    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED
                         AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2024
    _______________________________________________________________________

                                     HEARINGS

                                     BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                  FIRST SESSION

                                   _____________

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES

                       MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho, Chairman

      CHRIS STEWART, Utah			CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
      MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada		BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
      GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania	DEREK KILMER, Washington
      MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas			JOSH HARDER, California
      RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
      JAKE ELLZEY, Texas

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

                 Kristin Clarkson, Victoria Allred, Sarah Peery,
                        Courtney Stevens, and Maggie Earle
                                Subcommittee Staff

                                 _____________

                                      PART 3

                                                                       Page

      U.S. Forest Service..................	                              1
      Members' Day..........................  			     49
      Department of the Interior............                             73
      Environmental Protection Agency.......                            139
      Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Requests for
    the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service, and National Park
    Service.................................                            193

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     _____________

              Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

     53-277                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                                     WASHINGTON : 2023
    _______________________________________________________________________

                        COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                    ----------
                         KAY GRANGER, Texas, Chairwoman

      HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
      ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
      MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
      JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
      KEN CALVERT, California
      TOM COLE, Oklahoma
      MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
      STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
      CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
      DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
      ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
      MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
      CHRIS STEWART, Utah
      DAVID G. VALADAO, California
      DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
      JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
      JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
      BEN CLINE, Virginia
      GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
      MIKE GARCIA, California
      ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
      TONY GONZALES, Texas
      JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
      MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
      MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
      RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
      ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia
      JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
      JERRY L. CARL, Alabama
      STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
      C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
      JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
      JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona

      ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
      STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
      MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
      SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
      BARBARA LEE, California
      BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
      C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
      DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
      HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
      CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
      MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
      DEREK KILMER, Washington
      MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
      GRACE MENG, New York
      MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
      PETE AGUILAR, California
      LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
      BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
      NORMA J. TORRES, California
      ED CASE, Hawaii
      ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
      JOSH HARDER, California
      JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
      DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
      LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
      SUSIE LEE, Nevada
      JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York

                  Anne Marie Chotvacs, Clerk and Staff Director

                                       (ii)

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                            APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2024

                                  ----------

                                              Thursday, March 23, 2023.

