reduction work, but we know it is not enough. 
We need to conduct high-priority hazardous fuels reductions and 
forest resilience projects at a scope and scale to meet the 
challenges we face. We anticipate another long and arduous fire 
year in 2021, and we are prepared for it. With a focus on 
health and safety, preventing the spread of COVID-19 remains 
our highest priority for our employees and the communities we 
serve. We stand ready with over 10,000 firefighters, 35 air 
tankers, and more than 200 helicopters available for wildfire 
suppression.
    Our infrastructure needs are pressing, as are the economic 
needs of Americans, and we are committed to job creation 
through improving our infrastructure. When we improve 
infrastructure of the national forests by upgrading trails and 
recreation sites, it spurs jobs and boosts economies and 
communities surrounding the national forests. And thanks to the 
Great America Outdoors Act, we expect to create an additional 
4,400 jobs and contribute an estimated $420 million to the 
Gross Domestic Product annually.
    So, I understand the expectations that come with the fire 
funding fix, which went into effect in fiscal year 2020. I want 
to assure you that the Forest Service remains a good 
investment. We understand congressional expectations for 
increasing accountability and oversight for fire spending. And 
during fiscal year 2021, the Forest Service has transitioned to 
a new budget structure that will help us increase the 
transparency of our spending.
    Finally, the national forests and grasslands belong to 
every American. There should be equal access, and every 
American must feel a personal invitation and connection to 
their land. Every American deserves to have a motivated 
workforce that reflects our values, provides exemplary service, 
and mirrors our population. We are committed to both, starting 
in our own house. The Forest Service continues to work hard to 
end harassment, manage conflict, and create a work environment 
where every employee feels safe, valued, and respected.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The statement of Ms. Christiansen follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
       
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Chief Christensen. I really 
appreciate your outline of the coming year, and thank you so 
much. I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes for 
questions and jump right into fire since I know that is an 
important part of what you are dealing with today, and it is 
always shocking to hear the magnitude of the fires in 2020. And 
my heart goes out to those members whose districts are severely 
impacted, have been, and really face some of the biggest 
challenges, particularly on the western side of our country.
    So some fires have a natural role to play in keeping our 
forests healthy. However, the high-intensity forest fires we 
have experienced too many of in recent years are so detrimental 
to our forests, in addition to their cost in human lives and 
property. There is, as I said, an intense bipartisan interest 
on this committee in ensuring we are utilizing the best tools 
available for fighting these fires, whether it is utilizing 
predictive and machine learning tools in the initial planning 
stages, new technology to help prevent those fires, or tools 
for increased coordination and safety for those working to 
fight the wildfires. We know that technology can help with 
every stage of your efforts.
    Last year, the committee directed increased investment in 
these technologies and other reforms called for in the Dingell 
Act, as well as a focus on this subject in future budget 
requests. So could you give us an update on the Forest 
Service's finding on what opportunities exist for increased 
investment in technology to predict and prevent, as well as to 
fight, fires?
    Ms. Christiansen. Thank you, Chair Pingree. Yes, you know, 
a contemporary fire response is very important for us to meet 
the complexities of what we call our wildland fire system 
across America, and the Forest Service is a major leader 
nationally. Thanks to your help and the additional investments, 
we are developing relationships and investments. For example, 
over $8 million dollars were invested last year to begin a 
pilot program for tracking, how we for the safety of every 
firefighter.
    We also have made good progress in standing up our unmanned 
aircraft systems program with the purchase of our first 20 
UASes in the fleet. We flew, in partnership with the Department 
of the Interior, over 1,000 UAS missions for fire intelligence, 
post-fire recovery, and other natural resource missions, and we 
are learning, and we are getting great leverage out of the UAS 
programs. We have also invested funds in an agreement with the 
Department of Defense for satellite fire detection services and 
capabilities, which has already supported over 500 fires just 
this year alone, in 2021. We have launched a very important 
modernized National Interagency Dispatch System, which 
processed over 575,000 resource orders in 2020 alone. With the 
new system, it worked very efficiently.
    Of course, there is always more to do, and we are always in 
a tradeoff with the amount of resources we have, so we are, you 
know, putting the right investments and incrementally improving 
our fire technology, and we really thank the committee for your 
support and look forward to working with you on these this 
important subject.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you. I am going to yield back the 
balance of my time and let other people start asking their 
questions. I have plenty, but I know I will get lots of 
opportunities. So I recognize Mr. Joyce for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chair Pingree. The State of Ohio has 
prioritized improving water quality with focus projects in the 
Lake Erie Watershed, including a State-led program called H2 
Ohio. These water quality efforts involve a multifaceted 
approach that includes agricultural incentive programs, land 
protection, wetlands restoration, and expansion of riparian 
forest buffers. Investments in the Forest Stewardship Program 
are directly tied to improving water quality through technical 
assistance to landowners on tree plantings and riparian forest 
buffer management. Chief, in a State like Ohio where 85 percent 
of the forests are privately owned, can you discuss how the 
Forest Stewardship Program provides downstream benefits, 
improving water quality for the rivers flowing into Lake Erie 
and potentially helping address harmful algal blooms?
    Ms. Christiansen. Yes. Congressman Joyce, thank you for 
that question. We just signed a shared stewardship agreement 
with the State of Ohio, and it is based on their State Forest 
Action Plan. I know that the greatest threat to forests 
identified in Ohio is soil and water quality impacts from poor 
land management practices, and, of course, urbanization, and 
the conservation of soil and water and smart growth is really a 
top goal. The Forest Stewardship Program, which is funding 
that, you know, comes through the Forest Service, it is a 
State-driven program to provide that technical assistance to 
private landowners. They are specific, which meets their 
interests, their own forest management plans, inclusive of 
protecting watersheds. The key strategy is to focus on keeping 
forests as forests so these landowners, you know, they have a 
choice to convert the land to other use. So keeping forests as 
forests is the number one water quality enhancement that you 
can do with 85 percent of Ohio being in a private forest.
    So, the forest does help with the soil retention and the 
water quality, and, particularly, the use of riparian forest 
buffers. So, in addition to water quality and riparian 
management, restoration of our forests or good management 
through the Forest Stewardship Program helps impact the damages 
from flooding. We all know the benefits of wildlife habitat and 
for habitat in reducing stream temperatures.
    So, I could go on and on about the benefits of the forests. 
There are public benefits that flow from private lands, so a 
way to assist private landowners in meeting their own goals is 
to continue the important public benefits that flow from those 
lands.
    Mr. Joyce. Great. Thank you. In fiscal year 2021--I am 
switching gears here a little bit--to foster additional 
production of wood utility poles that meet modern size specs of 
the U.S. electric industry, and ensure the ecological needs of 
local landscapes, Congress included language encouraging Forest 
Service to work within existing programs to foster additional 
production of wood utility poles. Recognizing the Agency 
doesn't typically design timber sales or manage for specific 
timber products, how could the Forest Service work to help meet 
this demand, especially in areas affected by wildfire?
    Ms. Christiansen. Yes, that is a really good question. We 
could look at a product mix, we could sell different products 
in a timber sale. Now, that is a little bit of a heavy lift. 
When I was State forester in Washington State, that is what I 
would have done. We would do a product mix sale where we 
advertised the good utility poles so those could be taken and 
not just put into regular saw timber. So, we need to do some 
specific marketing, and I would be happy to work further with 
this committee on how we can best meet that need.
    Mr. Joyce. Former Chair McCollum and I went out to visit 
the beautiful areas in Derek's District. That was one of the 
things that they were discussing.
    Ms. Christiansen. Yes.
    Mr. Joyce. But how could the Forest Service help connect 
the utility pole industry personnel with particular National 
Forest System timber sale purchasers, to determine if there is 
material within a particular sale that could fit their needs?
    Ms. Christiansen. Yes, we work with the electrical energy 
sector very closely, obviously with the threat of wildfire, so 
we have those relationships, and it is really those purchasers. 
We need to get the purchasers of the Federal timber sales 
involved so that we could identify what the market needs are, 
and then we could establish our timber program according to 
those needs.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you very much. I yield my non-existent 
time back, Chair Pingree.
    Ms. Pingree. It looks like abundant time to me. I now 
recognize Chair McCollum for 5 minutes for her questions.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Well, welcome 
back to the subcommittee, Ms. Christiansen. It is a pleasure to 
see you again, even though it is through screens. And I have to 
say I am a lot more enthusiastic about the budget you are 
presenting us today than I was about the one at the last 
hearing.
    So President Biden's plan to consider 30 percent of the 
land and water by 2030 is something that I am all supportive 
of. Conserving and increasing forest cover is important for not 
only reducing global warming, but for protecting our 
watersheds. We don't place a dollar value on water, we really 
don't, but life can't survive without water. And as you know, 
the Forest Service has the responsibility of protecting the 
priceless reserve of clean water located in the Boundary Waters 
Canoe Wilderness Area.
    Yesterday, I had the opportunity to be with Secretary 
Vilsack, and he confirmed with me that the USDA is working with 
the Department of Interior to review the past Administration's 
actions and consider next steps. So I know you can't comment on 
that any further because you are in the process of working on 
that. But I just wanted to re-emphasize my support for the 
Forest Service retaining its ability to deny consent for 
mineral leases and other activities that you might feel 
threaten the land, especially the water you manage. And 20 
percent of the water in the forest, it is, you know, going to 
be hugely impacted with this new type of mining that they want 
to do that is so toxic. So thank you for looking out for the 
water not only for today, but for future generations.
    I also want to just take a second to commend you again for 
the work that you helped with in the Forest Service 
International Program. I have been in embassies. I have 
traveled around the world, and the Middle East, and Africa, and 
all around. And non-governmental organizations and embassies, 
they are working to protect and clean up watersheds, fight 
climate change, reduce illegal logging and habitat destruction. 
That is the kind of soft power we need to be projecting, so 
thank you for doing that.
    I just want to take a second to touch on the value of 
outdoor experiences, which many Americans have rediscovered 
during the pandemic, and you mentioned the Great American 
Outdoors in your remarks. But those experiences are not equally 
accessible to all Americans, especially many of our youth. 
Getting outdoors is good for your mental health, it is good for 
your physical health, and it also helps to build the next 
generation of conservationists. So I believe we need to invest 
in our outdoor opportunities in our national forests and 
wilderness areas for youth from diverse backgrounds. Especially 
I am going to speak to urban youth.
    So I want to highlight the Forest Service program in Region 
9, which includes Minnesota and Maine, Madam Chair, and it is 
doing that work of connecting our youth to forests. The Urban 
Connections Program creates relationships with urban youth 
leaders and organizations to create recreation and learning 
opportunities. Last year, I included language in our House 
report to increase funding for Urban Connections and to boost 
our regional-wide opportunities. Can you maybe tell the 
committee your feelings on how those increased funds were used?
    Ms. Christiansen. I would be delighted to, Congresswoman 
McCollum, and we really appreciate the acknowledgement of this 
important, we call it our Urban Connection Program, in the 
Northeast States that we call Region 9. It is really a region-
wide youth engagement and activities, and it is to connect all 
peoples. We have a leadership intention here at the Forest 
Service to create a culture of inclusion that awakens and 
strengthens all people's connection to the land.
    We have to start where people are, and sometimes it is 
connectivity to an urban open space or an urban park. But we 
want all people to have that full connection all the way into a 
national forest and a wilderness area. Through our Urban 
Connections Program, we have coordinators in these urban 
centers across the northeast, and we leverage great 
partnerships. It just takes a little bit of coordination to 
leverage, the synergistic approach on how we can build a future 
of natural resource professionals, natural resource advocates, 
or just an experience of life of connecting to the outdoors and 
what that means.
    There is an incredible statistic of this past year during 
the pandemic that 81 percent of Americans had some kind of 
outdoor experience. That is a high number of all Americans 
because, you know, the alternatives weren't very great during 
this past year, but 31 percent of them were first-time 
experiences in the outdoors. Now, that is a huge opportunity, 
and it is a bit of a challenge because if they don't have a 
good experience, are they going to come back? Are they going to 
connect to their natural resources? So, we are laser focused, 
and the Great America's Outdoors Act, by the way, really helps 
us increase and improve the user experience and build our 
capacity to have connections for all Americans.
    So, with additional funding from the 2021 Omnibus, we are 
developing a much deeper ladder of engagement where youth can, 
again, incrementally gain that outdoor recreation experience 
all the way up to a wilderness experience, and where we can 
encourage them to think about what they care about and whether 
a career potentially in natural resources is working for them. 
And I am very proud to say we will be able to continue to 
increase our safety protocols of bringing youth into the 
national forests. The Boundary Waters is one of the most 
significant wilderness experiences for these youth.
    So, more investment with our Urban Connections and more 
into our partnerships to leverage more. As we get deeper into 
investing these funds this year, we would be happy to continue 
to keep you updated. Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you. Next, I recognize Mr. Simpson for 5 
minutes for his questions.
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman Pingree, and Chief, 
Andria, welcome back to both of you. It is good to have you 
before the committee, and thanks for the job that you and the 
Forest Service have been doing. You mentioned in your opening 
statement, and I think Chairwoman Pingree followed up on it, 
the devastating forest fires that occurred last year. I think 
you said the worst since the Big Burn. It was devastating, 
particularly in the West, the communities. So I want to ask you 
a couple questions. You can answer each one of them, I guess. I 
know the Forest Service has been looking at the issues affected 
by these last year's forest fires. So, Chief, what would it 
take, say, over the next 10-year period for the Agency to make 
significant progress on this front, and how many acres would we 
need to be able to treat to reduce these wildfires? Are we 
going to see a 10-year plan so the committee knows what we can 
expect from year to year instead of reacting to the fires as 
they happen each year? If we have a year that is down in fires, 
we don't pay as much attention to it as we do a year like last 
year.
    And along those same lines, this is the, I think, 19th year 
I have served on this subcommittee. Different Administrations, 
different chiefs, so forth. And one of the issues I have been 
dealing with and trying to address is the aviation assets of 
the Forest Service and where we are going with that, because it 
seems like we take one step forward and two steps back, or vice 
versa, and change directions all the time. Are we going to have 
a clear outline for the next, say, 10-year plan of what the 
Forest Service needs in terms of air assets, how the 5- and 10-
year contracts that you are looking at will affect us and 
benefit us, and what we need to put into our budget so that the 
Forest Service has the necessary equipment to address these 
wildfires?
    Ms. Christiansen. All great questions. But I have to say, 
16 years ago I was the new State forester of the State of 
Washington and the first time before this committee. You were 
ranking member with Mr. Dicks, so I remember it well, and you 
have always been very passionate and ask really good questions, 
Congressman.
    So, we have to do a paradigm shift, quite frankly, and we 
have to get it right. There are two things. We have a scale 
mismatch in treating our lands, so we definitely have to treat 
more lands. We have to up our game, and we have really 
incredible scientists that are showing this. We call it fire 
shed modeling. But we also need to be strategic in where and 
how we treat those lands.
    So, I did ask our scientists to give me a 10-year plan. Our 
researchers, through this modeling, showed how we need to 
strategically treat an additional 20 million acres of national 
forest system lands in the West, and 650,000 acres in the East 
just on the national forests alone to make significant progress 
in reducing risk. These treatments, as I said, need to be 
strategically placed at these large landscapes. We call them 
fire shed scales. And ``Strategic'' means we don't have to 
treat every acre, but we need to, for example, strategically 
treat and replace 40 percent of the fire shed, and that will 
reduce the 80 percent of the bad outcomes. So that is a pretty 
good investment when we can show we can get results if we treat 
40 percent of these highest at-risk fire sheds.
    So, we treat between two and three million acres per year 
on the national forests. So, to make this paradigm shift, we 
would have to add another 2.65 million acres a year for the 
next 10-years to execute this strategy, so that is obviously 
more than double what we are doing now. We also have done this 
modeling. Forest Service land certainly transmits a lot of 
significant catastrophic fire, without a doubt, but it is on 
all lands as well, and, as you know, we need to look at the 
whole landscape. So, I want to do a call-out to our State and 
private lands that we need to treat an additional 30 million 
acres in the next 10 years, so that would be 3 million 
additional acres per year, or 5.6 million acres per year for 
the next 10-years to execute a big difference in really putting 
resilience back into these fire sheds that are most at risk.
    But there is a good side. I mean, it would create, we 
estimate, between 300,000 to 575,000 jobs, and, of course, 
protect significant communities and small businesses, and 
enhance local economies. So, I know it is a big lift, but the 
science is leading edge, it is real, and we can show we can 
make a difference.
    Relative to your question about air tankers, the 
contracting air tanker community has really come online. They 
are meeting our needs of contemporary air tanker capacity for 
wildland fire in the U.S. We are studying the question about 
going to a 10-year contract, what the pros and cons are. We are 
nearly complete with that report. It will be going through 
clearance in a matter of a few days, and it will be coming to 
the committee here shortly. So we would be glad to discuss more 
about air tankers, but we think we really are on the right 
track with our air tankers, and I thank you for being such a 
help and an advocate for getting us the right resources.
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
    Ms. Christiansen. Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Next, I recognize Mr. 
Harder for 5 minutes for his questions.
    Mr. Harder. Well, wonderful. Thank you so much, Madam 
Chair, for holding this hearing. Thank you to our witnesses for 
participating. This is a very important hearing for me 
personally since I represent a district in California that has 
been severely impacted by the California wildfires. We used to 
have a world in normal years where the fires wouldn't start 
until late summer or fall. We have, you know, all of May to pen 
the forests and clear the buffer zones, but not anymore. Now, 
dry winters are bleeding into the dry summers, we are having 
many times as many wildfires, and I am very worried about the 
season that we have coming up this year, let alone what could 
be coming in in the future.
    One thing that I have heard a lot from my community is 
about the need for reliable fire crews. I have heard from some 
of our local volunteer firefighters that in order for them to 
volunteer to go fight fires on Federal land, they have to take 
several weeks off of work. The State of California pays these 
volunteer firefighters for their time when they work on State 
fires, but the Forest Service currently does not. The demands 
of fighting fires for weeks on end have actually led to some of 
our volunteer departments having to ask if a fire is State or 
Federal before they agree to help in the first place, which I 
don't think makes a lot of sense given the need that we have 
for even more manpower to fight these fires.
    So I guess the question is, you know, while I know a lot of 
volunteer firefighters are hired locally, what can we do in 
this budget to better support volunteer firefighters and 
hopefully reimburse them more for all the time that they are 
taking off, especially as the fire season continues to expand?
    Ms. Christiansen. Yes. Thank you, Congressman Harder, and I 
really appreciate that you recognize that, in this country, in 
America, we need all wildland firefighting resources. It takes 
a network of the rural, the municipal, the State, the tribal, 
and all the Federal in these, what we now call, a fire year. It 
is no longer a fire season when we think about the country.
    The specifics of your question I am a little concerned 
about, and maybe we can dig into that offline. If a rural fire 
department is on a Federal fire, they certainly will get paid 
for that. There is probably more about the details of the 
agreement. Again, I would like to dig in in more detail with 
you. But at a big level, we do, thanks to Congress, have a 
program called Rural Fire Assistance, and that is to help the 
rural fire districts build the capacity, the training, the 
equipment, the resources that they need to be able to respond 
to ever-increasing wildfires in this Nation because, again, we 
need all the wheels and the boots on the ground to respond to 
the complexity of wildfire in the Nation. It is a very 
important program that, of course, has limited dollars, and so 
additional resources to help build the capacity of the rural 
fire districts has been very important.
    Mr. Harder. And specifically, Chief, it is volunteer 
firefighters. My understanding is currently, under Federal 
guidelines, volunteer firefighters are not being significantly 
reimbursed, unlike by some States, including California that do 
reimburse them, so it is not about a rural issue. It is about 
the volunteers.
    Ms. Christiansen. Yes, and I apologize. Rural is generally 
volunteers, but I am making an assumption. It is not always. My 
husband is a structural fire chief of a combination department 
where they have volunteers and paid, and they are generally on 
the border areas. But, I would glad to dig into that question 
more specifically about the agreement. They definitely should 
be getting paid for their services on Federal lands, no doubt. 
No question about that.
    Mr. Harder. Terrific. Well, we would love to work with you 
and explore some ways we can further incentivize that work. I 
never want anybody to be asking for fire State or Federal 
before they get in a fire truck, and that is great to hear. And 
the last couple remaining points of your time, would love just 
to hear a little bit about what is limiting our ability to take 
some of the fuel away from these fires, to move towards more 
controlled burns. It feels like we are incrementally moving in 
that direction, but, you know, we need to go 100 times faster 
than we are going right now if we are going to limit these 
fires to hundreds of acres instead of hundreds of thousands of 
acres. Can you expand on using your budget to actually prevent 
these fires from escalating as fast as they are?
    Ms. Christiansen. Yes. Congressman Harder, it is 
strategically doing these fuel treatments across our shared 
boundaries, and fuels treatments certainly means prescribed 
fire. It means thinning the density out of the forests. We need 
markets for the low-value forest products because it costs so 
much money when we don't have a market for them. So, in 
California, we are working very aggressively on biomass-related 
infrastructure and markets. It is the cost of hauling the wood. 
There are several factors that we are breaking down.
    I know that we are low on time, but, we are this close to 
the cusp of naming what the breakthroughs are in prescribed 
fire. We are working with the States on the air quality 
standards because of how do we take our smoke? Do we take it an 
incremental way, prescribed fire, or these massive, 
catastrophic wildfires? So, there are many things, and we would 
be glad to come brief you more about what those opportunities 
are.
    Mr. Harder. Sure. Great. Thank you so much, and I yield 
back.
    Ms. Christiansen. Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Harder, and I am happy 
to recognize Mr. Amodei for 5 minutes for his questions.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Madam Chair. Hey, Chief. Good to see 
you again. I want to just hit a couple things quick. First of 
all, we are going to be hooking up with you just to ask you 
guys come in and brief us on what you are doing with the 
drones, you know, what missions they got, where they are 
centered, who your contractors are, stuff like that. Second of 
all, on the large air tankers, I think the news is pretty good. 
We want to circle back with your folks because I think they 
have been problem solvers. You know, just the usual stuff that 
you fight in terms of some specs that, quite frankly, nobody 
complies with or adheres to that are still in there. But the 
times we have had that happen, your folks have been pretty 
proactive, and I wanted to basically give them a thank you for 
that so it didn't go unnoticed or taken for granted.
    Now, I want to kind of switch to what we talked about last 
year, and we will do it in the context of this year. When you 
talk about executing the strategy as far as fuels management 
and things like that, which means you have got to add X million 
acres a year and things like that, can you tell me, real 
generally, so how does this year's budget request compare to 
allowing you to execute that strategy in the context of a 
decade?
    Ms. Christiansen. In the context of, what was the last 
word?
    Mr. Amodei. Getting it done in a decade.
    Ms. Christiansen. In a decade. It certainly gets us a step 
closer, a big step closer.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay. So if I used, and this is my phrase, not 
yours. I don't want to get you in trouble with anybody. But we 
are still going to need some help in terms of resources if we 
are going to put you guys in terms of the medium lane, not the 
fast lane, in terms of fuels treatments. And I was listening 
when you said, hey, guess what, this amount will ameliorate 80 
percent of the negative effects. If we want to start getting to 
the point for the national forest lands where we can say our 
stewardship is in the medium lane as far as fuels management, 
then you are going to need some more help in the resource 
department.
    Ms. Christiansen. You know, what I can speak to, 
Congressman, is the science. And, you know, it is a policy of 
Congress and the Administration on how fast we go, you know. We 
put----
    Mr. Amodei. No, I get that. I get that.
    Ms. Christiansen. Yes.
    Mr. Amodei. I am not trying to cut you off. Maybe I should 
pick on Ms. Weeks. But it is, like, as a budget reality, if 
this committee wants to help you with fuels, I am just going to 
tell you, and you can disagree with me, but we need to do 
better.
    Ms. Christiansen. We need to do better.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay.
    Ms. Christiansen. We need to do better.
    Mr. Amodei. I'll let you stop right there. I don't want to 
get you in trouble.
    Ms. Christiansen. As I said in my statement, we have more 
to do to make a significant difference on the landscape, no 
question about it.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay. The second thing I want to touch on is, 
does the Forest Service have, if you will, by national forest 
or by region, a list of infrastructure--that is everybody's new 
favorite word. Do you guys have a list of infrastructure 
projects or maintenance projects by region or by national 
forest?
    Ms. Christiansen. You bet we do, sir.
    Mr. Amodei. Can I get a copy of that?
    Ms. Christiansen. I am sure we can get it to you. 
Absolutely.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you very much.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Christiansen. Thank you, sir.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you. We are about to see Representative 
Lee I think, but I will just ask a quick question in the 
meantime since that is where we are. Can you talk to me quickly 
about carbon sequestration? The President's efforts to combat 
climate change are not only dependent on efforts to reduce the 
sources of greenhouse gas emissions, but also to preserve our 
resources which sequester carbon. These efforts include the 30 
by 30 goal of conserving 30 percent of our national lands and 
waters by 2030. Our forests are one of the most important 
carbon sinks in the country. I don't have to tell you that or 
anyone in the State of Maine. They play a central part in our 
conservation plan.