                              U.S. FOREST SERVICE

                                    WITNESS

    RANDY MOORE, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE
        Mr. Simpson. This hearing will come to order. Before we
    start, we have a special guest today, and any of you that don't
    know that haven't been watching. This is, I call him Eddie
    Eagle because I can't think of another name for him, but they
    have had this eagle out here yesterday in the Senate and walked
    through the Rotunda with it, and then they were in the House
    today. I think they are going to be in the Resources Committee.
        This is the Peregrine Fund, and they have been out here in
    years gone by, and they have usually brought their Aplomado
    falcon they are doing restoration with and stuff. But this is a
    treat for us to have Eddie here. It doesn't have a name, but
    ``Eddie Eagle'' comes to mind for me, the ski jumper and stuff.
        I am going to give the people from the Peregrine Fund a few
    minutes to explain what they do and stuff, and then I am going
    to take the opportunity to introduce a special friend of mine
    to say a couple words.
        Voice. Am I in the light?
        Voice. You may want to move. [Laughter.]
        Voice. Can I see?
        Mr. Simpson. When you bring him into my office tomorrow, is
    my stuffed wolf in there going to cause a problem? [Laughter.]
        I didn't want to hear this, ``aaaahhhh.''
        Voice. They just go for the neck.
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah. How much does the bird weigh?
        Voice. She is about 10\1/2\ pounds.
        Mr. Simpson. Ten and a half?
        Voice. Yep.
        Ms. Pingree. Oh, Eddie is a she.
        Voice. Nine-point-six.
        Mr. Simpson. It is a she?
        Ms. Pingree. Maybe it is Edna or----
        Mr. Simpson. Edwina. Edwina, yeah.
        Ms. Pingree. Edwina is good. Edwina.
        Voice. How old is she?
        Voice. She is 17 years old this spring.
        Voice. So is that old?
        Voice. Out in the wild, late teens is a pretty good
    average. In an education setting like ours, she can live to be
    into her 40s.
        Voice. Wow.
        Voice. Wow.
        Voice. So her and I will teach together another 25 or 30
    years.
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
        Voice. Wow.
        Ms. Pingree. Oh, my goodness.
        Voice. Yeah, that is awesome.
        Mr. Simpson. If wiser heads prevail then, or what is his
    name----
        Voice. Benjamin Franklin.
        Mr. Simpson [continuing]. Benjamin Franklin that wanted the
    turkey for our national bird. [Laughter.]
         Isn't that a beautiful animal?
        Voice. Yeah, it is.
        Voice. Is she nervous with us?
        Voice. No. For her, people are a reward. They are exciting
    and interesting where a lot of wild eagles will avoid people.
    Yeah, for her, she is an injured bird of prey, so that is why
    we have her, and so a roomful of people, there is nothing
    better for her.
        Voice. Did she grow up in the wild then?
        Voice. She started out there, yep. Yep. She was injured
    when she was about 6 weeks old, and so she has been in an
    education or a rehab setting ever since then.
        Mr. Simpson. Was she injured because her parents threw out
    of her nest teaching her how to fly?
        Voice. That is a good question. She was maybe pulled or
    pushed from the nest.
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
        Voice. It is kind of unusual for siblings to do that.
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
        Ms. Pingree. Is it okay if I take a picture?
        Voice. Yeah.
        Mr. Simpson. Sure, yeah. If you want a picture next to
    Edwina, and then I am going to give the Peregrine Fund a few
    minutes to talk about their operations and what they do.
        [Photo ops.]
        Mr. Simpson. Isn't that a beautiful animal, though? Don't
    you wish your eyes were sharp as them?
        Ms. Pingree. I have multiple eagles who live, like, where I
    am.
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
        Ms. Pingree. So I can step out of my house, and they are in
    a spruce tree, like, as far as----
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
        Ms. Pingree. So they will be up in the tree. Obviously, I
    have never been this close to one of them, but it is kind of
    amazing because I look at them all the time.
        Mr. Simpson. I do, too. We have got a couple that live in
    some cotton woods.
        Ms. Pingree. And they are so beautiful.
        Mr. Simpson. There you go.
        [Cross-talking.]
        Mr. Simpson. I knew Stuart would cause a problem.
    [Laughter.]
        Even the eagle knows there is a problem here. [Laughter.]
         What is the wing span on that bird?
        Voice. Six-and-a-half feet.
        Mr. Simpson. Six-and-a-half feet?
        Voice. It can't zoom.
        Mr. Simpson. Do you need somebody else to take it?
        Voice. Yeah, I will take it.
        Voice. It is mostly for my kids.
        Mr. Simpson. Isn't that a beautiful animal, though?
        Voice. Yeah, just as soon as she comes out, you just go
    wow.
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
        Voice. Yeah.
        Voice. Like, in the wild, can she, like, lift a rabbit,
    something that heavy?
        Voice. Yes. Something about half their body weight is
    generally what they can carry away. So at, like, at 10\1/2\
    pounds, she would be easily be able to take a rabbit.
        Voice. Half their body weight. That is crazy.
        Mr. Simpson. I live on a golf course. The hole is behind
    me, and there are some cotton woods on the other side there,
    and we have got a couple eagles that live up there. And you
    will watch them out there, and pretty soon they will come down,