    I am interested in how you are working collaboratively with 
other land management agencies to give us a comprehensive 
picture of the state of carbon sequestration on public lands. 
It seems to me the data is extremely important.
    Ms. Christiansen. Oh yes, absolutely. I couldn't emphasize 
that more. The lands and waters of the United States are really 
important for carbon sequestration, but I am going to focus on 
the forest piece of it, 766 million acres of forest, all 
ownerships in this Nation, and every bit of forests and those 
areas that could be afforested are very important for carbon. 
The forests and the harvested forest products that store carbon 
and the urban trees in this Nation, they offset 14 percent of 
the CO2 emissions annually in this Nation. So that 
is pretty important that we pay attention too. We could 
increase that by 50 percent more, so 20 percent to 28 percent 
more offsets if we really worked on afforestation where there 
are open spots that could support a forest, we reforest the 
areas that we are not reforesting at the pace we need to, and 
of course, we do the restoration and build the resiliency in 
the lands and the forests so they stayed healthy. I know my 
eyes light up when I talk about the importance of healthy 
forests just for carbon sequestration, let alone important 
water, watersheds, wildlife, outdoor experience, and the list 
goes on.
    Relative to how we work with all landowners and across the 
Federal government, in our own house here at USDA, I am very 
proud of the last 7 years of the climate hubs. This is to 
support all landowners, from the agriculture sector all the way 
to the forest sector, on really helping them on building their 
plans for climate resilience and how they can do climate-smart 
practices. The hubs have really taken hold with all landowners, 
and the demand for services is higher than the needs we can 
meet. You will see the initiatives in the President's budget 
true, true to the goal of tackling climate change, is an 
increase to help with the science-based support of these hubs.
    It also helps us connect to urban areas and underserved 
communities because sometimes these communities don't know what 
they don't know, and services like folks in their own community 
saying, hey, so you know trees store carbon, they improve 
health effects, et cetera, et cetera. So, it is really 
exciting. There are lots of opportunity in the climate hubs.
    Ms. Pingree. Chief Christiansen, I am going to stop you 
there. I have to run, and climate hubs are my favorite topic, 
so maybe I will get a chance to finish that one. But I am going 
to turn it over to Representative Cartwright to hold the gavel 
to ask Representative Lee to ask her question, and I will be 
back after I get a chance to vote. So I apologize for that.
    Ms. Christiansen. No problem. Thank you.
    Mr. Cartwright [presiding]. Happy to step into the breach, 
Madam Chair. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Nevada, 
Representative Lee, for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you. I want to thank the chair as well as 
the ranking member for hosting this hearing, and also thank you 
to Chief Christiansen for being here. While we haven't yet seen 
the specifics of the budget, I am pleased that the 
Administration has made a clear commitment to prioritizing 
climate, conservation, and wildfire prevention in the Forest 
Service.
    In southern Nevada, where I represent, we don't have a 
significant forest presence--some, but not significant--but we 
are certainly feeling the impact of climate change, and we 
understand the importance of national forests in that 
discussion. The chairwoman, believe it or not, asked my 
question for me, so we don't have to go into how the Forest 
Service is working on climate change. But I want to recognize, 
which has been recognized earlier, the record-breaking 
wildfires we have seen in recent years, obviously both the 
symptom of and a contributor to climate change. And I was 
pleased to see that the Administration has committed to 
investing in science-based measures to prevent wildfires and 
rectify the historical underfunding of forest resilience 
projects.
    Chief Christiansen, could you just speak to the metrics 
that the Forest Service uses to evaluate its wildfire 
mitigation programs, and what those results have shown about 
the efficacy and the return on investment of those programs?
    Ms. Christiansen. I absolutely would, Congresswoman Lee. It 
is really a great question. So I am a person that stores 
numbers in my head, and these stick with me. If we are talking 
about wildfire prevention, now that is the unwanted starts to 
wildfire. Fire in mini-landscapes is not bad, but we want it on 
our terms, right, so just fire prevention alone, the human 
starts. When we invest $1 in fire prevention, it saves $35 in 
suppression costs and wildfire-related losses, so that is a 
pretty good return on investment. We have worked for years, and 
it is our researchers that have showed this cost benefit or 
return on investment.
    We switched to treating the lands, okay, the hazardous 
fuels treatments. Wildfire in the right conditions is a 
necessary part of many of these landscapes, but we want more of 
the low-intensity fires, so we do treatments, whether they are 
usually prescribed fire and some thinning, and then they are 
tested by a wildfire. These thinnings are tested by a wildfire. 
We have had a program in place for over 10 years where we go 
out and then we evaluate that, and 86 percent of the time, the 
wildfire conditions are changed significantly into the right 
kind of wildfire, the low-intensity wildfire. So, it brings it 
down from a crown fire to what we call a ground fire, so that 
is an 86-percent efficacy in the treatments.
    The thing we have to do now is to get enough of those 
treatments, i.e., on 40 percent of a fire shed, to really make 
the big-scale difference. So, we have shown that fire 
prevention has a return. We have shown that the actual field 
treatments, when it is tested by a wildfire, has a great 
return. Now what we need to show is to treat 40 percent of a 
fire shed and show the fire shed as a whole as back in balance 
of a regular, we call it a resilient forest.
    Mrs. Lee. How realistic is it to be able to treat the 40 
percent of a fire shed?
    Ms. Christiansen. Well, that is where we have to up our 
game 2 to 3 times what we are doing now.
    Mrs. Lee. That is all I have. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Christiansen. Thank you.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Representative Lee, and I am 
going to recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. Ms. 
Christiansen, thank you for being with us here today. My 
district in northeastern Pennsylvania is particularly 
interested in the Forest Service. My district was the home of 
Gifford Pinchot, who, together with Theodore Roosevelt, founded 
the U.S. Forest Service, and that is not a coincidence. 
Northeastern Pennsylvania has an awful lot of forest land, 
including two State forests and thousands of acres of 
privately-owned forests used for recreation, forest products, 
and natural resource conservation. My constituents and I value 
the forests in the region, and we want to ensure that the 
Forest Service has the funding necessary to carry out the 
important work of maintaining and managing our Nation's forest 
resources.
    The first question I want to get into is about President 
Biden's skinny budget that came out last week. It calls for the 
Forest Service and the National Resources Conservation Service 
to promote the health and resilience of public and private 
lands, including specific appropriations for the reclaiming of 
orphan oil and gas wells and abandoned mine lands. I recently 
reintroduced the Abandoned Mine Land Reauthorization Act to 
help, aid, and fund such efforts. While my legislation focuses 
on the programs and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 
and Enforcement at the Department of the Interior, it is the 
Forest Service that also has a role to play, and the proposed 
budget envisions expanding this role.
    Many AML sites, abandoned mine land sites, border and 
interact with our Nation's forests, creating susceptibility to 
pollution and an opportunity for the Forest Service to be 
involved in restoration efforts. So question one is, what has 
been the Forest Service's historical role in AML reclamation, 
and how do you envision this role growing, and have you been 
partnering with other agencies to address the challenges posed 
by AML sites?
    Ms. Christiansen. Yes, great question. It is important that 
we work together with our State and other Federal partners, and 
we have been doing that for over 20 years, to mitigate 
thousands of hazards and abandoned mines located on the 
national forests, but certainly in the area of national 
forests. So, for example in the Eastern region where 
Pennsylvania is, we are working with State and private 
companies to address the legacies of the contamination and the 
dangerous hazardous materials to protect ecological health. So, 
it really does take all of us.
    The Abandoned Mine Land Trust Fund, those funds go to 
States, but that gives States the capacity and the leverage so 
we can all work together. In the President's blueprint budget, 
there is a provision for $100 million for the Forest Service to 
create good union wage jobs to address these orphan oil and gas 
wells and abandoned mine lands. So just to give you an example, 
on our natural forest lands, we have 40,000 abandoned mines 
across the whole system, and 20 percent of those do pose some 
level of human health and ecological hazard, and up to 70 
percent of them have some kind of physical safety hazard. So, 
it is a priority. There is a lot of work that needs to be done, 
a lot of jobs that can be created.
    Mr. Cartwright. I am glad to hear you share the concern, 
Ms. Christiansen. I want to talk about State forests very 
briefly. While my district is not home to any national forests, 
our State forests, Delaware State Forest and the Pinchot State 
Forest, named after Gifford Pinchot, are critical components of 
the economy and the lifestyle of our region. The State and 
Private Forestry organization is one of the smallest budget 
lines at the Forest Service. How do you utilize and maximize 
this modest funding with additional funding at the State and 
local level or through nonprofits?
    Ms. Christiansen. Yes, it is a really, really important 
synergistic effect. I was a State forester in two different 
States, and I can tell you the funding I received through the 
Forest Service and the State Private Forestry funds, quite 
frankly, helped me go to the State legislature and get them to 
match the funds to say, if the Feds are putting in for 
important public benefits that flow off of State lands or even 
private lands, we are all in this together. When you talk 
watershed, when you talk human health, when you talk wildlife 
and recreation economy, I mean, everybody knows the importance 
of that programming, and it is with that strong relationship 
through the States.
    We call it ``the little engine that could,'' and we could 
do more with more, but we make a lot happen marrying up the 
funds with the State funds and great, great partners in the 
nonprofit sector to really enhance the health of our State and 
private forests.
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, that is a great answer. I like how 
you talk. But I am out of time, and at this point the chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Kilmer, for 5 
minutes of questions.
    Mr. Joyce. I don't think he is here.
    Mr. Cartwright. Hmm. Well, in that case, the chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Joyce, who appears to 
be on my screen and ready to ask 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Joyce. Well, thank you, Acting Chair. I appreciate your 
studio-like facility there. Chief, I wanted to ask you about 
something else that is near and dear to Ohio. At last year's 
hearing, we discussed the important work the Forest Service is 
doing to fight the emerald ash borer, or EAB. Given EAB is 
responsible for the destruction of over 150 million ash trees 
in 35 States across the country, it is critical for the Forest 
Service to maintain its outreach, education, and research 
activities to reduce the harmful and costly effects of EAB. 
Does the fiscal year 2022 request support ongoing EAB research 
partnerships, like those with Ohio State University and other 
universities, to develop EAB-resistant ash trees and integrated 
pest management strategies? What EAB activities within State 
and Private Forestry does the request support?
    Ms. Christiansen. Thank you, Ranking Member Joyce, for 
remembering our interchange, and I wonder how many EABs you 
have detected with your detection kit, but I won't ask.
    Mr. Joyce. I can tell by the decimation of the ash trees in 
my woods.
    Ms. Christiansen. Okay. Well, I can't speak to the 
specifics in the fiscal year 2022 budget request. But I can 
speak to the importance of the joint work we do together, our 
State and Private Forestry program and our Forest and Rangeland 
Research program, with partners like the State of Ohio and Ohio 
State University in the early detection, and the outreach and 
the technical assistance for urban landscapes to individual 
landowners and quite frankly, the different treatments, whether 
they are the insecticide, the biological parasitic controls of 
the wasp that were on the leading edge with Ohio. The big game 
changer is the breeding, getting the ash-resistant trees, which 
we are in close partnership with Ohio State University. So, I 
suspect all of those programs will be able to continue. They 
are highly important, and we would be glad to talk further when 
the full budget comes out.
    Mr. Joyce. Okay. I appreciate that. Can you explain why 
these activities are critical to slowing the spread of the EAB?
    Ms. Christiansen. Yes. So early detection helps us jump on 
the treatments earlier. The Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) is in 35 
States. We are not going to stamp out the EAB, but now, as you 
said appropriately, it is slowing the spread. It is how we can, 
in place of these beautiful ash trees and important ash trees 
that are now dead, we can replace them with EAB resistance. So, 
it is the early treatments to slow the spread, but it is being 
on the proactive side of establishing new ash-resistant trees 
that is the real game changer that we need to work on together.
    So, the Forest Service is the funder behind the EAB 
website, ask EAB. It is to get every citizen to have awareness 
about what is around them and how they can report the emerald 
ash borer, and we work with partners. We give a little funding 
to partners, and they are the ones in communities doing the 
early detection to do the early treatments to slow the spread. 
So, it really has to pulse deep into the community, and it 
brings greater awareness of the importance of our trees in our 
urban areas, right?
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chief. I yield back, Acting Chair.
    Ms. Pingree [presiding]. I guess I am back. Mr. Cartwright, 
thank you very much. I am not sure who is up next in the 
question lineup. Let's just go to you. Mr. Simpson, do you have 
a second question?
    Mr. Simpson. Yeah, I do. Thanks, Chairwoman Pingree. Chief, 
let me ask you a question. This is kind of out of the realm of 
what I was going to ask and stuff, but maybe you will want to 
get back to me on this and stuff. But we have talked a little 
bit about abandoned mines and the safety hazard, the 
environmental hazard that some of them possess, and addressing 
those is very important. But the other side of that question is 
this: we are moving into more and more green technologies, 
whether it is wind, solar, batteries, et cetera, et cetera. All 
of those things, as well as even nuclear and stuff, require 
critical minerals, critical minerals that we are almost 100 
percent dependent on adversaries that don't like us to deliver 
it, whether it is China, Russia, other places, and stuff.
    Is Forest Service working with the USGS to map those 
deposits of critical minerals that we are going to need, 
because most of them are, at least a bit percentage of them, 
are on public lands, Forest Service, BLM lands, those types of 
things. We need to have an accurate assessment of what is 
available to us. And because of land withdrawals and other 
types of things, we are making it more and more difficult to 
get some of those critical minerals that we are going to need 
if we are moving into a greener society with, as I said, solar 
or batteries, and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It is easy 
to talk about just land withdrawal and not doing any of that 
kind of stuff, but, you know, mining today is not the same as 
it was 100 years ago. You can do it a lot safer and a lot more 
environmentally friendly, as I have talked with some mining 
companies and stuff. But the permitting and the access is a 
challenge.
    So is the Forest Service working with USGS on this and 
coming up with any ideas of how we might access these critical 
minerals and these rare earth minerals that we have an abundant 
supply of in the United States, but today, oftentimes we are 
100 percent dependent on people who don't like us? And if that 
is not a question you want to address right now, you could get 
back to me with that. I know it was not on the radar.
    Ms. Christiansen. Well, in general, I can say yes, we 
cooperate with USGS and the layers of access across the whole 
Federal estate, but we would be glad to get you more 
information about that.
    Mr. Simpson. I appreciate it. Thank you.
    Mr. Simpson. I yield back.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Simpson. You are on mute.
    Ms. Pingree. Sorry. It is all the back and forth. Okay. 
Representative Kilmer, it is wonderful to see you back. I 
recognize you for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Chief, 
for being with us. I want to start out by just renewing the 
invite I extended to you last year to come visit my neck of the 
woods to learn more about the challenges and the opportunities 
we are facing on the Olympic National Forest when it is safe to 
do so. We would love to have you. I know the last year has been 
very challenging, but the truth is, we were facing some real 
challenges and missing some great opportunities even before the 
pandemic started. First, let me talk about some of those 
challenges.
    For years, the Olympic National Forest has really struggled 
to produce meaningful harvest levels necessary to improve 
forest health, to restore critical salmon spawning habitat, 
and, importantly, to support timber-dependent communities. I 
know that resource limitations have impacted operations service 
wide, and that is something our committee has been working to 
address. But we are experiencing some acute challenges on the 
ONF that I could really use your help on. I honestly can't 
remember the last time that the Olympic National Forest met its 
annual harvest target, and we have got to do better.
    And that brings me to the opportunities. We have got the 
Olympic Forest Collaborative that has united folks from the 
conservation community and the timber industry around a common 
goal of increasing harvest levels on the ONF. I am proud to say 
that we have executed a few pilot projects that have helped the 
ONF produce additional board feet of timber, while also 
accomplishing some important restoration goals. And these 
projects have demonstrated the power of collaborative forest 
planning for meeting the goals of our region, but we need to 
scale up in order to achieve those benefits. So especially as 
rural communities throughout my district continue to take it on 
the chin, this is very important. I am very grateful for the 
partnership we found in the regional forester, Glenn Casamassa 
and our new forest supervisor, Kelly Lawrence, who both share 
my commitment to supporting the work of the collaborative, but 
there is only so much we can accomplish without dedicated 
support and resources.
    So three questions. One, can you tell me how you plan to 
support our region's efforts to increase harvest levels and 
forest restoration projects on the ONF; two, what can I do, 
what can this committee do to support those efforts; and three, 
will the fiscal year 2022 request include dedicated resources 
to support new and established forest collaboratives like the 
Olympic Forest Collaborative, who don't qualify for the 
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program dollars?
    Ms. Christiansen. Thank you, Congressman Kilmer, and I 
would love to accept your invitation to get out to the 
beautiful Olympic National Forest. I hear you and I hear the 
concern, and we have been in limited tradeoffs of the 
investment in our timber program. I know the Olympic National 
Forest is still a concern, but our Pacific Northwest region, 
even in a very difficult year--that is, all the forests in 
Oregon and Washington, 25 of them--they did meet their timber 
target by 101 percent. I am absolutely committed, and I know 
that Glenn Casamassa and Kelly Lawrence are eager to work with 
you. I will be personally involved in how we can get some more 
directed resources to build that important leverage and 
collaborative capacity that is important on the Olympic 
National Forest.
    You and I talked about the no-bid sales that were pretty 
high on the Olympic National Forest. I am pleased to report 
that there is good progress going on there. We were at 20 
percent of the timber sales were no-bid, and that has gone down 
to 5 percent. We still want to get it to zero. We are meeting 
the needs of the local market conditions, but at least there is 
a good trajectory. We are in a really tough tradeoff right now. 
So much of the landscape was burned in that region and other 
regions, and we are using our regular appropriated dollars just 
to get the stabilization done on these landscapes.
    So that is where conversations with this committee are 
important so you can really know the stark realities of the 
tradeoffs. We know that that every community matters, and the 
dependency, as you so well described, and I don't have to 
remind you that I grew up looking at the Olympics. I am from 
the Puget Sound. I was the Hood Canal District Manager that 
partnered with the Olympic National Forest when I was in State 
Natural Resources. The importance of those watersheds, and the 
salmon, and other fisheries resource and wildlife resources are 
absolutely critical. So, I want to affirm our commitment and 
affirm that we would be glad to work with you to figure out the 
good pathway forward for appropriate resourcing.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you.
    Mr. Kilmer. I think I am out of time. Thank you, Madam 
Chair.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Kilmer. I am going to recognize 
Representative McCollum for a second question.
    Ms. McCollum. My co-host has unmuted me. Thank you, co-
host. Now you can hear me? Kilmer can hear me. That is good. So 
going back to what Mr. Simpson was talking about with minerals, 
and what I was talking about with withdrawals in the BWCA area, 
which is in the Superior National Forest, that forest holds 20 
percent of fresh clean drinking water. And the water flows 
north, and it is like a sponge. If you have ever been up in the 
Boundary Waters area, all our water is interconnected. And so 
the challenge is, is when people talk about safe mining, we 
have learned how to taconite mines safely. We didn't in the 
beginning, but we know how to do it now. This is new mining. 
Every single one of these sulfite ore mines have failed, and 
when they fail, it is generation after generation after 
generation before there is any recovery of the land.
    But my point was, you know, when we are looking at critical 
minerals, we also have to look at something else that is 
critical, and that is water. So I am all about protecting the 
wilderness, but this is water you can literally be in a canoe 
on, dip a cup, and drink straight out of there. And, you know, 
future generations and future wars will be fought over water. 
And with climate change, access to and having a potable, fresh 
water supply is going to be really critical. As the Federal 
government, we really don't, and as a people, we don't place a 
value on water. Yeah, we maybe go buy a bottle of water, but we 
look at water as disposable. It will rain. It will come back 
again.
    So is not part of the charge when you are looking at what 
to do with some of these critical minerals and where they are 
located is also to take in the assessment and the quality of 
water? And then before you answer that, one other statement. I 
chair the Defense Committee. I am all about having strong 
national defense, but many of these mines that are being built 
and mined right now, they are owned by foreign companies, and 
the resource is being taken out of the United States. And what 
they are not telling you, it is going to China to be smelted. 
So if we are going to talk full circle national security, then 
let's have the full discussion and not just pick and choose 
what we want to talk about.
    Ms. Christiansen, how does the Forest Service value the 
importance of water, and remind us again how important our 
forests are for water. And I will mute myself.
    Ms. Christiansen. You bet. I will go back to the Organic 
Act that established what were called the Forest Reserves at 
the time. They were for two purposes, and that was to create a 
sustainable supply of timber for this new Nation to be built, 
and it was to establish the critical watersheds to supply water 
for the Nation. So, the importance of water goes back to the 
origins of the national forests, and even before the Forest 
Service itself was created.
    Fifty percent of the waters of this Nation depend on 
forests. Forests are at the head water of all of the water of 
this Nation, and one-fifth of the waters in this Nation are 
dependent on the national forests. So, water is an absolutely 
essential part of the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act and 
the origins preceding all of that for the national forests, 
without a doubt.
    Ms. Pingree. Representative Kaptur, did you have questions 
you would like to ask? I would recognize you for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much. Thank you 
for a very interesting hearing. I haven't been able to be 
present for all of it, but my staff has informed me, and I just 
wanted to thank you for your leadership in this area. And I 
wanted to ask Chief Christiansen, I am a huge supporter of the 
Urban and Community Forestry Program at the Forest Service, and 
most of the bills that I have seen that deal with restoring the 
civilian climate core, or whatever, focus on our national 
forests and parks, which I support. However, I represent 
Cleveland, Lorraine, Sandusky, and Toledo, Ohio, and we have 
historic levels of asthma. And we have had 20 million trees 
removed from Michigan and Ohio, and we have been working with 
the Cleveland metro parks, the Cuyahoga Valley National 
Recreation Area, the Lorain County metro parks, the Lucas 
County, Toledo metro park system to try to replant, including 
in those cities. So I am wondering what your thoughts might be 
about the potential of the Urban and Community Forestry Program 
to partner somehow with localities, and to do some of the tree 
planting that we know is so unnecessary after the devastation 
of the emerald ash borer and the Asian long-horned beetle. And 
I am concerned that local people living in these communities, 
in these urban areas will not be recruited, and they won't be 
able to work in their own areas to try to restore the 
environment. Could you help me understand how Interior thinks 
about this and the Forest Service?
    Ms. Christiansen. Yes. We are a part of USDA, and we are 
working daily with the Department of the Interior to bring some 
recommendations forward about President Biden's call for a 
Climate Conservation Corps. Let me just tell you the space and 
area that you named, Congresswoman Kaptur. So, the Forest 
Service has a huge footprint of working with the conservation 
corps. We go back to the origins of the original Civilian 
Conservation Corps, which now are the Job Corps centers, and we 
operate 24 of those Job Corps centers, which bring both rural 
and urban kids into these Job Corps centers and teach them 
skills. We are converting to a more natural resource base, and 
we have urban community forestry programming in a couple of 
these Job Corps centers.
    But then we have nearly 100 Service Corps partners. These 
are the nonprofit partners that bring these Service Corps 
together, and we have nearly 1,000 agreements with these 
Service Corps to do work, natural resource work across the 
spectrum, and yes, a good portion of it is on the national 
forests. But what we have at the Forest Service is we have 
these broad authorities and networks through our State and 
private forestry authorities. We are working with our State 
forestry partners and the plethora of other partners that are 
in these urban areas.
    So, we feel confident we could connect enhanced climate 
conservation corps capacity to needs in State and urban areas 
because one of the absolute essential pieces of a climate 
conservation corps would be that we would bring employment for 
underserved and underrepresented communities. And going to 
where the needs are is really essential, and we have these 
shared stewardship agreements with 26 States. I just signed the 
Great Shared Stewardship Agreement with the State of Ohio in 
December, and it names these kinds of priorities that we have 
to get beyond our own programming and cross boundaries for what 
is most important for natural resources, for employment, for 
climate, for equity. All the Administration's priorities fit 
right in.
    Ms. Kaptur. I would appreciate a copy of that agreement, 
and your openness to working with partners, if you could send 
me a list of who those partners are.
    I will just tell you a recent experience I had anticipating 
Earth Day. I went to NRCS and I said to them, I want to hand 
out trees, and I want to go into each of my counties. And so 
they found me a location that is out in the 'burbs, not in the 
heart of the cities, and they wanted to give me sycamore trees. 
I said, I don't want sycamore trees. I said, find me trees that 
don't make such a mess in the city that are still good 
hardwoods, whether it is maple trees that don't have so many 
twirlers or whether beech trees. And they said, oh no, we can't 
do that. No, no, we don't have that supply.
    So this is the reality in Ohio 2021, and a member willing 
to go out of her way, right, to go to all my five counties and 
plant trees and pass them out, and a little bit of 
arteriosclerosis over at USDA, you know. And I realize you have 
only been in there a few months under Biden--thank God there is 
leadership--and things are going to change, but that is the 
continuing frustration of the inability to adapt to the urban 
metro areas. And so thank you for listening very, very much.
    Ms. Christiansen. You know, that is not USDA, and we will 
be glad to connect you with the great urban partners that we 
have there in your district, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
    Ms. Christiansen. You bet.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.
    Ms. Christiansen. You bet.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Chair Kaptur. Representative 
Cartwright, would you like to ask another question or a 
question?
    Mr. Cartwright. Yes, I would. Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, Chief 
Christiansen, we were talking about State forests the last time 
I was talking with you, and I want to finish that discussion up 
by asking you how can private owners and State forests obtain 
funding from the State and private forestry programs, and is 
there assistance in that process?
    Ms. Christiansen. Yes, sir. The funding flows through the 
State forestry agency, so the Pennsylvania DNR, your State 
forester, Ken Shellenberger, they oversee this programming, and 
they would put it out to the State for us and to the private 
forest landowners. There are several areas of opportunity. 
Forest stewardship is probably the gem. You are a private 
forest landowner. You have 20 acres, and you really don't know 
the best way to manage it. You really care about wildlife, but 
you don't know how to even go about thinning your forest 
appropriately, et cetera. You want to get some technical 
assistance, and you want it to lead to some other programs for 
financial assistance. Well, that takes a Forest Stewardship 
Plan.
    So through the funding that the Forest Service would 
provide, and often the State puts in funding, too, they would 
bring out what we call a service forester to you and your 
property, and it was the best days of my career when I did 
that. Talk about the landowners' objectives, what they want to 
get from their land, and you would write them a specific forest 
stewardship plan, and you would help provide them pathways on 
how then they could get grants and funding to help manage their 
land.
    There is forest health programming. You have an invasive 
pest. You don't know what to do about it. Again, from the 
funding the Forest Service provides through our Forest Health 
Program to the State forestry, you would get a consult from 
your State forestry organization about this pest and how to 
treat it or detect it.
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, thank you. I read your resume, and I 
knew I was asking the right lady that question. I appreciate 
that. You mentioned invasive species, and I want to bump over 
that really quickly. The plant and wildlife in our forests are 
in danger from invasive species that are reducing available 
habitat for native wildlife. Pennsylvania alone has 18 tree 
species, 39 herb species, and 17 vine species on its invasive 
species plant list, and according to the Forest Service's 
Invasive Species Research Model, invasions by plants, animals, 
and pathogens cost the United States $137 billion every year. I 
know that we have an overabundance of Japanese knotweed in 
northeastern Pennsylvania, and I see that all over the place. 
It is further expected this number will only increase due to 
the change in climate and the increase in extreme storm 
frequency.
    I recently introduced the Native Plant and Species Pilot 
Program bill that would aid in combating invasive species and 
reintroducing native species. I also have several bills focused 
on climate change, including the SAFE Act that would bring 
together Federal agencies that work on developing regional and 
local adaptation plans for our natural resources in the face 
climate change. The Forest Health Protection Program covers 
invasive species. It is a State and private forestry program, 
whose budget is one of the smaller of the accounts of the 
Forest Service. Do you feel that the Forest Service has taken 
appropriate measures to try to combat invasive species, and is 
there an increasing emphasis on this moving forward in the new 
Administration?
    Ms. Christiansen. Thank you, Congressman. You said what I 
would say, $137 billion annually in economic damage in the 
U.S., it is a significant, and the environmental effects of 
invasive species they take up more water, the plant invasive 
species. The insect invasive species, we have talked quite a 
bit in this hearing about the emerald ash borer and the 
devastation, again, an invasive species and what that brings to 
community. So, it is significant.
    In addition to our State and Private Forestry program, 
which we prioritize invasive species, but it is always a 
prioritization. Invasives are getting more acute, and we are 
learning more and more about the environmental effects. We do a 
significant amount of research with our Forest Rangeland 
Research program. We invest nearly $8.5 million a year in 
research to these invasive insects, disease, and plants, and 
how we can combat them. So, what I can share with you, 
Congressman, is we will always prioritize to the highest need. 
With additional resources, it will be a good investment to work 
on in the next highest priorities.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Chief, and I want to invite you 
to accompany me as well at some point to the Upper Delaware and 
look at all of this Japanese knotweed that is all over the 
place.
    Ms. Christiansen. I would be delighted to do that. You bet, 
and so many great flowers as well.
    Mr. Cartwright. I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Cartwright, and thank you, 
Chief Christiansen. You have really been wonderful today. And 
we could ask you questions all day, but as you can see, it has 
been somewhat of a chaotic day with so many votes going on. So 
I apologize for that, all the comings and goings, but you guys 
have been wonderful, and I want to thank you so much for 
appearing before us today.
    And if there are no additional questions, this hearing is 
now adjourned. Thank you.
    Ms. Christiansen. Thank you. I really appreciate it.
    [Answers to submitted questions follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
       

                                           Tuesday, April 20, 2021.

   FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                               WITNESSES

HON. DEB HAALAND, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
RACHAEL TAYLOR, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF POLICY, 
    MANAGEMENT, AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
    Ms. Pingree. Good morning. This hearing will now come to 
order.
    As the hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few 
housekeeping matters.
    For today's meeting, the chair or the staff designated by 
the chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise. Members are responsible for muting and 
unmuting themselves. If you notice that you have not unmuted 
yourself, I will ask you if you would like the staff to unmute 
you. If you indicate approval by nodding, the staff will unmute 
your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will 
retain the balance of your time.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will 
turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the 
gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired. When 
your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will 
begin to recognize the next member.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order 
set forth in the House rules, beginning with the chair and 
ranking member, then members present at the time the hearing is 
called to order will be recognized in order of seniority, and 
finally members not present at the time the hearing is called 
to order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    Okay. That is the end of the technical part, so let us go 
ahead and start our hearing.
    I am so excited to welcome Secretary Deb Haaland to her 
first hearing since being confirmed as the 54th Secretary of 
the Interior and the first ever Native American to serve as a 
Cabinet Secretary. We are all very happy to congratulate our 
former colleague on assuming this important new role, and we 
are really looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the 
fiscal year 2022 budget request for the Department of Interior 
and other initiatives that the President has introduced.
    I want to mention that joining the Secretary is Rachael 
Taylor, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Policy, 
Management, and Budget. So just to note for our colleagues on 
the committee, Ms. Taylor was the Senate Appropriations clerk 
for the Interior Subcommittee. And, of course, as 
appropriators, we think that was an excellent move that 
Interior appointed her to this important position.
    So thank you so much and welcome, Rachael.
    Today's hearing will primarily focus on the President's 
fiscal year 2022 budget request for the Department of the 
Interior. As we all know, the administration is still 
developing their full request, but this budget blueprint makes 
it clear that President Biden is committed to long overdue 
investments in being good stewards of our planet and fighting 
the climate crisis.
    I am very encouraged about what has been outlined, 
specifically the return of science as the foundation for 
decisionmaking, the focus on climate change, and maintaining 
healthy ecosystems, all through the lens of environmental 
justice. I am also heartened by the executive orders in the 
American Jobs Plan that the President has initiated.
    From my perspective, this budget is a refreshing change 
from the draconian budgets the committee has received over the 
last 4 years. I am looking forward to learning more details 
about how the Department plans to get us back on the right 
track and to advance the important work of being a good steward 
of our Nation's natural and cultural resources for future 
generations. I am also interested in how you will strengthen 
collaboration across the Interior's bureaus and with other 
Federal agencies, NGOs, and stakeholders.
    We recognize the interrelatedness between health and well-
being of our species and habitats, the impact that 
anthropogenic actions have on clean air and clean water, the 
need to preserve biodiversity, and the other important 
ecosystem services we rely upon to ensure the economic 
prosperity and the American public's health and well-being.
    The President has laid out an ambitious agenda, and I hope 
today's discussion will be an opportunity to discuss the goals 
and objectives that you have established for the Department to 
support that agenda.
    I would now like to yield to our ranking member, Mr. Joyce, 
for his opening remarks.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    It is truly a privilege to join you in welcoming our 
distinguished witness, a former colleague, a member of the 
Pueblo of Laguna, and 54th Secretary of the Interior, the 
Honorable Deb Haaland. For many of us on this subcommittee 
dedicated to upholding the Federal Government's trust and 
treaty responsibilities to Native American Tribes, today is a 
special day. So glad to have you here.
    Let me also extend a warm welcome to your Principal Deputy 
Assistant Secretary, Ms. Rachael Taylor. Ms. Taylor is a highly 
respected former staffer to the Senate Interior's 
Appropriations Subcommittee, with a knack for finding 
bipartisan solutions to problems. Welcome.
    Secretary Haaland, conserving our Nation's natural 
resources, preserving our diverse cultural heritage, and 
upholding our trust responsibilities are goals we all share. 
While we will disagree on many of the details, we remain united 
in pursuit of these goals. May we begin this new working 
relationship united in the recognition of this shared 
commitment and as our disagreements are amplified in the media 
and threaten to divide us, I hope we can remember that we are 
in this together and that only by working together can we 
achieve long-lasting solutions.
    We worked well together during your time in Congress, and I 
am committed to continuing to do so. You have already begun to 
demonstrate the same commitment to me and my Republican 
colleagues here today, and I want to thank you for that.
    Former Interior Secretary Gale Norton recently said, 
``Every Interior Secretary takes office saying, `I want to do 
more for Indian Country.' '' And every Interior Secretary 
leaves office saying, I wish I had been able to do more for 
Indian Country.
    I am not sure yet, but I can imagine the same holds true 
for those who have held the gavel of this subcommittee. 
Because, as the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has reported, 
there is so much more to do. Madam Secretary, your proposal for 
a $600 million increase certainly does more. And I am guessing 
you would have done even more if you could have.
    Still, I think it is fair to say that you will find that 
several of us on this subcommittee are willing partners ready 
to follow your lead in Indian Country. I think what Secretary 
Norton was saying, though, is that the Interior Department, 
like this subcommittee, faces the reality of budget allocations 
handed down from above that force us to make choices with 
finite funding.
    Lately, the Federal Government has been spending money it 
does not have at such a rapid clip that I fear the term 
``finite funding'' may lose its meaning. Though much of it was 
justified to overcome the pandemic and subsequent economic 
devastation, my concern is that the spending has gotten so out 
of hand that people will begin to think it is normal.
    As we continue to restore our way of life and reignite our 
economy, it is imperative that the Federal Government finds a 
way to live within its means so that we do not have to saddle 
future generations with even more economic burden than what 
already awaits them.
    To do that, this Congress and this President must return to 
the practice of evaluating and funding programs based upon 
their performance. We must be willing to make the difficult but 
responsible choices as stewards of taxpayer dollars. The 
initial fiscal year 2022 Department of the Interior budget 
proposal before us today is at $17.4 billion, a $2.4 billion or 
16.3 percent increase. Because the administration has not yet 
released a comprehensive request, there is no indication of any 
program evaluations or offsets and it is unclear how much of 
the Department's $17.4 billion proposal is within this 
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
    In the absence of budget details, today's discussion will 
instead likely focus on the Department's policies. So, let me 
take a moment to focus on a few.
    Thursday marks another Earth Day. I count myself among 
Leader McCarthy and many other House Republicans who recognize 
that human activity is contributing to the changing climate. I 
believe we should be doing everything we can to help our 
constituents mitigate climate risk in their everyday lives, 
while we pursue realistic, free market, and innovative 
solutions to climate change that protect the interests of the 
American people, our communities, and our country's economic 
well-being.
    The U.S. and most of the world are dependent upon fossil 
energy for the foreseeable future, whether people like it or 
not. So, I urge you not to lock America out from the domestic 
energy and minerals it needs for a smooth transition to a 
cleaner energy future.
    Top-down policies that force hardship on Americans never 
works when the costs outweigh the benefits in their everyday 
lives, and we need only to look at the pandemic for recent 
examples. The President set a goal ``to encourage broad 
participation'' in ``conserving at least 30 percent of our 
lands and waters by 2030.'' I am concerned by what I am hearing 
from outside interests about locking up Federal lands from 
sustainable, responsible use. I am also concerned that a 
singular focus on acreage shifts the conversation to open lands 
out West and misses the broader point.
    All of us can participate in conservation. Programs like 
Homegrown National Park and others show that an increasing 
number of people in urban and suburban areas want to be part of 
the solution. I urge you to invite them into the 30-by-30 
initiative.
    Finally, in northeast Ohio, the Great Lakes are our 
lifeblood. From preventing the spread of invasive carp to 
preventing harmful algal blooms to restoring resilient coastal 
habitats, there are several important programs within your 
purview that are of vital importance to my district. I hope we 
can work on these together. I invite you to come visit and see 
how these programs are making a difference.
    Thank you again for being here today, Secretary Haaland. I 
look forward to our discussion. And I also want to pass on 
greetings from Representative Davis, who I had breakfast with 
this morning, who also said that he is honored that you are in 
your position as Secretary.
    With that, thank you, Chair Pingree. I yield back.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Ranking Member Joyce.
    And I would now love to recognize Secretary Haaland for her 
opening remarks.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much.
    Chair Pingree, Ranking Member Joyce, Members of the 
Subcommittee, it is an honor and privilege for me to be here 
with you today on behalf of the Department of the Interior.
    It is deeply meaningful for me as the first Native American 
Cabinet Secretary to be here on the ancestral homelands of the 
Anacostan and Piscataway people, speaking before this 
subcommittee. It also means a tremendous amount to me that the 
first hearing since my confirmation is before you, my former 
colleagues from the House of Representatives. I understand the 
important role that all of you play in the success of the 
Department of the Interior and our many programs.
    I want to particularly recognize the work that you have 
done on a bipartisan basis to lead the way on priorities like 
the Great American Outdoors Act and funding Tribal programs. 
Your leadership has made a real difference in the lives of 
Native Americans and Alaska Natives in communities across our 
country.
    I am here today to roll up my sleeves to work with you as a 
partner now on this side of the legislative process and help to 
build upon your passion and hard work. I want us to work 
together to make sure that the Department is ready to meet the 
challenges we have in front of us, like the existential threat 
of climate change and the effects it has on our country. The 
President has laid out a clear vision for a whole-of-government 
approach to addressing the ongoing climate crisis and 
challenged the Department to play a leadership role in meeting 
this moment.
    On Friday, I issued two secretarial orders, one to 
prioritize action on climate change and establish a 
departmental climate task force, the other to rescind a number 
of policies from the previous administration that favored 
energy production at the expense of other priorities. My hope 
is that these orders will begin to restore balance to how the 
Department makes land management decisions, elevate the role of 
science, and reaffirm the importance of stakeholder engagement 
and environmental justice.
    Addressing the climate crisis is also a recurrent theme in 
the President's discretionary request for 2022. The budget 
before the subcommittee today reflects the President's 
ambitious vision to lift up the Nation in this unprecedented 
time. By addressing the climate crisis, we will provide much 
needed resources to Tribal nations, invest in conservation of 
public lands and waters, advance environmental justice, 
recognize the important role of science, and chart a path 
toward a clean energy future for all Americans.
    The President's 2022 budget request proposes a total of 
$17.4 billion for the Department of the Interior, a $2.4 
billion or 16 percent increase above current funding levels. 
Specifically, the President's proposal invests in America with 
$4 billion, a $600 million increase to honor and strengthen our 
commitments to Tribal nations; more than $450 million to 
remediate orphaned oil and gas wells and reclaim abandoned 
mines on Federal and non-Federal lands, bringing thousands of 
jobs to communities across the country; investments to promote 
racial justice inequity in underserved communities, including a 
National Park Service voting rights center project at the Selma 
Interpretive Center, honoring the legacy of civil rights 
leaders including the late, dear Representative John Lewis; a 
$550 million increase to accelerate clean energy deployment and 
expand climate adaptation and ecosystem resilience on our 
public lands; $200 million in climate-related science to better 
understand climate impacts and how best to mitigate, adapt, and 
increase resilience in our communities; a $200 million increase 
for science-driven conservation to manage the Nation's natural 
resources in line with America's climate biodiversity and clean 
energy needs; and a $100 million increase to address the 
growing threat of wildfire through our Hazardous Fuels and 
Burned Area Rehabilitation Programs, which is especially 
important as we face drought in the West like we will during 
this fire season.
    Complementing this request is the American Jobs Plan, a 
longer-term strategy to create millions of good-paying jobs, 
rebuild our country's infrastructure, and position America to 
outcompete others on the global stage.
    We must use every lever at our disposal to make necessary 
progress. This Nation has the opportunity of a lifetime to 
strengthen our country, fight climate change, and improve our 
way of life for generations to come. To build back better, we 
need both a strong annual budget for the Department and the 
President's jobs plan. I look forward to working with each of 
you to achieve these important goals. I commit to you that I 
will continue to honor and respect the role of this 
Subcommittee with a confident expectation that, working 
together, we can accomplish great things on behalf of the 
American people.
    And just like you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member Joyce, I 
am pleased to be joined this morning by Rachael Taylor, 
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Policy, Management, and 
Budget. She is here to help out with some details, if 
necessary.
    This concludes my opening remarks. Thank you again for 
having me, and I am very happy to answer any questions that any 
of you have.
    [The statement of Secretary Haaland follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Ms. Pingree. Well, thank you so much, Madam Secretary. We 
are so pleased to have both of you in front of our committee, 
and thank you for your opening remarks.
    I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes to begin the 
questions.
    So I just want to reiterate, we are so pleased to have you 
in this role, and we are really looking forward as a committee 
in a bipartisan way working together with you in this 
partnership. So this relationship between the committee and 
your department is a high priority for us, and thank you for 
being with us today.
    I am going to dig in on biodiversity and climate change and 
let you talk a little bit more about that. You have certainly 
taken on an awesome responsibility at a very challenging time 
for our country and for our planet, and we know the enormous 
challenges that are confronting us with climate change, the 
impact on our air, our water, our land, and our communities in 
particular and that there is a lot of work to be done.
    I have also been very concerned and, frankly, just shocked 
when I read the May 2019 United Nations report about the 
decline in species, over 1 million species facing extinction. 
Scientists have also told us that 2.9 billion birds have been 
lost over the past five decades. I know that the President's 
budget includes another $550 million over the 2021 enacted 
level to decrease pollution, accelerate clean energy 
development, expand efforts around climate adaptation, and 
ecosystem resilience.
    So I would love to hear a little bit more about the work 
that you intend to do to protect and sustain biodiversity on 
our public lands, to mitigate for those changes, and also how 
you are thinking about an inclusive, equitable climate and 
conservation agenda.
    So that is a lot of stuff to cover, but go for it.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Chairwoman.
    And absolutely this problem is big. It is--it is so big 
that it is going to take a lot of different programs and tools 
to tackle it. And I think that it would be an important 
investment in the long-term resilience of our economy and well-
being for communities across the country.
    And basically, we know that we need to strengthen the 
health and resilience of our land, water, and ecosystems, the 
habitats that those species that you are talking about rely on. 
That is absolutely important with drought in the West. As I 
mentioned in my opening remarks, some of those habitats are 
disappearing as we speak.
    So, we are working hard to deploy clean energy 
alternatives. The President's plan to create jobs through the 
Civilian Climate Corps will be an amazing opportunity for folks 
to enter this space, if they haven't had opportunities like 
that before, creating benefits for generations to come. We are 
empowering folks who will care about our environment and carry 
this work on into the future, and the big investments in 
science, applying science to help communities plan and respond 
to drought, floods, extreme weather, and all of those issues.
    A proactive forest and rangeland management program to 
reduce the wildfire risk is also in the plans. And wildfire, of 
course, in and of itself destroys that habitat again.
    So, we have many, many opportunities with the budget, with 
the President's Jobs Plan to make these things a reality, and 
we are going to get to work to make sure that it happens.
    And, of course, always happy to continue this conversation 
with you anytime.
    Ms. Pingree. Great. Thank you. I think this will be an 
ongoing conversation as we tackle the budget for these many 
important issues.
    Last week, you issued a secretarial order establishing a 
climate task force, which seems like an important component. 
How do you envision the task force operating? How is it going 
to help the Department meet its commitments under the executive 
order that the President signed? Can you tell us a little more 
about that?
    Secretary Haaland. Of course. Part of the President's 
priorities since he came into office is an all-of-government 
approach. Yes, the DOI has important obligations to our 
climate, to our land and waters, but we also feel that many 
other departments can do their part in ensuring this. We will 
be happy to have more conversations with you about that as 
well, but I think it is an exciting time in this administration 
to put priorities like climate and science at the top.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
    I will yield back the small balance of my time, and happy 
to recognize Ranking Member Joyce for 5 minutes for his 
questions.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    As a former prosecutor and cofounder of the Bipartisan Task 
Force to End Sexual Violence, I am encouraged by your recent 
announcement to form a new unit within the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs Office of Justice Services to provide leadership and 
direction for work involving missing and murdered American 
Indians and Alaska Natives.
    While serving in the House, you provided the task force 
with critical insight on steps Congress should take to address 
the persistently high rates of violence experienced by Native 
women and men. I was also proud to cosponsor your legislation, 
the Not Invisible Act, during the 116th Congress. That bill, 
now law, increases the coordination of efforts to reduce 
violent crime within Indian lands and against Indians.
    Under the bill, the Department must designate an official 
within the Bureau of Indian Affairs to coordinate prevention 
efforts, grants, and programs related to missing Indians and 
the murder and human trafficking of Indians. I am pleased to 
see that you have continued doing this important work at the 
Department, given it remains a shared priority and this 
subcommittee has been supporting the Operation Lady Justice 
initiative started during the previous administration.
    What parts of Operation Lady Justice have been working 
well, and where do you see room for improvement that led you to 
establishing this new unit?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Ranking Member Joyce. And 
thank you so much for your attention, and I am grateful for the 
support that you gave me on this issue when I was in Congress 
and I know that your experience can help us to move forward in 
this space.
    Operation Lady Justice turned attention to this important 
program. And there has been a lot of engagement across the 
government. We felt that it was important for this unit to 
provide leadership so that everyone is moving in the same 
direction. The new unit will improve coordination within and 
outside of the BIA to make sure that we are not missing 
anything, that we are making a bigger tent to ensure that we 
are not missing a thing on this issue.
    As you know, this is an issue that has been going on for 
500 years, since Europeans came to this continent. And I think 
that it's going to take a lot more effort. You know, we've 
started to scratch the surface and will continue digging 
deeper. And so, thank you again for your support.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
    What is the proposed fiscal year 2022 budget for this work, 
and are there other pieces in the FBI or other agencies budgets 
that we should be funding to help you succeed?
    Secretary Haaland. Well, I know that when Operation Lady 
Justice was first created, there was a $1 million budget, and I 
believe we are increasing that by $5 million this year. We will 
absolutely get you all the details you would like for the 
record. And, yes, I feel like with that added budget and the 
leadership of the Justice Services that we will be able to make 
some inroads and really make a difference for communities 
across the country.
    Mr. Joyce. That is great.
    Another question. The opioid epidemic has been affecting 
every person in households across the country, and the COVID-19 
pandemic has made the situation worse, unfortunately. That is 
why Representative Kilmer and I are working hard together to 
pass our bill, H.R. 654, the Drug-Free Communities Pandemic 
Relief Act. The situation is perhaps more dire in Indian 
Country than anywhere else, which is why the subcommittee has 
strongly supported the Department's Joint Opioid Reduction Task 
Force begun under the previous administration and led by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
    Last year, the task force led 14 operations across seven 
States, resulting in more than 313 arrests and the seizure of 
more than 2,600 pounds of illegal narcotics with an estimated 
street value of near $20 million, more than double the price 
tag from the previous year.
    Do you intend to keep the task force going during your 
tenure? And if so, what additional recourses are needed to 
build on last year's success?
    Secretary Haaland. Absolutely. The task force is part of 
the government-wide efforts targeting this problem. And we know 
that in terms of successes, the BIA's K-9 teams, for example, 
have been very effective in disrupting drug trafficking routes. 
We are going to keep up the work on this issue and appreciate 
your support on that as well.
    This terrible problem continues to plague our community. So 
we will keep building on the efforts of the task force and make 
sure that we are doing everything we need to.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    And, Madam Chair, I have no time to yield back.
    Ms. Pingree. You timed that so exquisitely well, just to 
the last second.
    So I am pleased to recognize Representative Kilmer for his 
5 minutes for questions.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you, Madam Secretary, for being with us today, 
and congratulations on your confirmation. It is a humbling 
moment to recognize our Nation's first Native American 
Secretary of the Interior and someone many of us are pleased to 
and proud to consider a friend.
    It should come as no surprise that I want to touch on a 
subject that I know we share a deep commitment to and that is 
ensuring that the Federal Government finally fulfills its unmet 
treaty and trust responsibilities to Native American 
communities. I am so grateful for your longstanding partnership 
on advancing this essential priority, certainly as my colleague 
in the House and throughout your leadership as the former co-
chair of the Congressional Native American Caucus. And I know 
this will remain a key priority for you in your new role.