    and they will be scooting down the freeway or down the fairway
    and stuff on the golf course. I make sure my little poodle is
    in the house when they are out looking for food, but it is
    fascinating to watch them.
        Ms. Pingree. Pretty cool, yeah.
        Voice. They are amazing.
        Mr. Simpson. Actually in this cotton wood, they had built a
    nest, and a strong wind came up a few years ago and blew the
    nest down, and it was like a Volkswagen Beetle.
        Voice. Mm-hmm.
        Voice. Yes.
        Ms. Pingree. Wow.
        Mr. Simpson. It was huge.
        Voice. Yeah.
        Mr. Simpson. And they actually came back and rebuilt it in
    the same place. They don't usually do that, do they?
        Voice. If there is good hunting ground, why give it up?
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
        Voice. She is beautiful.
        Mr. Simpson. I am going to give you a couple words to you
    to talk about the Peregrine Fund and what they do.
        Mr. Parish. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of
    the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to come and share
    with you. I am sure this is how you start most of your
    meetings.
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Parish. My name is Chris Parish. I am the Peregrine
    Fund's president and CEO, and we are very happy to make our
    first trip with the executive-level change. And I have been
    with the Peregrine Fund for 23 years and recently taken the job
    of president and CEO. We have members of our executive staff
    here, and we are introducing ourselves so that people who know
    who the Peregrine Fund is.
        We have endangered species. Everybody knows that key word,
    right, ``endangered species'' and the Endangered Species Act.
    The Peregrine Fund is a private, nonprofit group. We work
    globally to work with threatened and endangered birds all
    around the world. Our focus is delisting, not listing. We are
    not a litigious-based group. We do work by working with
    stakeholders to solve problems after we come to understand the
    system and the science behind it. We are a science-based
    organization. We don't litigate. We work with those
    stakeholders to solve problems.
        The peregrine falcon, thus our namesake, is one of another
    great story, just like the recovery of the bald eagle. And they
    have been delisted, and the next one on deck probably the
    California condor. We want you all to know that we are a
    resource for you when it comes to anything in the system
    because these birds are an apex predator. When raptors are
    healthy, ecosystems are healthy, and our understanding of that
    should be of a resource for all, and we hope to play that role.
    We have been around for 53 years, and if we are doing our jobs
    well, we will be around for another hundred and hopefully be a
    resource for all of our natural resources to help in that. So
    we thank you for the opportunity.
        Mr. Simpson. Where are you headquartered?
        Mr. Parish. Boise, Idaho. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Simpson. Oh, okay. I just thought I would bring that
    up. I wasn't sure. We have an area out there called Birds of
    Prey----
        Mr. Parish. Yes, we do.
        Mr. Simpson [continuing]. That the Peregrine Fund operates
    with and stuff. And I would encourage anybody, if you are just
    coming through Boise, if you are going out to see NIFC or
    something like that, go out to the Peregrine Fund and take a
    couple of hours and look at it. You will be fascinated by the
    work that they have out there.
        Mr. Parish. And if you happen to be available, we have on
    Earth Day this year the grand opening of our new visitor
    center. She is excited about it.
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
        Mr. Parish. Our new visitor center, on Saturday, the 22nd.
    Is that correct? Saturday the 22nd, we are going to have our
    ribbon cutting and open up our new center where we host
    thousands of schoolchildren that come to know raptors, and what
    it means to do conservation, and what it means to preserve our
    heritage, and they come through to visit. We also have the
    archives of falconry there, and that is another unique thing
    about the Peregrine Fund.
        We are founded by falconers, one of the oldest forms of
    hunting within human history. And so our perspective comes from
    a relationship with the birds, and when we add science to that,
    it makes it, I think, a unique insight into landscape systems
    and, most importantly, our systems because wildlife
    conservation is people working with people. So thank you----
        Mr. Simpson. I appreciate that. We have a couple of things
    today. [Laughter.]
        Voice. Timing is everything.
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah. [Laughter.] I said we have a special
    guest, and I didn't mean you. [Laughter.]
        Voice. I saw him last night.
        Mr. Simpson. Okay. But it is also my pleasure to introduce
    a good friend of mine who has been U.S. senator from Idaho,
    been governor of Idaho, and he has been the Secretary of
    Interior, and I am not talking about Ryan Zinke. He has been
    the Secretary of Interior, but Dirk Kempthorne. Do you want to
    say a few words, Dirk?
        Mr. Kempthorne. The better Secretary.
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
        Mr. Kempthorne. Mr. Chairman, and ranking member, and all
    members of the committee, first of all, thank you for your
    service to the country. Mike, to you as a dear friend, thank
    you for your service to the country.
        Mr. Simpson. You bet.
        Mr. Kempthorne. Mr. Secretary, nice to be with you again.
    When I had the honor of being the Secretary of the Interior, I
    also had the honor of delisting the American bald eagle because