    As you know, in 2003, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
issued a report titled ``A Quiet Crisis: Federal Funding and 
Unmet Needs in Indian Country,'' that documented the failures 
and outlined clear actions the Federal Government needs to take 
in order to meet its obligations.
    In 2015, I led an effort in Congress, along with several of 
my colleagues on this subcommittee, to call on the Commission 
on Civil Rights to publish an update to this report to 
determine whether any progress had actually been made. And 3 
years later, the Commission published its update, and to ensure 
that there was no confusion about their findings, they titled 
the report ``Broken Promises: Continuing Federal Funding 
Shortfall for Native Americans.'' Indefensibly, almost nothing 
had changed.
    When the Broken Promises report was published, I made a 
commitment to then-president Fawn Sharp with the Quinault 
Indian Nation, who first drew my attention to the Quiet Crisis 
report and called for leadership in updating this report, as 
well as the 10 other Tribal leaders that I have the honor of 
representing, that I would not let those recommendations fall 
on deaf ears again.
    In my view, Congress has a moral and a legal obligation to 
fulfill the promises made to Indian Country, and I am so 
grateful for your shared commitment to achieving that goal. In 
fact, my colleague, Representative Simpson, and I led a letter 
signed by many of the members sitting here today to President 
Biden last month, calling on him to ensure his fiscal year 2022 
budget reflected these priorities. And I am encouraged to see 
that the President's budgets blueprint includes $4 billion, a 
more than $600 million increase over current levels, to honor 
our Nation's commitment to Native American communities.
    But I know the decades-long pattern of systemic funding 
shortfalls outlined by the Commission on Civil Rights can't be 
resolved in a single fiscal year. So I would love to hear from 
you, one, about how your agency and the Biden administration 
plan to work with Congress toward fulfilling these long overdue 
promises. And, two, I am especially eager to hear how your 
agency will support Tribal efforts to combat the growing threat 
caused by climate change, including sea level rise and more 
frequent and severe coastal hazards, which are already forcing 
many Tribes certainly in my region to abandon sacred sites and 
homelands that they have occupied since time immemorial in 
order to move to higher ground.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much, Congressman, you 
championing these issues for such a long time. It means a 
tremendous amount to me personally as well.
    So, yes, we have a more than $600 million increase to 
uphold U.S. treaty and trust responsibility and to empower 
Tribal Nations to govern their own communities. I think one of 
the biggest issues of President Biden is his priority to ensure 
that Tribal consultation is an all-of-government approach. It 
is not checking the box. It is not texting a Tribal leader 2 
hours before a big decision is made. It is sitting down. It is 
meeting them in their space to make sure that we are talking 
about the issues that they care about, and there is no other 
way to do this than to truly engage.
    And I am very proud to be a part of this administration who 
has made that commitment to Indian Country like never before. 
And I feel very confident that if we are talking to Tribes, if 
we are talking to them about sacred sites, about funding, about 
education and healthcare and broadband internet service and 
water, for heaven's sake, running water to some of these 
places, that there is no doubt we are going to know fully what 
Indian Country needs to move forward. They deserve 
opportunities like every community in this country, and we are 
committed to that.
    I appreciate you and the work you have done. And we realize 
that it is not just going to be one administration that 
essentially cures this issue once and for all, but we are going 
to do our best to make sure that we document what it is that 
Tribes need and move in that direction and move in that 
direction for a very long time. So, we are going to do our 
best.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    And thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you.
    I am pleased to recognize Mr. Simpson for 5 minutes for his 
questions.
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    I had to jump out of my chair there to get ready for this.
    Madam Secretary, thank you for being here today. And thank 
you for our conversation that we had yesterday. I find that 
there are many things that we agree with and will work together 
in harmony, trying to enact, whether it is, as you have heard, 
this committee's commitment to trying to meet our treaty 
obligations with our Indian brothers and sisters. Whether it is 
on Indian Health Services or Indian education or Tribal 
justice, this committee has worked in a bipartisan fashion, 
regardless of the chairman, over the last--as long as I have 
been on this committee now I guess for 20 years, 21 years, 
something like that. We have worked in a bipartisan fashion, as 
I said. And I look forward to working with you on those issues.
    Also, the Great American Outdoors Act, the implementation 
of that act, we have talked about wildfires and the need to try 
to reduce these rangeland wildfires that are the biggest threat 
to sage-grouse habitat in the West, and as well as giving the 
11 States in the West the chance to have their conservation 
plans work with sage-grouse--they are working with sage-
grouse--and trying to prevent the listing of that, because the 
States want sage-grouse not to be listed and to be healthy 
populations as much as anybody does. So working with States and 
the private landowners is very important.
    But much of the conversation that we have had so far has 
been on climate change and rightfully so, something I agree 
with, something that needs to be addressed, that we have been 
working on for a number of years. But there are--and you 
mentioned it will direct our land management decisions and 
decisions we make in this department.
    One of the things that hasn't been talked about when we 
talk about climate change is this, and I am going to bring this 
up. I apologize for not having brought it up yesterday when we 
had our conversation, and maybe you will want to comment on it 
or maybe it is something that you will take for advice and we 
can work on together, but I look forward to working with you on 
this.
    And that is the fact that, as we move toward a greener 
economy, if you will, bringing in--or reducing our dependence 
on fossil and fossil fuels and moving to things like solar and 
wind and battery technologies and so forth, as we green our 
economy and try to reduce carbon emissions, it also brings up 
some challenges. And one of those that I have been studying 
over the last while is the fact that these new technologies 
require access to critical minerals and rare earths. The fact 
that we import many, many, in fact, far too many of our rare 
earth and critical minerals from sources overseas and 
oftentimes from countries that don't really care for us, that 
we are trade advisor--they are our trade adversaries and as 
well as others. But these rare earths and critical minerals are 
vital to our national defense, as well as greening this 
economy.
    We have sufficient supplies of these rare earths in the 
United States but, unfortunately, because of restrictions, 
making it difficult to get permitting for mining some of these 
resources, we have made it almost impossible to access these 
minerals in the United States and, consequently, we are 
dependent on foreign countries for supplying a lot of these 
critical materials.
    I want to work with you to make sure that we can have--we 
can improve our access on our public lands, because with the 
Federal estate and the millions of acres that you are going to 
be managing, many of those rare earths are found on Federal 
lands, but to make sure that we do it in an environmentally 
responsible manner. When you talk about mining, you know, 
everybody kind of goes, oh, mining is not a good thing. We have 
kind of gotten away from it in the United States. I would tell 
you that it is vitally important economically to this country.
    And so you can--you know, the old days of mining where you 
take a firehose and blow away the side of a mountain and then 
sort out the minerals, those are gone. Mining today is much 
different than it was in years past and we can do it 
environmentally, safely, but we have to have access to some of 
those mineral deposits in this country and on our Federal 
lands.
    So that is an issue I want to work with you on to make sure 
that we can improve our mining laws and our permitting access 
for mining, to access these critical minerals that are going to 
be depend--that are going to be critical as we move into a 
greener economy.
    So if you want to comment on that, fine. You have got 2 
seconds left.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you. Thank you very much, 
Congressman.
    First, I want to thank you for your leadership on the Great 
American Outdoors Act. Second, the Department and the President 
recognize the importance of critical minerals. And, yes, we 
have to have development. And as you said, it needs to be 
environmentally responsible. We need to have an eye toward 
protecting workers and all of those issues that we know we are 
good at. I would love to visit with you more, and our door will 
be open. I look forward to further conversations about it and 
happy to go into detail on the record.
    Mr. Simpson. I appreciate it. Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Simpson.
    Pleased to recognize Representative Lee for her 5 minutes 
for questions.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you and 
the Ranking Member Joyce for this hearing.
    And it is an honor to be with my colleague, former 
colleague, Deb Haaland, as the Secretary of the Interior. It is 
great to see you again, and thank you and Ms. Taylor for being 
here today.
    As you know, over 80 percent of my home State of Nevada is 
Federal lands. This is the highest proportion in the Nation, 
and of that land, the vast majority of it is managed by the 
Bureau of Land Management. And the budget request submitted 
today mentions rebuilding the core functions and the capacity 
at the Department of Interior as a top priority. But more 
specifically, the prior administration's move to move the BLM 
headquarters from Washington, DC to Grand Junction resulted in 
the loss of 287 out of 328 headquartered employees. That is an 
87 percent loss of staff, significant loss of institutional 
memory and experience for the Bureau.
    Secretary Haaland, are you able to provide an update on the 
current number of vacancies both at the BLM headquarters and at 
field offices around the country?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. Yes, 
close to 300 positions were impacted during that move, and we 
know that it was an upset. And, first of all, I should also say 
that, in light of that, 90 percent of those positions for BLM 
were actually outside of D.C. So we know that it has been an 
issue. We are assessing the impacts of the structural changes 
that were made to BLM. And I want you to know that since I have 
been here, career staff have been a priority for me, their 
morale, making sure that we express our appreciation. We have 
an amazing team of professionals here at the Department.
    And we will identify those positions. Actually, less than 
half of the positions of the 300 were vacated, and some remain 
vacant to this day. So we are working on rectifying the 
institutional memory and experience losses. And just know that 
it is a priority for us, especially during this time of drought 
and climate change and all the other issues that are happening 
specifically across the West.
    We have had a townhall already with BLM employees. I am 
committed to treating them with respect, and we are happy to 
continue this conversation with you as we move forward and make 
the changes that we need.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you. Yeah, this is an incredibly important 
issue in my home State, given that BLM sort of is the 
gatekeeper for any type of land use decisions being made there. 
So appreciate the focus on that.
    You know, during your hearing, your confirmation hearing, 
you said that you were examining whether or not to move the 
headquarters back to D.C. Have you developed any criteria to 
facilitate your decision on--or facilitate that decision?
    Secretary Haaland. We are still gathering information 
currently, Congresswoman. And when we begin to answer those 
hard questions, we will absolutely loop you in on those 
decisions as they are being made. You know it was sort of an 
upset when they moved across the country, and the last thing we 
want to do is cause that again. So we are being very careful 
about how we are approaching it. But certainly the first step 
was ensuring that we are communicating with the career staff to 
assess how they feel about it, and we will get some of that 
information in soon and certainly be in touch with you about 
that.
    Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
    Just one other thing. As you know, the Southern Nevada 
Public Land Management Act--it is also called SNPLMA in its 
short form--has been a success story of Federal-State 
collaboration on land use management. Since its inception in 
1998, SNPLMA has generated $4.1 billion for the preservation, 
acquisition, and maintenance of precious Federal lands in 
Nevada. It has been responsible for protecting lands around Red 
Rock Canyon, creating visitor-friendly walking trails in our 
wilderness area, and providing critical capital improvements.
    Can you commit to keeping the SNPLMA fund dedicated as a 
special account in the Treasury, and can you speak to your 
expectation on the next opening of the next round of money?
    Secretary Haaland. I appreciate that question. We will 
absolutely include this in our details in the record. We 
appreciate your leadership on this issue. It is working. And so 
I don't intend to upset anything that is working. So we 
appreciate that, and we will provide more details as we move 
forward.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you.
    And I am over my time. Thank you.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Ms. Lee.
    Pleased to recognize Mr. Stewart for 5 minutes for his 
questions.
    Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And, Madam Secretary, again, thank you for being with us. 
Thanks for your leadership. We are proud and want to support 
you.
    Thank you for coming out to Utah last week. It was great to 
see you in one of the most beautiful parts of our Nation. And 
thank you for your commitment to working with a delegation and 
with the governor's office as you look at the monuments. We 
appreciated your time there.
    Very quickly, I know that Mrs. Lee has concerns or at least 
I suppose that she does based on her question about the 
location of the BLM headquarters, and I would just add very 
quickly that, I mean, my view and I think this is--I am not the 
only one that feels this way, but I think that BLM is best 
served when the leadership is living in the location of which 
they have great responsibility. And we think there is real 
advantages in having that leadership out West, as they have 
such stewardship over enormous swaths of land in the West, as 
you know from your own State, and has already been expressed 
for Nevada and Utah as well.
    One thing I want to mention, and I am not going to have a 
question, at least not directly, but just to give you some 
background. When I came to Congress, I didn't know that I would 
become involved with the Wild Horse and Burro as much as I 
have. I have become kind of the horse guy, among other things, 
and I am a little bit of a one-trick pony on this, if you will, 
in the sense that--no pun intended, by the way. It is just this 
has become very important.
    And, Secretary, I know that you know this, because Nevada 
has a huge problem with overpopulation of horses. We have got, 
you know, we think 80,000 of these animals out on the range. 
The range is designed to support or able to support about 
27,000. We know the number this year is going to be over 
100,000 wild horses, and that doesn't include the 35,000 or so 
that are kept in pastures.
    And I wish I could show you this coalition that we have put 
together over the last 5 years. I want to read you just a few 
of them: Humane Society, the Return To Freedom-Wild Horse 
Conservation, the national Horse and Burro management group, 
the National Cattlemen's, the American Mustang, National Farm 
Bureau. I mean, we have got an incredibly diverse coalition 
here of people who have decided there is one thing we hold in 
common, and that is we love these animals and we want to 
protect them, and to starve them to death on the range is not 
compassionate, nor is it humane.
    And we, after an intense effort, got $35 million from 
Department of Interior, BLM last year, to actually fix this 
problem. We are hoping for $50 million this year.
    And I would just ask briefly if you would be willing to 
support that budget request and help us with actually fix 
these--this problem on the range with our wild horses and 
burros.
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, thank you. And thank you 
again for your hospitality when I was in Utah.
    I really want to thank this Subcommittee for the leadership 
on this issue. I know that so many of you care deeply about 
this. We are also, agreement with the plan of the previous 
administration. We know that there is not enough habitat for 
that many animals when they are sharing it with many, many 
other species. And so we are going to absolutely let the 
science guide us, as well as understanding the ecological 
impacts to all the animals.
    So thank you. We will absolutely be in touch with you. Know 
that it is a priority for us as it is for you.
    Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Secretary. I really appreciate 
that.
    And I am going to mention one other thing and then ask one 
more question. In the 30 by 30 rule, I mean, that scares the 
life out of those of us from the West. Again, Madam Secretary, 
as I know you will appreciate, coming from the West, and our 
fear is that 440 million acres in the next 10 years, and if 
history proves, you know, any guide, we know that much of that 
land is going to be taken from the West. And, again, I am not 
going to ask a question. I would like to hit one other topic, 
but just ask for your consideration of the disproportionate 
effect that that has on western States.
    One final question, if I could, Madam Secretary. And you 
are aware in the 116th Congress we passed a great piece of 
legislation named after someone that I think we both admire, 
the John D. Dingell Conservation, Management, and Recreation 
Act. To review what it does, it sets forth so you have an 
expanded access of opportunities for hunting, recreational 
shooting, fishing, the things that we enjoy who live in the 
West.
    Please share with us, if you would, how the President's 
fiscal year 2022 budget demonstrates his commitment to this 
bipartisan and important piece of legislation. How can we 
assure that that legislation will be implemented in--it is 
historic and, again, bipartisan, but it is no good unless it is 
implemented. Could you share how that--your administration or 
the President's administration will do that?
    Secretary Haaland. Well, first of all, I will just say that 
we are absolutely in support of outdoor recreation of that 
nature. I am from New Mexico. I am from a Pueblo household. I 
understand that, and we want to absolutely support it.
    I would really love to just give Rachael Taylor an 
opportunity to provide some details on this, if I may.
    Ms. Taylor. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    And thank you so much for the question. I think the 
importance of the legislation passed through the Dingell Act 
and other major pieces of legislation, like the Great American 
Outdoors Act, speak to the need of the Department to balance 
multiple equities when it is allocating funds, and that 
includes recreation access the Secretary mentioned, the respect 
for hunting and angling, the importance of access for 
backcountry, for all kinds of important work to be outside.
    We are going to be looking at our land acquisition budget, 
and the Secretary will be submitting that as part of the 
President's budget request. That would include both Federal 
land acquisition and grants for States. We are very excited to 
be able to tell a bigger story when the President submits his 
budget and expect to be back with you to fill in some of the 
details very soon.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Stewart. All right. Ms. Taylor, thank you.
    And my time has expired. But, Secretary, whether New 
Mexico, Utah, Nevada, I mean, the western States, we have much 
in common, much of the same concerns, we look forward to 
working with you. And thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
    Mr. Harder, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your 
questions.
    Mr. Harder. Thank you, Chair, for holding this hearing.
    And thank you to Secretary Haaland for attending it. I 
can't tell you how much it warms my heart to see you sitting in 
that chair. We miss you in the House, but I am so excited to 
see your work in your new role.
    I want to focus on the importance of water storage across 
the western United States, especially in a year like this one 
when we are dealing with a drought. The last 7 years are the 
seven hottest years on record for California. Many of our 
reservoirs are currently below historical averages due to a 
lack of strong winter storms and below average snowpack at only 
61 percent of the historical average in the Sierra Nevada 
mountains.
    According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, 77 percent of 
California, including Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties that 
I represent, are experiencing severe drought where conditions 
expect a fire season that is longer and more intense, increased 
water and decreased river flows, impacting reservoir 
capacities. The reality is drought is here. We no longer have 
the option of preparing for it. We must address it. And in the 
boom-and-bust cycle of water, the best way to prepare for the 
dry years like this one is to store water in the wet years.
    In my district, we have a particularly important water 
project which was authorized in the WIND Act, the Del Puerto 
Canyon Reservoir, as well as the conveyance project that is 
also essential. It is my top priority in office to help advance 
these desperately needed projects.
    So, Secretary Haaland, I would love to hear from you, how 
will your department's budget support investments in water 
infrastructure especially in water storage in the western U.S.?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much, Congressman. And, 
yes, this is an important issue for us too. And we recognize 
that this drought year is like no other. There is just not 
enough water to go--to go around. And so I appreciate that you 
championed the science initiative on snowpack measurement to 
better predict these water supplies. That is very important, 
and I feel all of us need to work together and we are happy to 
take your ideas and see how we can work with them.
    It is going to take a lot of coordination. We are in close 
touch with States, western States, regarding the drought and 
water issues, and I would be so happy to provide details on 
this issue at a later time on the record and certainly want to 
continue to have conversations about your ideas and how we can 
better prepare for months or years when we don't have enough 
water.
    Mr. Harder. Thank you.
    While I understand the purpose of this hearing is to 
discuss the fiscal year 2022 budget, I want to register my 
strong interest in the Department's submission of storage 
projects and the respective funding levels in wind. Do you have 
a sense of how your recommendations differ from the previous 
administration's, and when do you expect to submit those 
recommendations?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much. As Rachael mentioned 
earlier, the President's budget details are not quite out yet, 
but they will be very soon. And as soon as they are out, you 
will absolutely know about those. And we appreciate all of your 
support on those issues.
    I believe very strongly that President Biden is working in 
his request to have an eye on the future while also keeping our 
other eye on the fact that we have to do catch-up on a lot of 
things. And not only that, climate change is wreaking havoc in 
so many areas on wildlife habitats and everything imaginable.
    So I look forward to submitting that full budget when the 
time comes and know that the issues that you have mentioned 
today are issues that we care about as well and look forward to 
working with you as time goes on.
    Mr. Harder. Wonderful. Well, thank you so much for that.
    I will just say in closing that I really look forward to 
following up, to briefing you on two projects that are very 
critical to my district, the Del Puerto Canyon project, as well 
as the Patterson conveyance project. I think those will go a 
long way towards helping us mitigate some of the drought 
conditions that we are facing in California, and I look forward 
to working with your office and hope that they are reflected in 
the budget submissions.
    Thank you so much for coming. It is so good to see you.
    And with that, I yield back to Chair Pingree.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you for your questions, Mr. Harder.
    I am going to recognize Mr. Amodei. And I see the full 
committee chair has joined us, and we will go to Representative 
DeLauro after Mr. Amodei.
    So, Mr. Amodei, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Good to see you, Madam Secretary. Look forward to working 
with you, and I--as we discussed yesterday, I have got some 
areas that I want to kind of go through your liaison and talk 
with you directly about that are kind of major jurisdictional 
areas.
    So I would kind of like to just say the first one I would--
my request is, is that we make the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
realty operations a secretarial priority. And you say, well, 
what are you saying? We have been working at it for a while to 
cure the situation where members of Tribes are given property 
and then it takes years--and I am not talking 2 or 3--for that 
to grind through the BIA realty process so those people can 
treat the property as their own.
    For instance, if they want to build a house on that 
property, to get a loan, they have to prove that they own it. 
And that requires action from BIA's realty division.
    I will just say that in preparation for this, our 
experience has been that that is a subject which needs 
secretarial authority so that Native American people who are 
granted property through the appropriate processes actually get 
the title, in some cases, you know, sooner than a decade and 
beyond. So I will leave it at that for that.
    Also, I want to follow up on my colleague from Nevada's 
discussion about personnel, and that is it is kind of a ground-
level operations thing but, quite frankly, realty staffing at 
BLM is something that needs some attention from your incoming 
director in terms of just keeping existing slots filled so that 
they can process in accordance with whatever the applicable 
rules and regulations are, requests and those sort of actions, 
which, quite frankly--and I know COVID's had an effect on that. 
So I am, you know--but when the positions are empty and you 
have a State, for instance, like Nevada, which is one of the 
most urbanized States in the Nation, your Las Vegas district 
office and your Carson City district office's realty sections 
are kind of busy places to work.
    And so when there are slots--and it is not like you just go 
out and hire somebody. It takes a while to bring those people 
on and train them. Anyhow, that needs--that is another area 
that is in need of pretty constant--or it needs some attention 
where it hasn't had it perhaps in the past. And that is not 
your State directors' or your district managers' fault. I think 
they need some more tools to do that, which also brings us to 
my colleague, Congresswoman Lee's, comments.
    The previous administration, when it comes to the Southern 
Nevada Public Land Management Act, had a habit of sweeping the 
SNPLMA accounts for purposes of budget submission. So Ms. 
Taylor might want to take a note of this. It would sure be 
nice, since it is against the current law to do so, if this 
administration did not do what the last administration did, 
which is at least on a budget submittal, in order to make the 
budget balance, they swept the SNPLMA BLM Interior accounts for 
purposes of balancing them.
    Also, there has been much talk about abandoned mines, which 
is a legitimate thing. I would hope that when that subject 
comes to Nevada, that perhaps you take a scalpel instead of 
something larger and might even use that as a model because, 
quite frankly, we have got a very successful program in Nevada. 
And so I would submit it ain't broke. It has been supported by 
the industry, and the State is working well. So I would ask 
that before we write a prescription for Nevada and public 
lands, that we probably ought to take a close look at what the 
patient really looks like in Nevada.
    And then finally on the issue of fuels, everybody talks 
about fuels, which they should, and even in Nevada where a lot 
of people go, well, you know, you are a little short on trees 
there, even the sagebrush steppe ecosystem is at least a 50-
year ecosystem which it takes to regenerate after it has been 
burned.
    So when we talk about endangered species and habitat loss 
and stuff like that, it is no secret to anybody that it has 
been a pretty tough neighborhood in the Great Basin in general 
with wildfires lately. And so I think to concentrate on 
restoration of those lands, because it is a long process, but 
we need to start talking about how we put those lands back in 
the inventory, if you will, and then that has an impact on what 
we are doing for our ecosystems for endangered species.
    All of these things are things that I appreciate your 
gracious offer to take up with on--with you, not on committee 
time, and so I will look forward to that. We will be reaching 
out to you on those various topics to schedule those, and thank 
you for your graciousness in the offer.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Amodei.
    We will now recognize the full committee chair, 
Representative DeLauro.
    Chair DeLauro, thank you so much for joining us.
    The Chair. Thank you. Thank you to you, Chair Pingree, and 
to Ranking Member Joyce.
    And what music to our ears. Madam Secretary Haaland, how 
wonderful it is to welcome you to the Appropriations Committee. 
And we are all so excited about your historic nomination, 54th 
Secretary of the Interior, and really your passion on so many 
issues--you know, honoring the commitment to Tribal nations, 
looking at global climate change, resiliency to our country's 
food system. What a pleasure it was to work with you in the 
House, and I treasure that friendship and look forward to 
continuing our work together in the administration.
    I am going to try to get in two questions.
    Your testimony talked about an additional $550 million 
included for discretionary requests for tackling climate change 
with our Nation's public lands. The Department manages 500 
million acres, a fifth of our country's total lands. Given the 
scale of that, I am particularly interested in how we can 
better utilize the lands in the fight against climate change as 
crucial carbon sinks.
    In what ways is the Department working to increase the 
ability of public lands to naturally sequester carbon from the 
atmosphere?
    And then my second question would be: Where is the greatest 
need and in what ways can the Congress and the committee 
provide the resources and investments necessary to support our 
Tribal communities and help them rebuild from the pandemic?
    Brookings Institution recently found that the COVID-19 age-
adjusted death rate among racial and ethnic groups was highest 
for Native people.
    So those are my questions.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And it 
is wonderful to see you as well, even if it is virtually.
    So, we know that we need to accelerate clean energy 
deployment, and we are working on that with respect to 
addressing climate impacts on public lands. And, if we have 
healthy ecosystems, that is the best way to tackle so many of 
these crises that we are dealing with, right? Habitat loss due 
to the loss of species and drought issues and all of those 
things.
    So we feel very confident that, with a budget that can help 
us to achieve those goals, we can absolutely unleash science in 
our department and make sure that the career staff who are here 
who have been trained to do that work have the opportunities to 
just get out there and do everything that they need to.
    I also appreciate your championing of Native-American 
issues in everything that you do. I have always appreciated 
that, and we are so grateful. You probably know that President 
Biden is committed to Indian Country and, with respect to 
COVID, wants to make sure that Tribes have what they need.
    One of the big issues with this administration is ensuring 
that broadband internet service is actually a reality for these 
communities. I know you know there are still Tribal governments 
who are still using dial-up because they don't have broadband. 
Imagine that, if our government had to use dial-up in the work 
that we do every day.
    So, with broadband that gives Tribes opportunities to run 
their governments effectively, for children in Tribal 
communities to have opportunities for education--because we 
know that they didn't have those opportunities during the 
pandemic, in many cases. Imagine if rural Tribal communities 
had opportunities for telehealth, what a difference that would 
have made in the ways that they suffered through this pandemic.
    I also am proud of that the President's priority for Indian 
Country has helped Tribes across the country to lead in 
vaccinations across their communities. And, as you know, the 
President feels that when we are a healthy country again that 
we will be able to address every other issue that is important 
to us.
    And so I appreciate your questions. And I would defer to 
Rachael very quickly, she might have a few details to add. And 
thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    The Chair. Thank you.
    Ms. Taylor. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    I think you hit the high points, but I would just like to 
emphasize with respect to your question about carbon 
sequestration, the Secretary mentioned that the investments 
that we have in the budget request for science are top of mind 
for the Department, and I would emphasize that we are very 
focused on science-driven conservation.
    So, when we talk about going into ecosystems and landscapes 
and making sure we are doing the most effective work on the 
ground, we need the science and the data collection and the 
resources to back that up and make the best decisions. And so 
we are very proud of the investments not just in conservation 
but also in science put forward by the President.
    Thank you.
    The Chair. Thank you.
    And my time has run out, and I am going to dash back to the 
Labor-HHS Subcommittee, which I chair, but I want to again 
welcome you, Madam Secretary.
    And I am sorry to go over my time. And I want to say a 
thank you to the chair of the Interior Committee, Congresswoman 
Pingree, and Ranking Member Joyce.
    Thank you very, very much, and look forward to working with 
you.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you for joining us, Chair DeLauro.
    I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to Chair McCollum, who I 
think is probably also in two or three other hearings at the 
same time.
    So thank you for joining us.
    Ms. McCollum. Just one other one, but this is a very 
important hearing, Madam Chair.
    Secretary Haaland, you know, I am absolutely thrilled that 
you are here with us today in your new role leading the 
Department of the Interior. And I am so excited about the 
opportunity of working with you in this new direction that 
President Biden has moved us forward on, because we share these 
priorities, including honoring our trust and treaty 
responsibilities in Indian Country, the conservation of our 
public lands and ecosystems, and the science-based approach to 
addressing climate change.
    And I was so pleased to see that President Biden proposed 
an additional $200 million for climate science in the U.S. 
Geological Survey. This is a dramatic change from the previous 
administration, when I had to fight attempts to slash climate 
change research, including the new Midwest Climate Adaptation 
Science Center.
    After years of delay, I am grateful to see the USGS is 
finally accepting applications for that center, which will be 
vital for our understanding so we can protect our region's, the 
Great Lakes region's, freshwater and other resources that we 
are facing during an ever-changing climate.
    I am also looking forward to working with you closely to 
better the fulfillment obligations of our Federal Government to 
provide health, safety, and education and well-being for our 
Native-American brothers and sisters. This is a profound 
responsibility that our Nation has failed to meet. Your 
leadership hails a new era of government-to-government 
relationships with Tribal nations.
    You have the hopes of all of Indian Country resting on your 
shoulders, and I hope you know that you have nonpartisan allies 
in this subcommittee who are shouldering that responsibility 
alongside you and look forward to working with you.
    In addition to increasing DOI's Tribal programs, I would 
like to work with you on legislation that we will be 
reintroducing with advance appropriations for the Bureau of 
Indian Health Services, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the 
Bureau of Indian Education. It is wonderful to see that the 
President's budget will include a request for advance 
appropriations for his, but I would like to know what more you 
are going to be doing in your agency to prepare the same option 
for BIA and BIE schools.
    So you mentioned broadband. I think it would be helpful for 
the committee to know, either now or later, if there are other 
areas that this committee doesn't have direct responsibility 
for but that are severely impacted in our ability to move 
forward, like broadband, which is in other committees, so that 
we can work with you to inform our colleagues of those 
interconnections in order for Native-American programs to be 
successful.
    I want to take a second to just follow up with the 
discussion I had with Cabinet Secretary Vilsack last week on 
the protection of the priceless reserve of clean water which is 
in our Nation's most visited wilderness area, the Boundary 
Waters.
    The Trump administration, as you are well aware, took 
multiple actions that placed the watershed in the BCA area at 
risk of pollution from toxic copper sulfide ore mining. 
Secretary Vilsack confirmed to me that the USDA is working with 
the Department of the Interior to review past administration 
actions and consider next steps.
    I know you cannot comment on that, but I didn't want this 
opportunity to go forward without me bringing it up with you.
    So, Madam Secretary, if you could, things that we can work 
together on to build on the ability to take the success Indian 
Country has shown in COVID when given the resources to improve 
the health and well-being of its community and what we can do 
more to support the future of our country, Native-American 
children, attending our schools.
    Thank you.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much, Vice Chair McCollum, 
and thank you for always being a champion of Indian Country. I 
am so grateful and was always proud to work with you on these 
issues.
    So the President, of course, understands this 
responsibility. He understands the trust and treaty obligations 
of the Federal Government and is working very hard to make 
those a reality. Tribal consultation, as I mentioned earlier, 
is going to be critical in moving forward to make sure we are 
capturing what we need to do.
    The President includes strides for the Indian Health 
Service, and even though that is not under our purview, we feel 
and he feels that the all-of-government approach is going to be 
critical to moving Indian Country forward as well.
    And I appreciate you for everything that you mentioned here 
today. We are going to look at all those issues. We want to 
work with you moving forward. We will take your ideas and be 
happy to support the issues that we know will help Indian 
Country. So thank you so much.
    With respect to BIE schools, we are especially grateful for 
the Great American Outdoors Act, for their part in helping to 
make those schools viable places of learning for children 
across the country. And happy to provide any details on any 
issue that you would like moving forward.
    So thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Miigwech.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Chair McCollum.
    I see we have been joined by Chair Cartwright.
    You may have 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you, Secretary Haaland, for appearing before the 
committee today. It is a pleasure to see you. We miss you in 
the House.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
    Mr. Cartwright. Look, from managing national parks, 
reclaiming abandoned mines, working with Tribal communities, 
and protecting endangered species, the Department of the 
Interior impacts my constituents on a daily basis.
    My district is home to the Delaware Water Gap National 
Recreation Area, which last year saw over 4 million visitors, 
last year alone, placing it among the top 10 most visited parks 
in the country.
    We are also home to over 300 of the thousands of abandoned 
mines that desperately need remediation. President Biden--I am 
so thankful for him highlighting this need in both his skinny 
budget and the American Jobs Plan.
    I recently reintroduced two bipartisan, bicameral 
abandoned-mine-focused bills, one to extend the Abandoned Mine 
Land Trust Fund for another 15 years and, second, the RECLAIM 
Act, to accelerate the spending of the AML, abandoned mine 
land, funds to reclaim abandoned mines faster and spur economic 
development. There is no reason to wait. The need is there now, 
and the money is there now.
    These are bills that are soon to be marked up by the 
Natural Resources Committee, a committee that I believe you are 
somewhat familiar with, Madam Secretary. RECLAIM also passed 
out of the full House last year, you will remember, as part of 
a larger package, but was dropped in conference, unfortunately.
    With crushing reclamation needs across the country and the 
AML fee set to expire on September 1 of this year, passing 
these bills and focusing on reclamation is an urgent priority. 
And I am glad the President's budget reflects this reality.
    These abandoned mines pose a serious risk to the health of 
our constituents, to our environment. They impede economic 
development. Parts of the Susquehanna and Lackawanna Rivers are 
stained orange from the iron oxides in abandoned mine drainage. 
The towns of Nanticoke, Swoyersville, and the area surrounding 
Hazleton, Pennsylvania, have to deal with abandoned-mine issues 
on a daily basis: coal refuse leaks; harmful chemicals like 
arsenic, lead, and mercury that go into the surrounding land 
and the surrounding water.
    The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 
estimates it will cost at least $10 billion to reclaim the 
remaining high-priority abandoned mines across the country.
    As I discuss these issues, I also have to remember the 
greatest champion I know for abandoned-mine issues, my friend, 
Louise Dunlap, who passed away a few days ago. Louise was a 
pioneering environmental advocate, a good friend, and an 
inspiring force for everybody who knew her and worked with her.
    My team and I are deeply saddened by her passing this week. 
She continued engaging with us and building support for our 
legislation up until her final days, fighting for this cause as 
she fought for her life. She will be deeply missed, not only as 
an advocate but as a friend as well.
    Madam Secretary, my question is: What are the long-term 
impacts on the ability of the Office of Surface Mining 
Reclamation and Enforcement to address the huge demand for 
reclamation projects if SMCRA, S-M-C-R-A, and the AML Trust 
Fund are allowed to expire?
    Would it even be possible to remediate all of the Priority 
1 sites, defined as protection of public health, safety, and 
property from extreme danger of adverse effects of coal mining, 
if AML is not reauthorized?
    What is going to happen, Madam Secretary, if you don't do 
these things?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, thank you so much for the 
question.
    Let me first offer my condolences for the loss of your dear 
friend and champion. I am sorry for that loss.
    Building capacity is job one for us. And, of course, I have 
mentioned this before, that extending the AML program is a 
priority for me, it is a priority for the President, and along 
with the funding in the budget and the American Jobs Plan.
    So I thank you so much for your leadership on the abandoned 
mine lands issue. Your constituents deserve to have clean 
water, clean land, clean air. We all deserve that.
    And so I really feel like we can support each other on this 
issue and hopefully see a brighter future and not one where we 
are struggling to get by. So I am happy to talk with you more 
about this and do whatever we can to help with you on the 
funding and the reauthorization.
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, thank you, Madam Secretary. It is a 
comfort to have a Cabinet official of your expertise weigh in 
on these questions. And I appreciate the budget's reflection of 
abandoned mine lands.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Chair Cartwright.
    I am pleased to see Chair Kaptur and happy to recognize you 
for 5 minutes for your questions.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I apologize to you, 
members, and the witnesses. We had a concurrent Defense hearing 
this morning which I had to attend.
    And I want to say to Secretary Haaland, we are just so 
proud of you. I almost forget my questions just because I am 
just so thrilled to see you in your position.
    Obviously, I come from a part of the country where we have 
a lot of freshwater in the Great Lakes and, for many years, 
have had a bill called ``America's First Frontier, the 
Northwest Territory.'' I would like to send the Secretary 
information on that. The Cuyahoga River at the eastern end of 
my district used to be the boundary of the western United 
States, but, as the Nation expanded after the original 
colonies, there is not much interpretation for the next rung of 
settlement.
    So, for example, when we commemorated the War of 1812 and 
what is called the Battle of Lake Erie, I had to fight like the 
dickens to try to get Native Americans included in the program. 
The Department of the Interior told me that it really wasn't 
proper because we had no Tribal lands in Ohio. But I said, I 
represent Lake Erie, I represent Cuyahoga County, I represent 
Ottawa County, I have the Maumee River, we have Seneca County. 
There is a history here that is untold.
    And so my first question really--and we have pow wows in 
our region that thousands of people come to. And the Tribes 
were pushed west. Well, that is a part of our history. Why 
can't we commemorate that?
    And I just want to present that to you as a challenge I 
have had in my own career, and would very much appreciate the 
help of the Department of the Interior in reviewing my bill, 
America's First Frontier, and trying to enhance departmental 
interpretation across our region, starting at the Cuyahoga 
Valley National Recreation Area, one of the most visited parks 
in the country, one of the top 10, but then extending across 
the coast and way over to Minnesota, all of the States that 
were a part of the Northwest Territory.
    So I don't expect you to say, Madam Secretary, that, you 
know, you will absolutely do it, but I would just tell you, the 
difficulty in getting the Park Service to work with the Federal 
wildlife refuges that exist across our fresh lakes system is 
really hard, and I think that there is the opportunity for 
enhanced interpretation there.
    So that is one issue.
    The second issue I wanted to bring up: With the Civilian 
Conservation Corps, or the Climate Corps, I am struggling 
because I represent heavily urbanized communities. And I am 
worried that the CCC, whatever it is, will focus and bring 
volunteers from rural areas and that whatever they will do will 
be important in planting trees and so forth and retrofitting 
relative to climate change but that the people that live in the 
cities won't be encouraged to become members and that, if they 
do, they will be shipped out to Denali and they won't work in 
areas like ours, where, just in Ohio and Michigan, we have to 
replant 20 million trees because of the emerald ash borer and 
the Asian long-horned beetle and the destruction of our cover.
    Cleveland, Ohio, used to be known as the forest city. It is 
no more because we have high asthma rates, we have issues all 
along the lakes related to urbanization and neglect and 
poverty.
    And so I just wanted to say that I would hope that perhaps 
in your work you and Secretary Fudge over at HUD and Secretary 
Granholm might have a good cup of coffee together someday and 
think about what all this means for regions like I represent. 
Again, you don't have to comment. I will send you a note on 
that.
    And just wanted to tell you that at a place called the 
Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge and the Cedar Point National 
Refuge we have had historic visitation levels, 360,000 
visitors. And this is really exciting for us. When I was first 
elected, we had about 4,000 acres that were Federal wildlife 
refuge; we now have over 10,000. And birding has become a major 
tourist draw across our region. We are so proud of that. On 
Mother's Day, people come from all over the world.
    And I would love to meet with you at some point and some of 
your staff to think about regions like this and how we can 
enhance environmental tourism for economic growth.
    So those are issues I wish to bring to the table and will 
send you more. And if you wish to comment, I just have a few 
minutes left in my time. But thank you so much.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congresswoman. And everything 
you mentioned I care about, so thank you so much.
    I am happy to work with you and take a look at your 
legislation for America's First Frontier, and thank you for 
thinking of that. Yes, there were people here on this continent 
before our country was the United States. So thank you for 
recognizing that and feeling that it is important enough to 
create legislation over.
    Just quickly, the Civilian Climate Corps, it is important 
everywhere, every single----
    Ms. Kaptur. Yes.
    Secretary Haaland [continuing]. Place in our country, and 
absolutely includes urban and suburban areas. That is where we 
need more trees. That is where we need to pay attention to 
parks and make sure that kids have places to go where they can 
recreate.
    So I am happy to just be in touch with you. Feel free. We 
will reach out to you, you can reach out to us, and we are more 
than happy to continue this conversation. And I thank you so 
much.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Chair Kaptur, for joining us today 
and for your great questions.
    We have completed one round of questions, and we are going 
to go for two. I don't know how many members will be able to 
participate, but thank you, Madam Secretary, for sticking with 
us here.
    I will recognize myself for the first 5 minutes.
    I want to just bring up again something that has actually 
been discussed a little bit, but I am just so pleased to have 
both of you there, and if you want to weigh in on this any 
more--and this is really about this war on science.
    Having been on this committee for the last 4 years, I can't 
really describe it in any other way except a certain level of 
disdain and discrediting of science. We have seen it in our 
budget requests in the past 4 years--reductions in science 
funding, elimination of significant climate change and 
conservation science programs.
    So we are so pleased to see the President's budget 
proposing over $4 billion across multiple agencies, including 
the Department of the Interior, and specifically the support 
for science at the USGS and other bureaus by investing another 
$200 million to obtain information about the impacts of climate 
change and how best to implement mitigation, adaptation, and 
resilience efforts.
    I know, as I said, this came up earlier, and I think Deputy 
Assistant Taylor talked about it a little bit. But can you 
elaborate any more--or should we wait until we have the full 
budget--about how you will allocate this additional funding, 
for what purposes you will use it, and also the steps you see 
yourself taking to elevate science and its importance as a 
foundational way to inform our decisions going forward?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you. I am going to ask Rachael to 
provide some details as well.
    But what I will say is I had a meeting with some folks from 
the USGS the other day, and we just talked about unleashing 
science, right? Unleash science. That is what the scientists 
are here to do. And we have to give them the opportunity to put 
all of their experience, knowledge, and passion into this 
moment in our country, when we have an opportunity to do so 
much. And we need that, because we know with climate change 
that we are on a precipice, and it is going to take all of us 
to work together to pull us back from that.
    So I would really love to give Rachael an opportunity to 
provide a few details. And, of course, this is not our last 
conversation. I want to speak with you more and more about 
this. And I appreciate your passion about this, Chairwoman.
    Rachael.
    Ms. Taylor. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    And thank you so much, Madam Chair, for the question.
    As we said earlier, I think the details for the budget, 
when it is released, will promote a more detailed conversation. 
But, I think investing in the scientific capacity at the 
agency, which the subcommittee has also championed, is a huge 
priority of this budget.
    And you can imagine that to get into the effective climate 
change policies that the Department will need to do, we are 
going to have to have better tools at our disposal. And that is 
going to include modeling. That is going to include satellite 
technology. That is going to include things like better 
hydrology information. We have to have stream gauges. We are 
going to have to have different tools to model potential future 
impacts of climate science.
    So exactly how the funds will be allocated, we will be more 
than happy to follow up with the subcommittee once the budget 
is out. But, as I said earlier I think we feel really good 
already at the story that the President's budget is telling on 
the importance of science in land management responsibilities.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. Yeah. Thank you both for that. And I just 
can't say how excited I am to be able to discuss science again, 
to look at actual data, and the importance of retrieving the 
data that has been lost, continuing to preserve important 
information, because we just can't make good decisions without 
adequate science.
    I only have a minute, but just quickly, on the National 
Park System, we are so excited about the Great American 
Outdoors Act. We had an opportunity to talk to the Chief of the 
Forest Service, and she talked to us about some of the positive 
impacts.
    And for all of us who have parks in our home States, 
deferred maintenance is really a significant issue, but there 
are a lot of critically important projects that don't fit under 
the deferred maintenance umbrella, and I think some of those 
may be possible under the American Jobs Plan.
    So do you want to just quickly touch on where you see the 
opportunities there to put our important national parks whole 
again, make them whole again?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Chairwoman.
    And, once again, I am going to thank the committee so much 
for enacting the Great American Outdoors Act. It was something 
I was, of course, proud to support when I was there. And we 
need that, absolutely, to reduce our deferred maintenance 
backlog.
    So what is not covered, essentially? Deferred maintenance 
in bureaus outside the scope of the Great American Outdoors 
Act, including the BIA and USGS. And we have heard where those 
shortfalls are now, and we will work to move those forward. And 
basically projects that don't primarily address deferred 
maintenance. It leaves out infrastructures associated with 
relatively new designated areas.
    So that leaves a lot of space for us to move those other 
funds into creating the best possible public lands that we can 
have.
    Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, thank you. We are going to look 
forward to working with you on that.
    My time is long overdue, and I will recognize Ranking 
Member Joyce for his 5 minutes.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Secretary Haaland, as I mentioned earlier, I see my dear 
friend Marcy Kaptur has joined the hearing. The Great Lakes are 
especially vital to both of our districts, and we have fought 
together to protect them for a long time.
    The Lakes are the largest freshwater system in the world, 
providing drinking water for 48 million people and generating 
more than 1.5 million jobs and $60 billion in wages annually. 
Given the environmental and economic importance of the Great 
Lakes, I have made it, and together we have made it, a top 
priority to fight for their protection in Congress.
    That is why I was pleased to see the administration's 
infrastructure plan recognizes the need to invest in the 
protection and restoration of major water resources like the 
Great Lakes and the continuing work to prevent the spread of 
invasive carp, harmful algal blooms and why it is important to 
the long-term health and economic vitality of the Great Lakes 
ecosystem.
    Does the fiscal year 2022 budget request support ongoing 
Great Lakes restoration projects that your bureaus, including 
Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey, are 
carrying out in partnership with EPA through the Great Lakes 
Restoration Initiative?
    Secretary Haaland. Yes. The Great Lakes remain an extremely 
important issue to all of us here at the Department, and we are 
really happy to make sure that we are continuing our 
conversations about this issue.
    Yes, invasive carp is an issue. We appreciate the 
partnership and really want to make sure that we continue 
conversations. When the budget actually comes out, we will 
contact you. We can talk about more details then. But, 
absolutely, we will want to include your priorities for this 
area.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Joyce. Well, thank you. I am the nice guy. You do not 
want to incur the wrath of my friend Marcy Kaptur, because she 
will make sure you understand the priority.
    Madam Secretary, as I mentioned in my opening, market-
driven development of energy and mineral resources on Federal 
lands and waters remains essential to our Nation's security, 
our economy, and a smooth transition to a clean-energy future.
    I am deeply concerned that the President's so-called 
``pause'' on new oil and natural gas leases on public lands and 
waters may be the first step of a larger strategy to price 
domestic fossil energy out of the market and force Americans to 
pay more for less reliable, less secure, and less clean sources 
of energy. And I know my colleague Ms. McCollum had brought up 
the interest that she had in a project in her State.
    I want to know if, as you review these, whether you are 
going to do so in an open and transparent way, so we can have 
buy-in from everyone and get input.
    And could you update us on the Department's comprehensive 
review and reconsideration of oil and gas permitting and 
leasing and what changes you are looking at and why and the 
transparency that will be used through that process?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Ranking Member.
    And, of course, energy independence is absolutely 
important. It is a priority of the President. As you know, the 
leasing pause only paused new leases. Existing leases were not 
paused at all. And, in fact, permitting continues right now in 
this department, so our department is signing off on permits 
regularly. So I want you to know that that industry continues 
to roll.
    The energy review is still ongoing, and we have been taking 
input from diverse stakeholders. We will continue to take input 
from diverse stakeholders. In fact, we would be happy to sit 
down with you and talk more about this, if you would like. But, 
you know, we had a gas and oil forum last month. We are 
reaching out to various States and communities across the 
country to make sure that we are capturing everyone's input 
into this important issue.
    We want to make sure that the review is complete. We want 
to make sure that it is done correctly. And just know that we 
know and believe that the fossil fuel industry will continue 
for years to come. It is not going to get shut off like a 
faucet.
    So we thank you for bringing this up and, of course, I 
always welcome your input into this important issue.
    Mr. Joyce. Well, thank you very much.
    And, as you can see, once again, Madam Chair, I am right 
there at my 5-minute timeline for you, so I can't give you any 
time back. Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. It is truly brilliant how you are able to do 
that down to the last second. I don't know that any of us could 
achieve that as well as you do.
    I am pleased to recognize Representative Kilmer for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And, Madam Secretary, I wanted to start where I ended in 
the first round, which was discussing some of the Tribes around 
the country but certainly in my region that are in the process 
of trying to move to higher ground because of persistent 
challenges related to climate change.
    And, to some degree, I guess I want to use my time to ask 
for your partnership. I am hoping that something can be done in 
a more comprehensive way for Tribes in these circumstances. 
Because right now it is nearly impossible for Tribes to piece 
together the resources to fund everything from water systems to 
fire halls, to new housing, to--you name it.
    And to the credit of this subcommittee, you know, I was 
very grateful that Chair McCollum and Ranking Member Joyce 
visited our region. We heard from one of the leaders of the 
Quinault Indian Nation, who said, you know, when I was a kid, 
the ocean was a football field's length away from our village, 
and now it is our front porch, and every time we have a severe 
storm, you know, our community is below sea level, and it just 
fills up like a bowl.
    Now, we heard from a leader from the Hoh Tribe, who said 
they were able to build a new fire hall. And former Chair 
McCollum asked what resources were made available and did the 
Federal Government help. And they said, well, we don't have 
water yet at the fire hall, but the Federal Government helped 
provide body bags. And it just strikes me, we need to do better 
than that.
    And I would love to get a sense from you of: One, I would 
just obviously appreciate your partnership; two, I would 
gleefully invite you out to the region to see for yourself some 
of these challenges; and, three, would just love a sense from 
you of, you know, whether a roadmap can be provided to these 
communities that desperately need the Federal Government to 
step up to its obligations in a way that it hasn't so far.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congressman. And, of course, 
the minute I can get out to see you, I would love to come and 
would consider it an honor to meet with the Tribes in your 
State, in your district.