    I believed that the Endangered Species Act, which now is so
    prominent on listing species, but not recovering. We must get
    to recovery, and that is why when they asked me to serve on the
    Peregrine Fund board, I said yes.
        Chris mentioned the peregrine falcon, but you need to
    realize that the captive breeding that took place, Mr.
    Chairman--they are at the World Center for Birds of Prey in
    Idaho--released 4,000 peregrine falcons. And today, when you
    see falcons here, high rises in New York City, or the Grand
    Canyon, it is about a 99-percent probability that they are the
    progeny of those released in Idaho. So the results are there.
    They are on five continents. We have professors, botanists,
    scientists in place through the world. It is helping indigenous
    people in the areas where we are teaching how they can help us
    with stewardship and not lose the lands which they hold so dear
    and giving to their children.
        We took this magnificent eagle to the Rotunda yesterday. We
    had a few minutes. You can imagine the commotion that it
    creates, but it was one of joy and appreciation for all of
    those wonderful citizens that were in the Rotunda to see our
    Nation's symbol alive and well, and that is why the Peregrine
    Fund is so important. They are not lobbyists. I am not a
    lobbyist. And so if you need someone in your hearings, here are
    some good people, experts with a proven track record. And we
    are looking to find other opportunities that we can continue to
    build on what has already taken place.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate it, Secretary.
        Mr. Kempthorne. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. You bet. Thank you all for being here. Just
    introduce the rest of your people that are here, if you would.
        Mr. Parish. We have Paul Juergens here. Paul is our vice
    president of conservation for domestic programs. We have Dr.
    Chris McClure, who is our executive vice president,
    conservation and science. And we have Heather Meuleman, who is
    our vice president of conservation, and of course, Al Gore.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you all, and as we talked when I was out
    there this fall, this is something that needs to be done, and I
    am fascinated by the fact that you don't litigate. You try to
    solve these problems by working with people because I don't
    think anybody wants to see a species go extinct. They want to
    recover them, and if there is a way to work with people, that
    is the best way to do it.
        So I appreciate you being here today. Thank you for taking
    a few minutes to come down here. I understand you are going up
    to the Resources Committee, and then you will be in my office
    tomorrow, and the Secretary is going to be there, and if Zinke
    wants come, hell, we will have three Secretaries there, and I
    will just be the toad that invited everybody. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you all.
        Mr. Parish. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. You bet. And if you don't know, this bird
    actually came from Michigan. They brought it down from
    Michigan. We just need to see something like that that close up
    and, you know, see that beak that comes over and you go, that
    would hurt, you know, those talons, so. Thank you, Chief. I
    appreciate you giving us the time to do that, and I am sure
    during a budget hearing, you don't mind yielding that time.
        Mr. Moore. No.
        Mr. Simpson. Good morning, and thank you to Chief Moore for
    joining us here on Capitol Hill to discuss the Forest Service's
    fiscal year 2024 budget request. I am pleased to return as
    chairman of the Interior Subcommittee and to have the
    opportunity to address the critical issues and needs of the
    U.S. Forest Service. As a Western member of Congress, fire is
    far too familiar to the communities in my home State of Idaho
    and across the West. I genuinely enjoy the Forest Service
    employees in our region and value their important work. They
    are consistently doing the best job that they can do with the
    funding and the laws we enact from thousands of miles away in
    Washington, D.C. It is safe to say Forest Service employees are
    not in it for the money. They joined the Forest Service for
    their love of the outdoors and want to do their part to
    conserve and protect it.
        Chief Moore, I know your time as Pacific Southwest Region
    forester for almost 15 years gave you invaluable insight into
    the mega fires that impact our national forests year after
    year. With 2 years under your belt as Chief, I look forward to
    hearing your perspective on the Forest Service's planned
    investments and how these reasonably build on the funding
    Congress provided in the 2023 appropriations, as well as the
    Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act, and the Inflation
    Reduction Act. It would be beneficial to discuss the Forest
    Service's plans for implementing these additional sources of
    funding, which provided billions of additional dollars for the
    Forest Service. Over the coming years, this subcommittee
    intends to actively oversee the spending of the IIJA and the
    IRA funds to ensure value for the taxpayers and our national
    resources are without waste, fraud, and abuse.
        For 2024, the President's request asks for $7.43 billion
    for the Forest Service, an increase of $2.57 billion above the
    fiscal year 2023 enacted level. That is a 53-percent increase.
    While critical investments for the Forest Service are necessary
    to protect and manage our Nation's forests and support our
    wildland firefighters, I have serious concerns about the scale
    of increases proposed in the President's budget. We are living
    in a time of record deficits and debt. The Republican