    And my goodness, thank you for raising those issues. Indian 
Country is a priority for us; it is a priority for the 
President. I just want you to know that I feel like it is a new 
era. This administration has committed to that partnership with 
Tribes and committed to living up to our trust and treaty 
obligations. And I feel very confident about the team I am on 
right here at the Department. Everybody here is committed to 
that charge.
    And I just know that, with your partnership and that of 
this subcommittee, the full committee, and so many dedicated 
Members of Congress right there, Indian issues were always 
bipartisan because everybody always rallied around to do the 
right thing. And so we will continue to just make sure that we 
are all working together. You have my commitment for that.
    And I am not sure if Rachael would like to add any details.
    Ms. Taylor. I think you addressed the situation well.
    I mean, I appreciate the question from the Congressman. I 
mean, there is no doubt that Tribes are being impacted by the 
effects of climate change in addition to other capacity issues.
    And I think, to the Secretary's point, this administration 
is totally committed to looking at all programs, and so that 
would include building capacity more generally as well as 
addressing the climate crisis. And so I think when you see our 
budget request we will be able to have a more fulsome 
discussion.
    But we are looking forward and all committed, to a person, 
at the Department. Thank you.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you.
    I am pleased to recognize Mr. Simpson for 5 minutes if he 
has a question.
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman.
    I just had to leave for a second from the hearing because 
we were doing a press conference on a bill that Senator Bennet 
and Representative Crow and I just introduced called the 
Outdoor Restoration Partnership Act, which will help restore 
some of our forest lands and other lands that have been 
destroyed by wildfires and, I think, would help the Department 
of the Interior greatly in this.
    But I hope that the Secretary would take a look at this. It 
was just being introduced, and, as I said, we just had a press 
conference on it.
    But, as has been mentioned by both you, Secretary, and 
others, the bipartisan Great American Outdoors Act was signed 
into law last year, and with it came resources to address our 
public land maintenance backlog as well as permanent funding 
for the LWCF.
    Can you give us an update on the rollout of the Great 
American Outdoors Act and what we can expect to see and how the 
projects funded by the LWCF and other things will be rolled out 
so that we can see exactly what we are funding now with the 
Great American Outdoors Act?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much. And I will continue 
to thank you all so much for making sure that we have those 
resources at hand to do the work we need.
    I would love to just pivot to Rachael, because she has all 
the details in front of her. And, of course, many more 
conversations to be had, and always welcome your input, 
Congressman.
    Rachael.
    Ms. Taylor. Thank you so much for the question.
    The Department is fully committed to implementing the act 
and working with Congress to make sure that it is done the 
right way, that it is done effectively, and that we are making 
the progress that the investments demand, because this was a 
huge trust placed in the Department and the Forest Service to 
do this work.
    With respect to the fiscal year 2021 projects, the ones 
that were articulated in the Interior bill last year, the 
projects are moving forward. There is a full list of both the 
deferred maintenance projects and the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund projects available on the Department's 
website. And we are committed to transparency and to providing 
Congress with regular updates on the progress that we are 
making.
    With respect to the fiscal year 2022 budget, we would 
expect that the full budget request, when it is delivered by 
the President, would include the detailed information on 
projects and where they will be. And then, at that point, we 
are happy to engage the subcommittee and have further 
discussions on how the bill will be implemented as part of the 
fiscal year 2022 appropriations process.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Simpson. Well, thank you. I appreciate that response.
    As you know, a lot of people look at the Great American 
Outdoors Act as just funding the LWCF on a permanent basis and 
full funding for it. But one of the really important aspects of 
it, to me, was addressing the backlog of maintenance that we 
have in our national parks.
    Everybody knows, that has been to our national parks, knows 
that we love them to death. And they are really facing some 
backlog of maintenance in these national parks, and we need to 
do a better job.
    As this pandemic has hit, more and more people are 
discovering America, where they are not traveling abroad and so 
forth, and I think you are going to see vast increases in the 
numbers that go to our national parks. As I understand it, RVs 
are the number-one-selling item in terms of vehicles and stuff, 
because people have decided that they want to see America 
again. And that is going to put pressure on our national parks 
and other public lands, and we need to make sure that we can 
address this backlog of maintenance.
    So I appreciate the work you are doing on that. I look 
forward to working with you on it, as we see how this is going 
to be implemented. Because it was passed with a great deal of 
hope, and I think it is our job to make sure that we fulfill 
those hopes.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Simpson.
    Mr. Cartwright, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And, Madam Secretary, I do have some more questions for 
you.
    We were talking about abandoned land mines before. And we 
are incredibly excited in Pennsylvania that both your budget 
and the American Jobs Plan propose significant increases in 
funding for AML projects. And we want to get to work right 
away.
    So the first question I have in this round is, what support 
will you give to the States to ensure that they have the 
administrative resources to get this money allocated quickly 
and efficiently?
    Secretary Haaland. Well, of course we are always happy to 
work with the States. And we will just do whatever it takes, 
Congressman. I will be honest with you, if you--and we would 
love to meet with you more on this issue--if you have ideas, if 
there is something that is important to you, we would like to 
hear about it.
    Mr. Cartwright. Secretary Haaland, this is Matt Cartwright 
here, and I know how to take ``yes'' for an answer.
    Next question is: How will your Department balance the 
allocation of these funds and resources between certified and 
uncertified States and Tribes? And how will you balance 
environmental remediation and economic development?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, if it is okay, I would love 
to take this question and answer it in detail for the record. 
We would be happy to do that. And if that is all right with 
you, that is what we will do.
    Mr. Cartwright. Perfect.
    I want to bounce over to national parks. We touched on that 
earlier.
    Over the past year, citizens in my district and those in 
surrounding communities have flocked to the Delaware Water Gap, 
very much along the lines that Mr. Simpson was just talking 
about. People want to get out, they want to see the country. 
And they have gone to the Delaware Water Gap more than ever, 
more than usual, with nearly a million more visitors in 2020 
than in 2019, largely due to COVID restrictions for other 
activities.
    So, as you know, for over a decade, there has been 
consistently a roughly $12 billion repair backlog at our 
national parks. Now, much of this backlog is tied to aging 
infrastructure, as many of the buildings, roads, and bridges 
were built in the 1930s and the 1950s and the 1960s, and 
obviously they now need repair and renovation.
    The Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area alone faces 
$63 million in deferred maintenance costs. The implementation 
of the Great American Outdoors Act, which Mr. Simpson was 
talking about, will help provide funding to start addressing 
many of these maintenance and repair concerns. But the Delaware 
Water Gap, the past month, has already shown some improvement, 
with the new Watergate Wetlands Restoration Project and a 
bridge and culvert repair project on U.S. Route 209.
    Question is: How is the Department beginning to put the 
Great American Outdoors Act into action to address this 
backlog? And how are they leveraging other agencies and other 
funding streams to aid in overcoming what is really a 
mountainous backlog?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you. That is a definitely good way 
to describe it, a mountainous backlog.
    And, I mean, yes, we are working hard to have a list of 
priorities for this issue. And it sounds like the Delaware 
Water Gap is definitely a priority for you.
    We know that the Great American Outdoors Act covers a 
really large portion of backlog, but, of course, we still need 
strong regular maintenance budgets to make sure that we can 
take care of it all. And, actually, if we were able to prevent 
some things, that helps it from turning into a backlog issue.
    So we are working on this. You know, there are tools we are 
using to gauge the projects and whether they should fall into a 
list of priorities. And I'm certainly willing and happy to 
speak with you further on the priorities that you have.
    We know that these backlog issues are important, especially 
in light of the fact that more people are visiting our open 
spaces.
    Mr. Cartwright. Terrific. Thank you, Secretary.
    Last question: What preventive measures is the National 
Park Service taking to prevent a growing backlog developing in 
the future and, you know, nip it in the bud and get to the root 
causes of the backlog?
    Secretary Haaland. Of course. And this hearing today is 
actually one of the best tools that we have to nip some of 
those things in the bud. That is making sure that we have a 
very strong budget to address the issues ongoing.
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, I thank you, Secretary Haaland.
    And I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Cartwright.
    I don't see Mr. Amodei, so I will yield to Ms. Kaptur, 
Chair Kaptur, for 5 minutes for her questions.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    I just wanted to go back again, and I will follow up with a 
letter urging the Secretary to think about the CCC and which 
instrumentalities will be used to link to our urban 
communities.
    I think there is an opportunity to do phenomenal work with 
the urban park systems, our metro park systems, even engaging 
some of our National Guard transport companies--because they 
have trucks and they can haul dirt and they can haul stone, 
they can do a lot of things--establishing relationships across 
government to make the CCC work in urban areas, particularly 
those that are noted for having high incidences of poverty.
    And, in those neighborhoods, I can guarantee you the tree 
cover is quite limited. And we have to pay attention, 
partnering with many of our urban healthcare systems. They are 
very, very worried about pulmonary issues. And I think whether 
you are talking Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, Toledo, we have 
quite a few communities in the Great Lakes that could use that 
kind of cross-government partnership.
    I know President Obama tried that during his career, and in 
some cases it worked, in some cases it didn't. But I think with 
the Department of the Interior we have a real opportunity.
    And I wanted to thank Congresswoman Joyce, someone I have 
such great respect for, the work that we do together on the 
Great Lakes. We should have named them the Great Seas, because 
if you emptied out Lake Superior, it would cover both North and 
South America 1 foot high. Most of our membership does not 
understand how vast the Great Lakes really are and many of the 
enormous challenges we face there right now.
    So I would just say to the Secretary, I will reiterate my 
plea for greater cooperation between the National Park Service 
and the Fish and Wildlife Service and working with us across 
the Great Lakes to have an interpretation that is worthy of 
their history. That does not exist within the Park Service now, 
nor within, obviously, the Fish and Wildlife Service. They are 
a little bit of a different--but, in our region, it is what we 
have. So we have to use what we have.
    I think I represent the second-smallest national park, at 
Perry's Victory Memorial. And so we don't have a huge park 
system that attends to Lake Erie, but we do have the Cuyahoga 
Valley National Recreational Area, which is our anchor.
    So I just wanted to point out that, sort of, the Great 
Lakes got shortchanged in the past by the Department of the 
Interior, and we can do so much better. And I know with 
Congressman Joyce in position as the ranking member, working 
together, we can figure this out.
    Finally, I wanted to just mention the World War II 
Memorial. I worked for 16 years from the original introduction 
to its construction. And we are now minting coins. We have a 
coin bill to raise additional money, working with the Friends 
of the World War II Memorial.
    But the part of the memorial that remains incomplete, we 
want it to explain the ``why'' of the war. And I was very 
afraid to turn the memorial from the American Battle Monuments 
Commission over to the Department of the Interior, because I 
didn't see the Department of the Interior as having, kind of, 
historical underpinning that was necessary.
    If one looks at the memorial at Normandy in France that was 
built by our country, we can bring some of those collections 
back, virtually and even onsite. And, again, this is a long 
conversation, but I really think the--it is the second most 
popular memorial in the country. And so we could do a lot to 
teach the younger generation that doesn't even know that World 
War II occurred, and what the transatlantic alliance is, and 
the sacrifices that were made for us to be able to have a free 
Nation ourselves, despite all of our challenges.
    But I think the World War II Memorial site could do a 
little bit better job on historical interpretation of why we 
fought that war and the sacrifices attendant to it. Because 
people do leave the site, and if they don't really understand 
what it was about--they like the beauty of it, but they don't 
understand the history. And for future generations, I think it 
is really an imperative that we do that.
    I hope I haven't run over my time, Madam Chair. I don't see 
the clock on my screen here.
    So I don't know if the Secretary, you want to comment on 
any of those points, but I look forward to, again, sending a 
letter and kind of going through some of this so it is 
completely clear.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congresswoman. And we will 
welcome your letter and any future conversations.
    I just want you to know that we are working on a report 
right now to the President on the Civilian Climate Corps 
regarding that issue and the program that we want to start. And 
we are looking at leveraging many existing programs. And I know 
there are a lot of organizations that will want to help out 
with this.
    And, also, you might know that President Biden has made 
environmental justice a hallmark of his administration. That 
means that we want to include underrepresented communities, 
poor communities, neighborhoods that haven't had opportunities 
to get out and be a part of something like the Civilian Climate 
Corps. So we are going to do everything we can to engage those 
communities every step of the way.
    And so thank you so much for caring about all of these 
issues, for your thoughtfulness. And we really do look forward 
to continuing our conversations with you.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    Thank you very much.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Chair Kaptur.
    I feel confident, between your involvement in the committee 
and Ranking Member Joyce, we will be reminded of the importance 
of the Great Lakes. And I do think it is very important that 
you continue to do that for us, because those of us who 
represent ocean coastal districts often forget about the vast 
presence of the Great Lakes and the significant role that they 
play. So thank you for that.
    Thank you so much, Secretary Haaland and Principal Deputy 
Assistant Secretary Taylor. It has really been a pleasure to 
have you before our committee today. We appreciate your 
testimony, your answers to our questions. We look forward to 
partnering with you with the full budget and the many 
challenges that we have before us, but we know we are going to 
work with a great team at Interior.
    And, assuming there are no additional questions, the 
hearing is now adjourned. Thank you.
    [Answers to submitted questions follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
       

                                         Wednesday, April 21, 2021.

FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                               WITNESSES

MICHAEL REGAN, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DAVID BLOOM, DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
    AGENCY
    Ms. Pingree. Good morning. This hearing will now come to 
order.
    As the hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few 
housekeeping matters.
    For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the 
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. 
If you notice you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if 
you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate 
approval by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved and you will retain 
the balance of your time.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will 
turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the 
gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired. When 
your time is expired, the clock will turn red and I will begin 
to recognize the other member.
    In terms of speaking order, we will follow the order set 
forth in House rules, beginning with the chair and ranking 
member, then members present at the time of the hearing is 
called to order will be recognized in order of seniority, and 
finally members not present at the time of the hearing is 
called to order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    Okay. That is the end of the housekeeping rules. So now I 
will begin the hearing.
    Today, the Interior-Environment Subcommittee will examine 
the President's fiscal year 2022 budget request for the 
Environmental Protection Agency. Joining us this morning is 
Administrator Regan. With him is Deputy Chief Financial Officer 
David Bloom. I believe this is Administrator Regan's first 
appearance before the House of Representatives since being 
confirmed in March.
    Welcome and congratulations, Mr. Administrator, and welcome 
back, Mr. Bloom.
    Earlier this month, the President outlined some of his 
priorities for the EPA. In fiscal year 2022, the President is 
requesting $11.2 billion for the EPA, a $2 billion increase 
over the enacted level.
    Some of the highlights that we expect to see when we 
receive the Agency's detailed budget request later this spring 
include increasing core operating programs by $110 million to 
rebuild the Agency's capacity to carry out its mission to 
protect public health and the environment; tackling the climate 
crisis head on with the urgency that this existential threat 
requires; placing values like equity and equal access to 
justice for all at the heart of the Agency's policy agenda; and 
recognizing that advancing economic prosperity and 
environmental protection are not contradictory objectives but, 
in fact, are two sides of the same coin.
    From my perspective, compared to what we have seen these 
past several years, this is a breath of fresh air. After 4 
painful years, we will once again have senior leaders at the 
Environmental Protection Agency who see environmental 
protection as part of the Agency's job. We will have new 
leaders who view scientific data as a tool to guide 
decisionmaking, not as an obstacle to be overcome in pursuit of 
an ideological agenda, and will use the authority of the 
Federal Government to serve the public interest, rather than as 
a means to funnel benefits to political allies or to intimidate 
critics and opponents.
    I would like to commend the Administrator for the actions 
he has already taken in restoring scientific integrity to the 
Agency's processes, his commitments to act transparently and 
fairly with all stakeholders, and his efforts to reset the 
Agency's relationship with this subcommittee.
    The budget request, combined with the investments proposed 
in the American Jobs Plan, position us well to address the 
numerous environmental and public health challenges we 
currently face. They are a welcome indication of the work this 
administration is planning on getting done. I look forward to 
working closely with the Administrator and President Biden in 
achieving our shared vision for a safer, more prosperous, and 
more just Nation.
    I would now like to yield to the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Mr. Joyce, for any opening remarks he would like 
to make.
    Mr. Joyce, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Joyce. Good morning, and thank you for yielding, Chair 
Pingree. I appreciate you holding this important hearing on the 
administration's fiscal year 2022 budget request for the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
    I would also like to take a moment to welcome our 
witnesses, EPA Administrator Michael Regan and Deputy Chief 
Financial Officer David Bloom.
    Thank you both for joining us this morning. I hope our next 
meeting together can be in person.
    Administrator Regan, welcome to your first hearing before 
the Interior Subcommittee, and congratulations on your historic 
confirmation to serve as the 16th Administrator of the EPA. No 
doubt you have a tough job ahead, but given your deep 
understanding of EPA's programs and extensive experience in 
North Carolina, I expect you are up for the challenge and will 
serve the Agency well.
    My colleagues and I look forward to working with you over 
the coming months to move forward a budget that provides EPA 
with the necessary resources to continue fulfilling its mission 
to protect human health and the environment. Our collaborative 
work starts today as we begin to discuss the Agency's initial 
funding priorities and goals for the year ahead.
    In a recent speech you noted that, ``every one of us has a 
stake in the health of our environment, the strength of our 
economy, the well-being of our communities, and the legacy we 
leave to the next generation.'' Administrator, I couldn't agree 
more.
    That is why I take this committee's role seriously. As 
appropriators, it is critical that we work together to examine 
the programs under our jurisdiction to ensure taxpayer dollars 
are spent most effectively to benefit our environment and the 
American people. I am proud of the key investments we have made 
on a bipartisan basis to help improve our air, clean our water, 
revitalize our land, and support a strong economy.
    Unfortunately, though, based on the scale of the increases 
included in the administration's initial fiscal year 2022 
request, I have some concerns about the debt we may leave to 
the next generation. The fiscal year 2022 request proposes over 
$1.5 trillion in discretionary spending, in addition to the 
$1.9 trillion COVID relief package and the $2.3 trillion 
infrastructure proposal.
    For EPA, the request asks for an additional $2 billion, a 
21.3 percent increase above the fiscal year 2021 bipartisan 
agreement.
    Spending at this rate is unsustainable and unaffordable. As 
we continue to restore our way of life and reignite our economy 
following the pandemic, the Federal Government must be cautious 
to live within its means so that we don't saddle future 
generations with unnecessary economic burdens.
    Administrator Regan, I was pleased to see that the request 
prioritizes funding to improve our Nation's aging water 
infrastructure and to counter current and potential sources of 
water contamination. And the budget request invests in the 
Superfund and Brownfields programs to accelerate the cleanup of 
our Nation's lands to protect public health and return sites to 
beneficial use.
    I look forward to working with the Chair to move a bill 
within reasonable spending limits that supports these programs, 
along with other EPA programs that communities, States, and 
Tribes rely on to mitigate environmental threats, bolster their 
recycling programs, protect their citizens, and meet Federal 
mandates.
    Given the programmatic details of the request are still 
limited, I am sure we will spend a good bit of today discussing 
the Agency's policy initiatives, regulatory agenda, and 
staffing plans.
    I was supportive of the prior administration's commonsense 
reforms and efficiencies developed to reduce regulatory 
burdens, promote American businesses, and support an all-of-
the-above energy strategy.
    I hope, on the heels of the pandemic, this administration 
thinks twice about undermining these efforts, which helped 
protect American jobs, reduce energy costs, and spur economic 
growth.
    Finally, it comes as no surprise, but I am interested in 
discussing the administration's plans for the Great Lakes. The 
lakes are one of the country's greatest natural resources and 
economic powerhouses, and that is why I have made it a top 
priority in Congress to fight for their continued restoration 
and protection.
    The Great Lakes provides more than 1.5 million jobs, 
supplies 90 percent of the Nation's fresh surface water, 
supports over 3,500 species of plants and animals, and 
generates over $60 billion in wages annually.
    I am very proud of the bipartisan work we have done on this 
subcommittee, especially under the leadership of the former 
chair, Ms. McCollum, to provide sustained, robust funding for 
the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
    The GLRI is critical to bringing together all the Great 
Lakes stakeholders to mitigate the impacts that human activity 
has had on the lakes and to address threats like invasive 
species, harmful algal blooms, and shoreline erosion.
    Administrator Regan, I am hopeful that the fiscal year 2022 
request continues our investments in the GLRI and that we can 
find ways to work together to protect the Great Lakes for 
current and future generations.
    When your schedule allows, I invite you to come and visit 
Lake Erie. It would be a great opportunity to show you the 
difference EPA-led GLRI restoration projects have had on the 
lakes' long-term health and vitality.
    Thank you again for joining us this morning, Administrator. 
My colleagues and I look forward to working together and 
engaging with you further once we receive the administration's 
comprehensive fiscal year 2022 budget proposal.
    With that, I look forward to our discussion.
    And I yield back.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Joyce.
    You had us all in suspense, leaving the Great Lakes till 
the very end of your opening remarks. But always glad to have 
them in there.
    So, Mr. Regan, thank you so much for being before us. We 
would love to hear your opening statement.
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Pingree and Ranking 
Member Joyce and members of the subcommittee. I am grateful for 
the opportunity to be able to appear today to discuss EPA's 
discretionary funding request for fiscal year 2022. I am also 
delighted to begin this partnership and collaborative effort.
    For half a century, EPA has helped provide the American 
people with clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and 
safe, healthy land.
    EPA's dedicated public servants at our headquarters in 
Washington, D.C., and throughout our ten regions, including 
seven staff members who have been with the Agency since its 
inception, work every day to improve the lives of people across 
our great Nation and have risen to meet the challenges 
presented to us as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Earlier this month, President Biden sent to Congress a 
discretionary funding request for the EPA at $11.2 billion. We 
believe this request will help ensure EPA can continue to meet 
its essential mandate, set the stone for our Nation's economic 
recovery, and provide the resources necessary to confront our 
environmental challenges, especially in our most overburdened 
communities.
    The President has seized this moment to reimagine a new 
American economy that leads the world in advancing clean 
energy, modernizes our infrastructure while enabling it to 
withstand impacts from climate change, and rights the historic 
wrongs of past environmental injustices that have held back 
generations of Black, Latino, Indigenous, and low-income 
communities.
    This funding request reflects the understanding that a 
healthy environment and a healthy economy are not mutually 
exclusive. They actually go hand in hand. These investments 
will provide tremendous opportunity to leverage American 
innovation, put people back to work, and protect our 
communities, families, and children from environmental hazards 
and harm.
    In short, this request recognizes the profound urgency and 
the existential threat of the climate crisis and provides EPA 
with the resources essential to fulfilling our mission to 
protect public health and protect the environment.
    Ensuring access to clean and safe water for all Americans 
impacts our Nation's climate resilience and is integral to 
advancing environmental justice. At EPA, we have seen that 
investing in water infrastructure is a win-win for public 
health and economic development. EPA's Water Infrastructure and 
Finance Innovation Act loan has helped finance $19.4 billion in 
water infrastructure, creating 47,000 jobs nationwide.
    The 2022 funding request of $3.6 billion for EPA rebuilds 
our water infrastructure and is an increase of more than $600 
million over the fiscal year 2021 enacted level. This includes 
targeted increases to the State Revolving Loan Fund to assist 
States, Tribes, and territories with infrastructure projects 
that help provide safe drinking water and clean water in 
communities across the country.
    Water infrastructure investments, however, represent only 
one side of ensuring clean and safe water. The Agency will 
invest resources and expand efforts to address PFAS, pervasive 
and persistent chemicals found in our drinking water.
    As part of the President's commitment to tackling PFAS, the 
funding request provides approximately $7 million to accelerate 
toxicity studies and funds research to inform the regulatory 
development designating PFAS as a hazardous substance, while 
setting enforceable limits for PFAS under the Safe Water 
Drinking Act.
    Under the President's leadership we are also heeding our 
calls of the youth who courageously urge world leaders to fight 
the climate crisis with the innovation, fortitude, and resolve 
that it demands.
    This budget invests in programs that will help reduce 
greenhouse gases, including an additional $100 million for air 
quality grants to States and Tribes to tackle emission levels 
at the local and regional scale.
    An additional $30 million will help improve the knowledge 
of the impacts of climate change on human health and the 
environment through our research and development programs.
    Much like climate change, environmental justice underpins 
all of our work. The pandemic ignited a perfect storm for 
communities of color and low-income communities who already 
bear the highest burden of pollutions, suffer the highest rates 
of mortality from heart and lung disease, and now COVID-19, 
too.
    In the 40 years since the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation and Liability Act, CERCLA, was signed 
into law, we have made significant progress, but much work 
needs to be done.
    Under my leadership, EPA will do everything in its power to 
hold bad actors accountable for environmental degradation and 
return land to safe and productive use for communities.
    Our budget provides $882 million for the Superfund remedial 
program, nearly $300 million more than our current budget, to 
clean up America's most contaminated land and reduce toxic 
substances and greenhouse gases from existing abandoned 
infrastructure.