    Conference and the Appropriations Committee have committed to
    taking meaningful steps to help put our country's fiscal house
    in order. Like all Americans, the Federal Government must live
    within its means, and doing so will require us to make
    difficult choices and discern wants from actual needs.
        I am glad to see the Forest Service's budget prioritizes
    compensation for wildland firefighters, wildland fire risk
    management, and access to all resources on our public lands.
    Our Nation's wildland firefighters safeguard vital benefits for
    the communities across the Nation. Firefighters protect our
    Nation's critical infrastructure, defend lives and private
    property from the risk of catastrophic wildfire, preserve
    forests so that they can mitigate wildfire risk, and protect
    landscapes that contain cultural and natural resources of
    significant value to Tribes.
        As many of my colleagues may know, the Forest Service
    competes with States to hire and maintain Federal firefighting
    forces. In the past, the Forest Service and many of the fire-
    prone States have not been able to offer competitive pay, so I
    am pleased the administration is proactively working to address
    these gaps. The request prioritizes the wildland fire
    management workforce with $180 million for permanent
    firefighting pay reform, and $50 million for firefighter
    housing needs, and $10 million towards a joint effort with the
    Department of Interior for mental health and well-being
    programs. While these efforts are noble and warranted, the
    Forest Service does not have the authority to implement any of
    the proposed workforce changes without the help of Congress, so
    I look forward to discussing that with you.
        Additionally, I was pleased to see that wildland fire
    payment continues to be a top priority for the Agency in 2024.
    The proposal for almost $3 billion of these activities will
    allow the Forest Service to focus critical investments on
    hazardous fuel treatments and support the objectives of the
    Agency's 10-year strategy to confront the Nation's wildfire
    crisis. The State Fire and Volunteer Fire Capacity grants,
    forest products, as well as grazing management activities are
    critical to my home State of Idaho. While I noticed some
    reductions to some of these programs, I look forward, with my
    colleagues, to ensure that these receive the attention and
    resources they deserve.
        Chief Moore, thank you again for joining us this morning.
    Your leadership to The Forest Service is vital to our
    environment and communities across the country. I look forward
    to our discussion and working with you. Now I would like to
    yield to ranking member pingree for her opening statement.
        Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you
    so much for bringing the special guest in this morning. That
    was a wonderful opportunity. Chief Moore, so nice to have you
    with us this morning, and thank you for your leadership. We are
    pleased to talk with you today and hear your thoughts on the
    fiscal year 2024 budget request for the Forest Service.
        I am very pleased to see that this budget request builds on
    the historic investments made in the Bipartisan Infrastructure
    Law and the Inflation Reduction Act to improve the resilience
    of landscapes, reduce wildfire risks, and conduct reforestation
    of impacted landscapes. And I am very supportive of the
    Administration's commitment to supporting wildland firefighters
    and their families through better compensation, safe housing,
    and by providing the health and well-being assistance. Through
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Congress provided $600
    million to support Federal wildland firefighters and to ensure
    they receive a minimum of $15 per hour. Your budget continues
    and expands these pay reforms to provide equitable, competitive
    compensation. This is essential to improving firefighter
    recruitment and retention, and I support your efforts. The
    budget also includes investments for climate science and the
    promotion of healthy forests.
        Combatting climate change and protecting communities from
    the threat of wildfire go hand-in-hand. Healthy forests are a
    crucial part of our fight against climate change through long-
    term carbon sequestration, yet one of the biggest obstacles is
    the increase of high-intensity wildfires, which are affecting
    our landscapes. So I am interested to hear from you today about
    how your proposed investments in activities like hazardous fuel
    reduction and burned area rehabilitation fit into the Forest
    Service's 10-year wildfire crisis strategy to benefit forest
    health. I look forward to discussing the impact these
    investments will have and where any gaps in our response may
    still remain.
        Thank you so much for being with us today. I yield back.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Ranking Member Pingree. With that,
    Chief Moore, you may proceed with your opening statement. Your
    official submitted testimony will be included in the record.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chair Simpson, Ranking Member
    Pingree, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting
    me to testify before you today. I appreciate the opportunity to
    share how the Forest Service is putting America's money to
    work. The fiscal year 2024 request focuses on three primary
    areas: modernizing the wildland fire management system,
    confronting the wildfire crisis, and ensure equitable access to
    and benefits from the National Forest System. The people we
    serve deserve nothing less than to see the value of their money
    at work for their benefit.
        National forests and grasslands cover about 193 million