    These funding requests lay down a marker that EPA is ready 
to meet these challenges.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look 
forward to our continued partnership and welcome any questions 
you might have.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
     Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much, Administrator Regan. It is 
great to have you here, and it is great to hear you outline 
some of the important goals that the EPA will be taking on.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes to begin the 
questioning.
    You started out or you did some talking about climate 
change, but I would like to follow up on that a little bit. I 
am very enthusiastic that the President has about $14 billion 
above the fiscal year 2021 level across the Federal Government 
in his budget to support climate change investments, and of 
this about $1.8 billion is going to the EPA.
    You have talked a little bit about some of the work that 
you are doing. Could you go further on that to talk about how 
you see the EPA's role in tackling the climate crisis, and 
perhaps a little bit about how you see coordinating with 
Federal, State, and local agencies so that we can move forward 
together and as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, Chairwoman.
    The $1.8 billion represents both climate change and 
environmental justice. There are resources in there to enhance 
our air quality grants for our States and our Tribes to help 
them with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions under the 
Clean Air Act, but also the reduction of traditional pollutants 
as well that threaten our health and well-being.
    There are also resources there that will enhance the 
Agency's knowledge and ability to quantify and address climate 
change pollutants on both health and in the environment. And so 
this will double our ability to look at research and 
development on the topic of climate change.
    There are also resources in there, though, for 
environmental justice and accelerating environmental and 
economic justice in communities that have been hit the hardest, 
our communities that have been disproportionately impacted by 
climate change, as well as our Tribal partners as well. So 
there is a combination there in that $1.8 billion that focuses 
on climate change, air quality impacts, and environmental 
justice.
    Ms. Pingree. That is great. Well, we certainly look forward 
to working with you on that.
    You also brought up the important topic of PFAS 
contamination, which is such a critical issue, and we continue 
to discover more and more about the impacts of PFAS 
contamination in food and water and other areas as well.
    So as you mentioned, there is money, a significant amount 
of money, to address research; also to support regulatory 
standards for drinking water. And that has been an important 
issue for this committee. We have invested a little over $100 
million at EPA towards those efforts.
    Can you talk a little bit more--I know you mentioned it--
but about how you intend to use these resources, but also 
specifically what you have planned for drinking water 
infrastructure?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
    The PFAS pollution is something that I have personal 
experience with. In North Carolina this was an issue that we 
fought for 2 or 3 years, looking at the impact that PFAS had in 
North Carolina for over 30 years based on the source that we 
tracked it back to. It was such a pervasive issue in terms of 
health and human impact, but the economic impact that was 
caused by the uncertainty in drinking water was tremendous in 
the State as well.
    We want to use these resources, these precious resources, 
to do more scientific evaluation and quantification of PFAS so 
that we can move forward with the right regulations for our 
drinking water. We also want to use these resources to help 
assist States in the cleanup.
    You know, when there is uncertainty in drinking water, 
communities go on bottled water for months, if not years. There 
are things that we need to do to help expedite the cleanup and 
remediation.
    That is what these resources are dedicated to, research and 
development to set drinking water standards, but also health 
and safety and well-being for our States and our communities.
    And by the way, the $75 million, it is just a drop in the 
bucket. The State of Minnesota estimates that it could cost 
$250 million to $1.2 billion to clean up in its area. North 
Carolina has some similar numbers as well.
    So this is just a tip of the iceberg and we hope to do 
more.
    Ms. Pingree. Yeah, and I certainly concur. I think every 
State is already starting to understand the cleanup issues that 
they have, but also the drinking water standards.
    I don't want to put you on the spot. Luckily there are only 
a few seconds left. But how long do you think it is going to 
take us to get to a Federal drinking water standard?
    It is such a challenge for States now trying to deal with 
this on the individual basis. It seems important that 
eventually we arrive at that. How long do you think that will 
take?
    Mr. Regan. It is a top priority for this administration. We 
are building on some of the work that the previous 
administration did, quite frankly, did not move fast enough.
    So we will have staff circle with you on the specific 
timeline. But we are moving in an expedited fashion, because 
the States need some certainty and, quite frankly, our military 
and companies need some certainty as well.
    Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, I have used up more than my time. 
But thank you so much for your answers.
    And happy to yield to Mr. Joyce for 5 minutes for his 
questions.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chair Pingree. I will not leave you 
in suspense with my questions.
    Administrator Regan, when I travel around my district in 
northeast Ohio, or all throughout Ohio and the Great Lakes, I 
consistently hear concerns about the increasing water levels in 
Lake Erie and their contribution to the ongoing erosion damage 
to shoreline communities.
    To provide relief to our coastal communities, over the last 
year I have worked with various Federal agencies to try to 
address this problem. In doing so, I have discovered that it is 
going to take coordination and collaboration at the local, 
State, and Federal level to identify long-term solutions that 
will help us protect our critical infrastructure, prevent 
further loss of land and restore coastal habitat due to 
erosion.
    Given EPA will play a key role in these efforts, in fiscal 
year 2021, I was proud Congress included language encouraging 
EPA to make GLRI funding available to expand breakwaters and 
advance local shoreline mitigation measures.
    Can you discuss EPA's plans in fiscal year 2021 to make 
GLRI funding available to protect Great Lakes shorelines that 
are threatened by rising lake levels and how this funding will 
help coastal communities?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, Congressman. 
Absolutely, we will continue funding to protect the Great 
Lakes.
    You know, the Great Lakes are a national treasure. I think 
that 20 percent of the world's surface freshwater resides 
there. We really need to protect the ecological integrity, as 
well as the economic stimuli that the Great Lakes provides to 
so many communities. So we have prioritized that. We are 
aligned there.
    It is my belief that climate change impacts and other 
impacts are altering the topography, geography, and et cetera, 
and we are seeing the shorelines expand. We believe that there 
are a number of natural remedies to accentuate some of the 
manmade remedies to prevent some of the erosion.
    Staff is focused on that. We look forward to partnering 
with you and your team, and I look forward to accepting the 
invitation that you extended earlier to take a closer look.
    You know, when I was Secretary of the Department of 
Environmental Quality in North Carolina, I visited 90 out of my 
100 counties. I don't believe we can make these decisions 
sitting behind a desk. We need to get out and visit and see 
things firsthand, and I look forward to accepting your 
invitation.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
    I ask myself what we could do manually, by man, to do this. 
And my understanding from the Army Corps of Engineers is the 
safety valve is the Niagara Falls. So it is not like we have 
got a hell of a lot of room to reduce the water levels.
    Now, they fluctuated down on their own this year, thank 
God. But they chewed up a lot of land in the process.
    Does the fiscal year 2022 request provide GLRI funding for 
the Agency to continue this work? Beyond GLRI, are there other 
EPA programs, like Clean Water SRF, that may help constituents 
like mine address these coastal erosion issues?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, we want to continue the work and build on 
the work. There are other revenue streams at the Agency that we 
hope, in concert, we can collaborate with, like SRFs and 
others, to continue the great work that we have been doing in 
the Great Lakes.
    I think that it would be a travesty to take our foot off 
the gas right now. So, we need to continue to lean in. The Army 
Corps has been a great partner to EPA on this effort.
    And, again, I think that we see that there are some natural 
remedies there that we found through research and data that are 
longer lasting than some of the manmade remedies and are more 
cost effective.
    So we believe we want to continue to work on the resiliency 
aspect of that, as well as the economic aspect of that.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
    Last Congress, I toured the Lake Guardian, EPA's largest 
research vessel, tasked with monitoring trends in the Great 
Lakes ecosystem. I saw firsthand how critical it is to prevent 
waste, particularly plastics, from getting into our waterways, 
given some areas of the Great Lakes are already experiencing 
high densities of microplastics.
    That is why I have been supportive of EPA's Trash-Free 
Waters program which provides resources to help communities 
keep trash out of U.S. waterways and prevent microplastics from 
entering our food supply and drinking water sources.
    The program is especially important now, given we have seen 
an uptick in pollution from disposable face masks and gloves 
due to the pandemic.
    Administrator Regan, does the Agency plan to continue the 
Trash-Free Waters program in fiscal year 2022?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, we do.
    And The Lake Guardian is EPA's science at its best, on the 
ground, looking at what is happening with the Great Lakes in 
real time. We are seeing the same thing that you are seeing and 
we want to continue to invest there.
    You and I have talked about the CERCLA economy and the role 
that plastics play there. And I will tell you, whether it be 
the younger generation who have been pressing me on more action 
on plastics or whether it be States like yours and mine who see 
the impacts of marine debris, we want to spend a lot more time 
there and a lot more effort on those issues.
    Mr. Joyce. I know I am out of time, but Chair Pingree has 
already held a hearing on plastics in the oceans, and I have 
got to admit I was very surprised to find from the young 
scientists that it was actually getting into the food chain 
already in the Great Lakes. It is being absorbed into the meat 
of the fish.
    And with my being completely out of time, I yield back.
    Ms. Pingree. Such an important topic. I am glad you took up 
all the time you needed.
    Happy to yield to Representative Kilmer for 5 minutes for 
his questions.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you, Mr. Administrator, for being with us today, 
and congratulations on your confirmation.
    I recognize all of the critical work that your Agency 
accomplishes for our country. But as folks on this committee 
know perhaps all too well, my first and highest priority on 
this subcommittee remains the critical role that the EPA plays 
in protecting and restoring Puget Sound.
    Puget Sound is our region's most iconic body of water, a 
place on which generations of Washingtonians and Native 
Americans have built their lives and made their livelihoods. 
The sound supports more than 150,000 jobs in fishing and 
shellfish harvesting and maritime industry.
    There are 19 federally recognized Tribes that have made 
Puget Sound their home since time immemorial, including 17 with 
Tribal treaty rights to harvest fish and shellfish. And the 
Federal Government has a trust responsibility to support Puget 
Sound recovery and uphold those treaty rights.
    I believe that now more than ever there is real opportunity 
for Congress and the Federal Government to adopt policies that 
will protect our planet for future generations. And as our 
Nation continues to adjust to our new normal, it is clear that 
major Federal investments will be needed to restart our economy 
and get folks back to work.
    And I see Puget Sound restoration, from addressing 
persistent flooding and stormwater runoff to improving 
nearshore habitat and removing culverts that affect water 
quality and fish passage, as being a key component of that 
effort. These projects can get folks back to work and promote 
much-needed economic activity while also accomplishing long-
term goals to recover the sound. That is a win-win.
    So I am hopeful that we will see some progress on this 
front as part of the economic recovery effort.
    I would also like to extend a standing invitation to you to 
come out and visit my neck of the woods so that you can see 
firsthand all of the outstanding needs, as well as the 
opportunities that our region has.
    If future generations are going to have these 
opportunities, we have got to step up our efforts to protect 
and restore the sound, and we need a strong Federal partner in 
those efforts.
    So can you speak to some of the opportunities you see to 
strengthen EPA's partnership role in Puget Sound recovery?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question.
    And absolutely, for the reasons that you outlined, I think 
that EPA has a strong history in working on the Puget Sound. 
That is work that we will continue to do for the reasons you 
laid out.
    First and foremost, we believe that the work that we are 
doing there will enhance water quality, which is a critical 
part of our mission.
    The economic vitality of the sound is important to you, 
important to us, to demonstrate that environmental protection 
and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive. They go 
hand in hand.
    And in this case, there is a direct connection to the work 
that we want to do in terms of our investments in water 
infrastructure, especially in the area you identified. If we 
are going to improve in the area of stormwater and flooding, we 
have got to take a look at what we are doing on the side of 
working with Puget Sound and looking at some of the natural 
remedies that we can begin to invest in.
    So we look forward to continuing to partner there.
    Mr. Kilmer. I appreciate that.
    And I recognize that if we are going to effectively recover 
the sound, we need a coordinated approach that includes more 
Federal resources and more authorities to complement the 
efforts of our State and of our Tribes.
    I am proud to lead a bill here in Congress called the PUGET 
SOS Act to ensure that the Federal Government steps up to be a 
better partner that State and Tribal and local entities need to 
save our sound and to assist some of those regional efforts to 
restore salmon and orca populations, to ensure that future 
generations can dig for clams, and to uphold Tribal treaty 
rights.
    That bill passed the House with strong bipartisan support 
last Congress. So I hope that we can count on your partnership 
and your support for getting it across the finish line this 
Congress.
    Also, I want to just add, I know my State is petitioning 
the Biden administration to ensure that funding from the 
American Rescue Plan can be used to fix culverts. And again 
would certainly invite you to weigh in favorably there, because 
that can help the sound and it can grow a bunch of jobs.
    So I guess I would love to just tee up those issues for 
you. And on top of that, if there are other EPA funding streams 
that could help there, we would certainly welcome that help 
with an eye towards saving the sound and saving some of the 
species that depend on it.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. I will assure you and commit to you 
that we look forward to the partnership.
    As a former State secretary, I know that State and locals 
know their communities much better than the Federal Government 
ever could. We have to have an effective partnership.
    And I look forward to thinking through how we can leverage 
State, Federal, and local resources so that we are using the 
resources and the investments in the most impactful way to 
preserve the environment but grow the economy and create 
economic stimuli at the local level.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks very much.
    I see I am out of time.
    We would welcome you up in our neck of the woods.
    And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much.
    I am pleased to recognize Mr. Simpson for 5 minutes for his 
questions.
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chair Pingree. I appreciate the 
opportunity.
    And welcome, Administrator Regan. You come highly 
recommended, and I look forward to working with you.
    I have had a great relationship with the EPA over the 
years, and we have actually worked with local communities to 
find solutions to solve some of the problems.
    If you look at the city of Boise, they had to reduce their 
phosphorus levels going into the Boise River and they came up 
with a plan that was different than what the EPA had originally 
recommended and much cheaper, and the EPA looked at it and 
said, you know, this might work.
    So the EPA got behind it, and they created what was called 
a Dixie Drain, which is doing a great job in cleaning up the 
river.
    So working with the EPA and local communities, I think we 
can find solutions to some of these problems.
    But let me just say, as long as everybody else is inviting 
you, I would invite you to visit the Great Lakes of Idaho. We 
have some Great Lakes there, too. So I would invite you to do 
that.
    And I am certainly happy to hear that Congressman Kilmer is 
interested in saving orca and salmon, because there are some 
proposals to do just that.
    But let me ask you, I have often heard from mayors and city 
officials who come to me in need of help because their cities 
are out of compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act or the 
Clean Water Act or both due to the age of the water utility 
infrastructure.
    And the cost of replacement and repairs is crippling to 
these small municipality communities, not only in Idaho but in 
North Carolina and other places. I am sure you are well aware 
of that. Even with the STAG grants and stuff, they have a 
really difficult time trying to do their match to repair their 
water infrastructure.
    What can the administration do to assist these small 
communities in their pursuit of compliance with the Safe 
Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act?
    Mr. Regan. You have hit the nail on the head. So many of 
our local communities are struggling in this area, because we 
have not invested in our water infrastructure in such a long 
time.
    Part of the strategy for the increase in our 2022 budget 
and in looking at the President's American Jobs Plan addresses 
exactly this. We need to have some investments in these 
communities directly, financially, in terms of low-interest 
loans, but also there are a lot of communities that cannot 
afford the loan route and that we need some grant economic 
stimuli as well.
    But it is more than financial, as you know. What we do at 
EPA and what we did in the State of North Carolina, along with 
the financial help, there are also educational tools that many 
of these managers need in terms of how to train the workforce 
and recruit the appropriate workforce to manage these new 
systems. They are facing threats from cybersecurity just as 
much as they are from climate change.
    And so we need to build a healthy water infrastructure for 
economic development reasons, as well as safe drinking water, 
and that is what we want to do with these resources.
    Mr. Simpson. Well, I appreciate that. I look forward to 
working with you.
    And, of course, the Rural Water Program is very important 
across this country, because they help these small communities 
develop the personnel to work in these facilities and water 
treatment facilities and wastewater treatment facilities and 
stuff. So the Rural Water Program is vitally important, I am 
sure, all across the country, not just in Idaho. But I look 
forward to working with you on this.
    One other question I have is, during the Obama 
administration we always heard consistent concerns from farmers 
and ranchers and businesses and governors and many others about 
the extremely broad definition of Waters of the United States 
under the Clean Water Act.
    I was pleased when the EPA and the Corps took note of these 
concerns and rewrote the rule in a way that maintains critical 
protections under the Clean Water Act.
    The future of this rule is now uncertain. I am hoping you 
can shed some light on what the administration plans regarding 
the Navigable Waters Rule and how you plan on hearing the 
concerns of Idaho farmers and ranchers as you make these 
decisions.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. I spent a lot of time on this topic 
in North Carolina as the DEQ secretary, and I have met with a 
lot of the ag industry CEOs on this topic since I have been EPA 
Administrator. We all believe that the courts weighed in on the 
Obama rule and that the courts have weighed in on Trump's 
Navigable Waters Rule. We have learned from both instances.
    What I am pledging to do is begin a stakeholder engagement 
process involving our ag-community, Farm Bureau, our ag CEOs, 
our environmental community, to look at the lessons learned and 
how we can move forward.
    I am interested in moving forward, not in a ping-pong way, 
but a way that we can provide some certainty to the ag industry 
where we don't overburden the small farmer, but we also balance 
the protection of our wetlands and our sounds and estuaries.
    And so I believe we can do it. I just think we need to have 
more touch points and conversations. Secretary Vilsack and I 
are attached at the hip in terms of a strategy to get this 
done.
    Mr. Simpson. Well, thank you. I look forward to working 
with you on this and many other issues that come before the 
EPA. And, as I said, you come highly recommended and I look 
forward to working with you. Thank you.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Simpson.
    I am pleased to recognize Mr. Harder for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Harder. Wonderful.
    Well, thank you so much, Administrator Regan. 
Congratulations on your appointment. Very much excited to work 
with you.
    I wanted to talk about air quality. My region, the Central 
Valley of California, has the highest rates of childhood asthma 
in the entire country. I had childhood asthma as a kid and my 
brother did. It is incredibly common in our neck of the woods. 
We live in a valley where much of the air pollution that exists 
all over California sort of settles in our neck of the woods 
and even some from overseas.
    I know the administration is proposing a new project, $100 
million for improvements in air quality, and I would love to 
hear a little bit from you how you view that as working out in 
practice and, more generally, how you see the EPA's rules in 
not just setting high standards for air quality, which I agree 
we need to be doing, but even more, helping local communities 
like ours come into compliance with those standards and 
actually remediate in communities like ours which have 
challenges with air quality stemming decades in the past.
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question. And, 
regrettably, I grew up using an inhaler as well. So I know all 
too well what that feels like and the implications of that.
    What the administration wants to do is program resources to 
focus on air quality monitoring, but do it in a way where we 
are not rebuilding the Federal air quality monitoring system 
solely, that we are leveraging resources and passing through 
grants and investments to State and Tribal entities so that we 
can provide some flexibility in terms of what we are seeing on 
the ground and how States and Tribes can help on the compliance 
end.
    A lot of times we spend a lot of resources on enforcement. 
And the reality is, that enforcement mechanism is only as good 
as the rule. Many of our rules may or may not be as transparent 
as possible and/or may be harder from an administrative burden 
standpoint. So we are not achieving the environmental goals we 
are looking for.
    The resources in the fiscal year 2022 budget, as well as 
the American Jobs Plan, focus on where those air quality needs 
are the most.
    And by the way, I have to say, climate change is an 
important issue. But in tackling climate change, in leveraging 
technology, and looking at the monitoring we are talking about, 
you get the air quality benefits. The public health component 
of this is so important and I think is lost in the discussion.
    So the short answer to your question is these resources are 
dedicated to more air quality monitoring, technical assistance 
to comply with our regulations, and the ability for EPA to rely 
more on our local partners to help us with the environmental 
goals we are looking for.
    Mr. Harder. Thank you for that. I would love to dig in 
further as you continue to develop the budget proposal and 
figure out exactly where those dollars end up going. Especially 
in a big State like California, having those dollars go to 
California is great, given there are 53 congressional 
districts. We want to make sure that it is going to the 
communities that are hit hardest by the challenges in air 
quality today, and we look forward to working with you.
    I would also just mention a quick plug for a bill that we 
have developed called the FARM Act which is all around the 
intersection of air quality and agriculture, how do we actually 
help farmers and give them tools to alleviate some of the 
challenges that we are seeing in communities like mine.
    I believe it is one of the only bills, if not the only bill 
in Congress endorsed by both the Farm Bureau and the League of 
Conservation Voters. And it actually, I think, is somewhat 
similar to some of the efforts that you are talking about when 
you are talking about environmental justice and some of the 
efforts that you are trying to do to clean up pollution.
    Can you talk a little bit about the Diesel Emissions 
Reduction Act grant program and how you think some of the money 
going into that will help communities and address especially 
some of the marginalized communities that we are seeing?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. We are spending a lot of time 
looking at where technology is going and where the markets are 
going in terms of electric vehicles. But there is a stark 
reality here that we are making progress on technological 
advancements using biofuels and better technologies around 
diesel emission reduction strategies as well.
    In order to reach our goals, it is an all-hands-on-deck 
approach. There are electric vehicles, there is advanced diesel 
technology, and there are biofuels in the mix.
    I am spending time not only with the agriculture community, 
but also with the auto makers, to think about how we make this 
shift in a way that benefits the environment but the jobs 
follow the transition as well.
    It is a very important conversation, and look forward to 
having many more with you on that very topic.
    I am sorry. You are muted.
    Mr. Harder. With that, I yield back.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. Now I am muted.
    Thank you for your questions.
    I am pleased to recognize Mr. Stewart for 5 minutes for his 
questions.
    Mr. Stewart. Okay. Thank you. My phone just fell over. So 
if I am sideways, hopefully my phone resets.
    Administrator, welcome. We look forward to working with 
you.
    You know, one of the fun things to do is to review people's 
biographies when they come before us. And there are a couple of 
things in yours that I would like to mention.
    One is Goldsboro. It is one of the most beautiful towns in 
the country. My first assignment in the Air Force was at 
Langley Air Force Base, and we spent a lot of time in Tarboro, 
and Goldsboro was one of the places, communities we visited.
    We have a background as well similar. Your father was a 
colonel. My father was as well, although they fought in 
different wars. My dad was World War II and your father was 
Vietnam. But both from military families, and I think that 
gives us something in common as well.
    You love hunting and fishing, as do I. That is one of the 
reasons that many of us live in the West, is because we love 
the outdoors. I love to ski and rock climb and to enjoy the 
things that both of us are trying to protect.
    And so we look forward to working with you as we do try to 
find bipartisan and effective ways that we can protect the 
environment and things that we love.
    I would like to ask you something, and it goes back to the 
previous administration, but it is a policy that I know you are 
familiar with, and that is the Obama's administration Waters of 
the U.S., which became a very troubling and actually very 
controversial issue, particularly in the West.
    Salt Lake City, which represents a core part of the city, 
we get maybe 12 or 14 inches of rain a year. I mean, in North 
Carolina that is a month's worth of rainfall for you, maybe a 
couple of bad storms even. And to us, as you know, water rights 
in the West, I mean, they are as precious as gold, and we 
preserve every drop of water that we can. And we share that 
goal. Both of us share that interest.
    But the Waters of the U.S. claims Federal jurisdiction, as 
I know that you know, over virtually every pool of water there 
was. I mean, there was actually an argument that you could have 
a pool of standing water in your backyard and that because it 
would have some kind of being a nexus for a waterway, a 
navigable waterway, that the Federal Government could claim 
jurisdiction over that. And we saw them do that under the 
previous administration.
    So I am asking you please, please, for those of us who 
share this concern, tell us that you are not going to go back 
and reenforce or try to resurrect the Waters of the U.S. policy 
and that we can find another way to accomplish the same goal, 
and that is protect our waterways, protect the precious water, 
but not have to have such an extreme Federal overreach.
    I would appreciate your views on this.
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for the question, and thank you 
for the commonalities in the introduction. I think you hit the 
nail on the head, which is there is more that unites us than 
divides us, and there is always a way we can find move forward.
    Listen, we are committed to moving forward, learning from 
the lessons of the past. We don't have any intention of going 
back to the original Obama Waters of the U.S. verbatim, and we 
don't necessarily agree with everything that was in the Trump 
administration's version as well. We have learned lessons from 
both. We have seen complexities in both. We have determined 
that both rules did not necessarily listen to the will of the 
people.
    I think, as I have traveled the State and as I have talked 
to people all across the country, our agriculture community is 
not monolithic. We don't look the same all around this country. 
So we have got to think about what the appropriate way to move 
forward is.
    I have pledged to the environmental community, the ag 
community, and the like that we will chart a path forward on 
Waters of the U.S. that will be inclusive and forward-looking.
    Mr. Stewart. Administrator Regan, you have made my day to 
hear you say that. So thank you.
    And I think you are taking a fair approach in the sense 
that we can learn from the previous administration, and we can 
learn from President Obama's administration as well, and that 
there are probably lessons there that we can move forward with 
together. And, again, thank you for that.
    In the just a few seconds, I won't ask you a question. I 
will just maybe highlight something for you.
    The White Mesa Mill in Utah is the only uranium mill in the 
United States; important to know. It is one of the most 
challenged economic counties in the entire country. Half of the 
employees at this mill are Native Americans, a population that 
desperately needs our help in economic opportunities.
    This critical earths is incredibly important from a 
national security and an intelligence perspective. Sitting on 
the Intelligence Committee, as well as Appropriations, I 
understand and work on that intensely.
    And we look forward to working with the EPA as well trying 
to protect the U.S. ability to have access to these rare 
earths, knowing that they are important economically and from a 
national security perspective, but we can do so in an 
environmentally friendly manner. And we look forward to working 
with you on that as well.
    Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
    I am pleased to recognize Mrs. Lee for her 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would also like to 
thank the ranking member and welcome the Administrator here.
    It is a pleasure to meet you virtually, and as my first job 
out of grad school was working as a contractor for the 
Department of Justice and the EPA. So it is good to see you. 
And this is obviously an area of concern for me, which is why I 
am happy I am on this committee.
    You know, I was encouraged to see that the administration 
is committed to modernizing our drinking water, wastewater, 
stormwater systems, as well as tackling new contaminants.
    I come from Nevada, a rather arid, dry State, and we are 
facing obviously severe challenges with water resources, as we 
are across the arid Southwest.
    So we are grateful for the Agency's support in protecting 
Nevada's critical and scarce water resources by providing 
funding for projects that will help us to manage nonpoint 
source pollution in our watershed and partnering with local 
entities like we have with the Las Vegas Wash.
    Mr. Regan, as you mention in your testimony, water 
infrastructure projects are a major creator of jobs. Can you 
speak to the connection between the EPA's water infrastructure 
investment plan and what you foresee with the creation of new 
jobs?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. I would like to say that, luckily, 
we have a proven track record here, where with our water 
infrastructure grants and loan programs and our State revolving 
loan funds we have pushed billions of dollars out and created 
hundreds of thousands of jobs or helped stimulate hundreds of 
thousands of jobs over our track record here.
    What the President is wanting to do in this 2022 budget and 
with the American Jobs Plan is to help expedite repairing our 
crumbling infrastructure.
    But it will put a lot of people to work. Electricians, pipe 
fitters, contractors, engineers. There are so many jobs 
associated with this need. And by the way, economic development 
relies on certainty in their drinking water.
    We really see a strong combination of managing our drinking 
water and creating jobs. But more importantly, with our 
wastewater systems, we are seeing lots of pollution in our 
natural streams and rivers, especially during times of storms.
    So this is a win-win-win here. We can protect the 
environment, we can improve public health with clean drinking 
water, and we can put a lot of people to work with the 
investments in our water infrastructure.
    Mrs. Lee. Well, we are, as a State that has been decimated 
by this pandemic, we are looking forward to hopefully seeing 
some of those jobs in Nevada.
    I want to just turn now to the administration's plans for 
tackling the climate crisis with respect to national carbon 
standards for cars.
    As I am sure you are aware, that emissions from--are the 
single largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. But I 
do want to say, in my home State of in Nevada in June of 2020, 
the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection announced a 
rulemaking process to evaluate the adoption of low-emission and 
zero-emission standards for light-duty vehicles.
    In your testimony you highlight several ways in which the 
EPA is reprioritizing addressing climate change with the 
urgency the crisis demands. Nevada is now one of 17 States and 
the District of Columbia that has clean car standards pending 
or adopted.
    Can you speak to how the EPA incorporates lessons learned 
from carbon standard implementation at the State level to 
inform your similar efforts at the Federal level?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. We respect the statutory authority 
that we have and that States have. States like California have 
historically the right to lead the way. The Federal Government 
can indeed learn from States, and that is what we plan to 
continue to do.
    We are putting out a notice of proposed rulemaking on 
tailpipe emissions for cars and light-duty trucks, and that 
will come mid-July. It will be informed by the great work that 
the States have been doing, but it will also be informed by the 
conversations we have had with the auto industry and where we 
are headed with technological advancements. I mean [audio 
malfunction].
    Mrs. Lee. A little connectivity issue here.
    Ms. Pingree. Hopefully we will have the Administrator right 
back again.
    Mr. Joyce. It is too bad Derek cut off, because before this 
we were just on the Modernization Committee hearing and the one 
common complaint from nearly everyone is internet connectivity 
issues. Having this happen--oh, there he is.
    Mr. Kilmer. The Modernization Committee is going to be hard 
at work on fixing the WiFi, you guys.
    Ms. Pingree. I think it is probably just because too many 
people in the building use the WiFi, which is what you are 
supposed to do, but we have such limited capacity.
    Mr. Joyce. I found at the start of the pandemic when the 
girls came home and they are spread out through the house, not 
only are they on their iPad for work, but then they are on 
their phone, and I am down in the basement cutting out like 
this. So finally I went up, I said, you can have one, the iPad 
or the phone, but get off the house WiFi on the other one.
    Ms. Pingree. Hazards of being a Member of Congress.
    Mr. Joyce. Well, Betty can fill in for him while he is off.
    Ms. Pingree. Representative McCollum, we are happy to have 
you here, but we are waiting. The Administrator has a WiFi 
issue going on right now.
    Ms. McCollum. Oh, no.
    Ms. Pingree. I am being informed that he should be back in 
a couple of minutes, I think.
    Ms. McCollum. Well, I want to thank my fellow committee 
members for understanding. With all the committee hearings 
going on and people being on them, we have all been in this 
boat. So I have got defense hearings going on and Democratic 
and Republican members in other committees. So we are shuffling 
the chairs.
    Ms. Pingree. Okay. I am going to recess the committee for 5 
minutes just to give him a little time to catch up. So we will 
look forward to seeing you all back here in 5 minutes.
    [Recess.]
    Ms. Pingree. The subcommittee will come to order once 
again. And we are happy to recognize Chair McCollum for 5 
minutes for her questions.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you very much, Chair Pingree.
    And to my fellow committee members, I look forward to when 
we can all be together again in person.
    Administrator Regan, thank you for joining us here today to 
present a bold budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. 
It is a welcome change from the previous administration who 
repeatedly proposed more than a quarter of the EPA's budget to 
be cut and eliminating environmental justice programs.
    I am proud that we won that fight, and, in fact, we 
increased the EPA's funding during my 2 years as chair when Ms. 
Pingree was the vice chair. So I am just thrilled that Chair 
Pingree will be working with you to get a hefty increase after 
looking at the President's budget.
    Administrator Regan, I was especially pleased to see that 
President Biden is proposing $936 million for a new 
Accelerating Environmental and Economic Justice Initiative. The 
communities that have been marginalized have borne the burden 
of pollution and climate change, and they need the support. So 
thank you.
    I have already seen the commitment happening in my home 
State in Minnesota where the EPA Region 5 is requiring our 
Clean Water Act impaired waters list to include Wild Rice Lakes 
and Rivers that are impaired by higher levels of sulfate and, 
dangerously, have even more sulfate.
    So I hope that we can count on you, especially in working 
with Tribal consultation, honoring their trust and treaty 
obligation, because that is essential for the EPA's 
implementation of the Biden administration's environmental 
justice initiative.
    So I am just assuming that is a big yes, and I want to 
thank you for that.
    Mr. Regan. It is a big yes.
    Ms. McCollum. Another issue I wanted to put on your radar 
screen is an effort to have the EPA take a lead on the 
Mississippi River Restoration and Resiliency Strategy. I 
included language last year in the subcommittee providing $2 
million to the EPA to put the agency in the driver's seat in 
this initiative in coordination with five other Federal 
agencies.
    My staff has discussed the importance of developing this 
strategy with the White House and CEQ. And I will soon be 
introducing the corresponding legislation to create a 
geographic program for the Mississippi River, our national 
river, which is known internationally all around the world.
    This initiative will create the same sort of coordination 
and bipartisan investment that the Mississippi River Corridor, 
that we have seen in the Great Lakes and other regional 
initiatives.
    So I would like to be working with your staff as soon as 
possible to be able to brief my office on the Agency's work in 
response to the report language on the Mississippi River 
Restoration and Resiliency Strategy that was in the House 
language last year. So we look forward to working with your 
staff.
    The big question I have is to ask you for a little bit of 
an update on the Agency's work on PFOS. As chair of this 
subcommittee, I was proud to provide the EPA with the increased 
funds for the scientific and regulatory work to establish 
drinking and clean water standards for PFOS.
    That work continues to be incredibly important to me as the 
chair of the Defense Subcommittee, because I want to ensure 
that the DOD is cleaning up its PFOS contamination to levels 
that fully protect the health of our servicemembers, their 
families, and surrounding communities.
    Can you give me an update on the EPA's work on PFOS and how 
it will guide cleanup actions at the DOD, as well as State, 
local, and private industry responsibilities? We want one great 
standard, and I don't want the DOD to have a weakened standard.
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question. Coming from 
North Carolina, one of the most military-friendly States in the 
country, I recognized from the beginning that EPA needed to 
have a positive relationship with DOD.
    Secretary Austin and I have already committed to meet on 
this topic. We have had some conversations, some general 
conversations, but we are getting together soon to discuss how 
EPA and DOD can work together to tackle the PFOS issue.
    We are forging ahead, leveraging the expertise that we have 
at the Agency to look at setting a drinking water standard. The 
importance of this fiscal year 2022 budget and the increases 
that we are seeing there is to give us the resources to 
continue the scientific work that we need to conduct, as well 
as the resources to help spearhead remediation and cleanup as 
well.
    And so remediation, cleanup, scientific integrity to help 
inform the drinking water standard, and partnerships and 
proactive conversations with the Secretary of Defense is where 
we are headed.
    Ms. McCollum. Well, thank you for that. I think that you 
are going to see a lot of activity starting to percolate up 
again on PFOS, and it tends to be very--almost nonpartisan with 
some Members. And I know Ms. Pingree and I have talked about 
this. We have sent a letter to the Biden administration, along 
with the Oversight chair of Energy and Commerce, Ms. DeGette, 
and the three of us are going to work together on this. So we 
look forward to working with you. And in my case, I look 
forward to working with Secretary Austin.
    So, Madam Chair, thank you for the indulgence. And I will 
let you get back to your great work, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much for your questions.
    And thank you, Administrator Regan. And if you are willing 
to stick around, I think there are a few members who would like 
to ask a second question. So I will recognize myself for the 
first 5 minutes.
    I want to go back to the topic of environmental justice. It 
is something that Chair McCollum just talked about a little 
bit. It has come up in the conversation. And it is certainly a 
great concern.
    And so we are very pleased to see the Biden administration 
and your Agency put a focus on this. This has been a priority 
for the subcommittee. We made advancing environmental justice a 
priority, increasing the funding for the EPA's Office of 
Environmental Justice by 75 percent over 2 years, and also 
boosting funding for programs like Brownfields remediation and 
DERA.
    It is certainly a discriminatory practice. We find these 
industrial corridors and landfills being located in low-income 
communities and communities of color. And particularly with 
this administration's focus on the environment and on climate 
change, we have to have a new lens.
    So I would love to hear your perspective on how we best 
tackle this. And I want to talk a little bit in more detail 
about the 936 million for the EPA's new Accelerating 
Environmental and Economic Justice Initiative.
    Can you just talk about it in a little greater detail? I 
think it is an important thing for us all to understand better 
and to know how important it is to tackle it.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. This is a central piece of our work, 
environmental justice and equity. The big part of it is we have 
so many communities all across the country that have been 
disproportionately impacted and left behind, disproportionately 
impacted from a health impact standpoint just as much as an 
economic standpoint.
    The resources that we plan to use will focus on grant 
opportunities, education, outreach, and ways that we can think 
about helping these communities as we bolster the protection 
for water quality and air quality.
    But also many of the very industries that are 
disproportionately impacting these communities are the lifeline 
economically for these communities.
    So we are wanting to work together, hand in hand, to be 
sure that the polluters don't get away, but also that we think 
about how these industries coexist better with these 
communities. So there is an environmental transition that we 
are looking at, but we are also looking at an economic 
transition.
    I believe that these go hand in hand. I believe that we 
need to spend time in our States with these communities, with 
these industries, and we can prove that environmental 
protection and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive 
but go hand in hand and everyone can be treated fairly.
    Ms. Pingree. That is great. And I think that is such an 
important perspective. So thank you for that.
    One other aspect about this. One of the defining 
characteristics of economic justice communities is they often 
bear a disproportionate pollution burden compared to other 
communities.
    It seems to me that we have limited mechanisms within our 
environmental laws to factor in the cumulative health effects 
of multi-pollutant exposures in a community, and I think that 
is an important thing to change.
    Could you outline some of the ways that the Agency would be 
addressing cumulative impacts in its work? And how can we 
partner with you to give you the tools to make sure we are able 
to do that?
    Mr. Regan. That is an excellent question. I have instructed 
every office at EPA to take a look at how environmental justice 
inequity fits within their program, not just from a rhetoric 
standpoint, but in terms of the very DNA of the work that EPA 
does here.
    I think we do have tools that we can better leverage to 
look at the multiple impacts that multiple industries may have 
each and every time the Federal Government or a State makes a 
decision in terms of permitting these entities.
    But we need to do more. We need to do more in terms of 
enforcement on our side. We need to do more in terms of 
technical assistance that we provide to local economic 
developers so that they can take these cumulative impacts into 
consideration when they recruit industries. We need to do more 
partnering with our legislative bodies to think through, if we 
don't have all of the statutory authority we need to address 
cumulative impact in a most expedient way, we are working with 
you to develop the laws that will govern that.
    Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, I really do appreciate that, 
because I think that all too often we look at a single impact 
of a toxic chemical, or of bad air, bad water, but don't 
understand that in certain communities people are being 
bombarded by multiple levels of toxicity. And we often have 
such a rigid standard or a limited ability to understand that.
    So I am thrilled that it is an important issue to you, and 
I really look forward to the committee and this Congress giving 
you the tools that you need to deal with that.
    So I will yield back. And happy to recognize Mr. Joyce if 
he has a second round of questions.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Administrator, given that education is a proven tool to 
increasing recycling participation, strengthening recycling 
streams and reducing pollution, as co-chair of the House 
Recycling Caucus, I have been proud to also co-lead H.R. 5906, 
the RECYCLE Act, to help protect our invaluable natural 
resources.
    The RECYCLE Act would create a new EPA grant program to 
help States, Tribes, local governments, nonprofits, and public-
private partnerships educate households and consumers about 
their residential and community recycling programs.
    In fiscal year 2021, Congress provided up to $1.5 million 
to support these efforts at the Agency. Can you describe how 
the Agency plans to use this funding in fiscal year 2021? How 
will these efforts also benefit the environment and the 
economy?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, thank you for that question. It is such an 
important question. We are spending a lot of those resources 
focused on education, outreach, and partnering with our States 
and Tribes and local communities to educate them, not only on 
the environmental disbenefits of plastics, but the economic 
opportunities, the circular economy aspects of this.
    I just sat down with a group of young people 2 weeks ago, 
and second to climate change, plastics in the circular economy 
were top of their list. I spent time with my Japanese 
counterparts on an international call and this was top priority 
for Japan as well. There are so many advantages here.
    What EPA wants to do is do a better job partnering with our 
State and local and international partners to reduce the impact 
that we see plastics having on our marine life, on our food 
sources, but thinking about how in a circular economy fashion 
we can begin to tackle this as well.
    Mr. Joyce. Can you explain what recycling challenges these 
entities currently face? Could additional funding broaden 
community outreach, awareness, and education on recycling to 
increase recycling participation?
    Mr. Regan. We are taking a very close look at that. I can 
tell from you my experience in North Carolina, a lot of it is 
access in our rural communities in terms of where to drop off 
the recycling materials, how you aggregate those recycling 
materials so that it makes sense from a cost-effective 
standpoint for local municipalities to invest in these 
programs.
    We really have to take a look at how we empower our local 
communities to see the leverage points and the economic 
opportunities for pulling plastics out of circulation.
    I believe that education and outreach is a significant way 
we can provide technical assistance and resources to our State 
and local partners to tackle this challenge.
    Mr. Joyce. Well, thank you. Despite increased GLRI funding, 
significant work to reduce nonpoint source pollution and 
efforts to mitigate impacts that human activities have had on 
the Great Lakes, we continue to hear reports about the growing 
threat of harmful algal blooms in the Great Lakes, as well as 
down in the Everglades and other areas throughout the country.
    How could adjusting the allocation of GLRI funds to the 
various focus areas, like nutrients and habitat, potentially 
help accelerate harmful algal bloom reduction efforts?
    Mr. Regan. It is a very critical question. One of the 
things that we want to do a better job at EPA is not operating 
in silos, but having all of our programs leverage their 
expertise and resources to tackle this.
    I think as we think through how we engage our agricultural 
partners and look at the efficiencies in terms of ag 
management, pesticide application, fertilizers, and the like, 
that is one example of where the ag community sees more 
efficient management of farming as an opportunity for us to 
quantify a significant water quality impact that we are looking 
at as well.
    I think we have to look across our program, leverage our 
resources, and really focus on nutrient management in a way 
that that balances our overall goal.
    Mr. Joyce. I have a little bit of time left, but I don't 
want to have you sit around for another round. So let me just 
finish quickly.
    Could additional restoration progress be made by investing 
in innovative projects, like natural infrastructure project 
designs, like wetlands, technologies or approaches that yield 
nutrient and harmful algal bloom reduction benefits at 
landscape scales?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. That is a critical piece of why we 
want to take a look at how to have a stakeholder engagement 
process that reevaluates Waters of the U.S. in a way that, 
again, doesn't overly burden the small farmer, but looks at the 
important role wetlands play in filtering pollutants.
    There is such a strong connection there. These natural 
approaches to protecting water quality are critical because 
they are more resilient to storms and they are more cost-
effective than some of the manmade solutions like terminal 
growings and others.
    Mr. Joyce. I certainly believe that wetlands are nature's 
kidneys, and we need to continue work on them as best we can.
    I realize I am well out of time. Thank you very much for 
allowing me these questions today, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Pingree. Absolutely. Thank you for your questions. And 
that important metaphor about nature's kidneys, that is a good 
way to describe it.
    So, Chair Kaptur, we are very pleased to see you and happy 
to yield to you for 5 minutes for your questions.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much.
    And I want to add my word of congratulations to the new 
Administrator of EPA. We look forward to working with you.
    And the district that I represent is out in a mud puddle, 
out in the middle part of the country. And this is western 
Ohio. This is Michigan up here. Indiana over here. And here is 
Lake Erie. Congressman Joyce, my dear friend, lives somewhere 
over here.
    But I wanted to show you this because Congressman Joyce, 
Ranking Member Joyce, indicated the problem with the nutrient 
runoff into Lake Erie.
    And our problem is also political in that one of the 
poorest cities in the country, Toledo, which sits about here, 
and their wastewater treatment plant, the bill for cleaning up 
water and sewage in the region is placed on Toledo. And Toledo 
has to draw its clear water from Lake Erie, but the pollution 
comes from a region much bigger than Toledo.
    And my first question really goes to a Clean Watersheds 
Needs Survey that was done that talks about wastewater 
infrastructure across our country and what the backlog has 
grown to, creeping toward a half a trillion dollars.
    In Ohio, they say we need about 14 billion in wastewater 
infrastructure. The largest county in my district, which is 
Cuyahoga County, Cleveland, has a $2.9 billion unmet 
construction need.
    As we look forward toward a Build Back Better agenda, how 
can our country confront a reckoning with race and poverty 
without addressing the unfairness of the massive financial 
obligations placed on communities like Cleveland, like Toledo, 
like Detroit, where they had to shut off the fresh water to 
people, and more people caught COVID-19 because of that?
    It is really--EPA is great. And I am a city [audio 
malfunction] Money that we need to do this. So we either have 
to innovate our way out of this or you have to get more power 
somehow. But you put obligations on communities, and then what 
happens is people can't afford their water bills and their 
utility bills.
    So what they have done in the city of Toledo, because 
people can't pay the bills, rather than sending the bills 
quarterly, they are now sending them every month. So people are 
getting a utility bill every month because it is a smaller 
bite, but over a year, it is a bigger total.
    This is really a system doomed to fail--and it is failing. 
And I hope that EPA will be a really big voice in the Build 
Back Better, and that we will figure out a way to lift some of 
this burden off of communities, billions of dollars in unpaid 
bills due for infrastructure improvements. They simply don't 
have the money. They have lost out millions of jobs in our 
region. So how are communities supposed to do this?
    So I think we need your vision to place responsibility 
where it belongs. And how do you do that when there is no 
political boundary for the watershed that is causing the 
problem? And then how do you help the poor cities that are 
being asked to clean everything up, and their taxpayers and 
ratepayers are being sent these bills to a point where we are 
shutting off thousands of people's because they can't afford 
the bills? This is not a workable solution.
    Do you have any thoughts about how you are being included 
in the Build Back Better discussions at the White House? I 
think the Federal Government should lift this bond of 
indebtedness off these communities.
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question. I did not see 
the visual, but I have it in my head, imagining it.
    Listen, we are front and center in the American Jobs Plan. 
We are front and center in the 2022 budget that we are 
requesting. The President's wisdom has shown that the $111 
billion that we are asking for to help improve the country's 
water system, wastewater, stormwater, replacement of lead 
pipes, is an aggressive and an ambitious number.
    But the facts are that out of that $111 billion, it is a 
small down payment because there are $743 billion worth of 
needs in this country.
    So we have got to move forward in a very aggressive way to 
begin jump-starting the infrastructure repair that needs to 
occur for not only water quality needs, as you have laid out, 
and environmental justice needs, but to put jobs in those same 
communities as well.
    So we want to use the $111 billion from the American Jobs 
Plan, we want to use the increases from the 2022 budget, but we 
also want to use the environmental justice and equity dollars 
that are in both of these requests to marry this so that those 
who are most impacted will see the benefits of water quality 
and jobs first.
    Ms. Kaptur. Well, thank you, Administrator Regan.
    I wanted to suggest, if you haven't visited the D.C. water 
facility here, I was absolutely fascinated with my visit there 
because I have been wondering how can I reduce these bills on 
the communities I represent and, frankly, for the whole 
country. And I think we need a different business model.
    They have a new business model. And their business model is 
they are turning the biggest consumer of energy in the city of 
Washington, which is the treatment of water and sewage, into an 
energy utility. And they are doing it by not just drawing down 
power from the grid, but they are producing power.
    And they are producing power through a thermal heat 
exchange system where they will then replicate kind of what we 
have done in the old steam systems that existed across cities, 
connect every building adjacent to them, and use the 
differential in temperature to actually produce power for the 
first time from sewage and water reclamation. And they are on 
task to become an energy utility.
    I chair an Energy and Water Subcommittee in the Congress. 
When I saw that I thought, whoa, how do I get that to 
Cleveland, how do I get that to Lorain, how do I get to Toledo, 
to Buffalo, to all these place that are struggling under these 
gigantic debt loads? And I would encourage your staff to look 
at the bonded indebtedness across the Great Lakes and other 
regions of the country.
    But I think this DC group has really--they are on to 
something transformational. And they are turning their 
wastewater treatment facility into an energy utility. They are 
adding solar, they are adding--they have already got the 
geothermal. I am sure they are going to add more.
    I think it is revolutionary. It doesn't exist anyplace else 
in the United States. I think other cities, Denver and others, 
are looking at it.
    But I just commend it to your attention because we have got 
to break the mold on 20th century thinking, we just can't 
achieve the objective, and appropriated dollars aren't enough.
    Mr. Regan. Right.
    Ms. Kaptur. But I think if we can look at these generators 
of power, including these water and sewage treatment plans, I 
think we are into a different era.
    So I just wanted to share that vision with you. And also to 
say in terms of, I am sure, Mr. Joyce has talked many times 
about the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, on the committee 
that I chair, every year the Bureau of Reclamation for 17 
Western States gets a billion dollars off the top of 
appropriated dollars to help with the dry up, the drying West, 
right?
    We are lucky in the GLRI if we get 250 million, sometimes 
330 million. I think one time they got 500 million, maybe back 
when President Obama was in office.
    But we are not on the same playing field. And we got the 
water. We got 95 percent of the fresh surface water in the 
country. Somebody better be thinking about it for future 
generations. So help us get on a level playing field.
    And I thank you very much for listening.
    I don't have that clock on my--I can't tell if I have gone 
over time. So I don't know where it is on the screen, but I 
apologize if I have gone over time. And I thank you very much 
for listening.
    Ms. Pingree. It is fine, Chair Kaptur. You have gone over 
time, but it was well worth it. And it is always good to wrap 
up with talking about the Great Lakes.
    And you have mentioned that facility in D.C. a couple of 
times, and I think we are going to just have to have a field 
trip to see it because it definitely sounds impressive.
    So thank you so much, Administrator Regan and Deputy Bloom, 
for appearing before our committee and answering our questions. 
We really appreciate that. Look forward to partnering with you.
    And if there are no additional questions, this hearing is 
now adjourned.
    [Answers to submitted questions follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]