    acres. Some 180 million people in over 68,000 communities rely
    on these lands to capture and filter drinking water. Our work
    contributes to over 373,000 jobs, $40.3 billion to the GDP, and
    we work with Tribes, States and local governments, private
    landowners, and many other partners across the country to keep
    forests and grasslands healthy and safe. Today, America's
    forests face dire threats from wildfire, climate change,
    insects, and disease, and particularly in the West. This is an
    emergency situation that we have in many places, and we are
    acting with a sense of urgency and collaboration with
    communities and with our partners.
        Our top priority, of course, is to reduce wildfire threats
    by safeguarding communities and critical infrastructure that
    these communities depend on, as well as creating healthy and
    resilient forests. Through our wildfire crisis strategy, we
    have revamped and ramped up to treat the right places at the
    right scales, using an all-hands/all-lands approach. This past
    January, we announced investments of $930 million in 21 high-
    risk landscapes in the West, benefitting roughly 200
    communities and many other resources that people value. Earlier
    this week, we announced nearly $200 million in community
    wildfire defense grants toward 100 projects in 22 States and 7
    Tribes, including one for fuel breaks in Clark County, Idaho.
        Recent investments by Congress gives us the historical
    opportunity to take bold and strategic action. We are working
    to do just that, to put every dollar to good use. We are
    grateful to Congress, this committee in particular, investing
    in foundational funding to do this work. Sustained execution
    depends on continued Federal investments. The proposed fiscal
    year 2024 budget responds to this need. This budget also calls
    for a $1.4 billion investment in salaries, health, safety, and
    well-being for firefighters. A suite of new actions will
    permanently increase pay, it will improve options for housing,
    and provide better care and support for physical and mental
    health. It also increases the number of firefighters.
        While firefighters represent the backbone of our wildfire
    system, we also need to actively and aggressively land manage
    in order to confront the wildfire crisis. This budget invests
    $300 million in hazardous fuel treatments. It supports
    execution of the wildfire crisis strategy, and it targets
    investments in burn area rehabilitation. In fact, $56 million
    has been put there to expedite the recovery of wildfire. It
    supports the use of the latest research, including grants to
    universities, to support educational and technical assistance
    for innovative wood products.
        National forests and grasslands, in general, belong to
    every American. We are grateful for the Great American Outdoors
    Act. It has given us the ability to look at reducing $7.7
    billion of our maintenance backlog, which ensures public
    access. Every person should feel a personal invitation and
    connections to these lands. We remain committed to removing
    barriers so all people can enjoy National Forest System lands
    and services, particularly Tribal and underserved communities.
    We continue to focus policies, accountabilities, and training
    to ensure an equitable, respectful, and harassment-free work
    environment for all of our employees.
        We know what is at stake if we don't address the effects of
    climate change and the wildfire crisis: the health of our
    forests, communities, clean water, vibrant wood product
    industry, and jobs, and resources that Americans depend on. We
    need to act now to meet the challenges before us. Thank you,
    and I am grateful for your support, and I welcome any questions
    that you all may have.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.094

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.095

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.096

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.097

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.098

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.099

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.100

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate the testimony. First,
    a couple of local parochial questions. As you know, Idaho is
    rich in critical minerals, and it is vitally important we get
    these minerals out of the ground in Idaho and around the
    country. There is a mine in Idaho that was developed during
    World War II to provide antimony for war purposes, and it has
    been sitting abandoned in the mountains of Idaho. There is a
    company that wants to come in to restore the mine, clean the
    site up. However, it has taken them far too long to get
    licensed.
        The Stibnite Gold Project in Idaho is the largest antimony
    reserve outside of Chinese and Russian control, and yet we
    continue to be far too reliant on countries that hate us for
    critical minerals. In October of 2022, the Forest Service
    released its Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement
    on the project, choosing the company's plan as their preferred
    alternative. And once fully approved, it would be the only
    source of antimony mined in the United States. I have brought
    this mine up with multiple agencies and just about anybody that
    would listen. Given the Forest Service is the lead Federal
    Agency on this project, I ask for your commitment to keep this
    project on track and on schedule. Do you have any updates on
    this? I would be happy to hear them.
        Mr. Moore. I do, and thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.
    You know, it is important to note also that the reason for the
    supplemental draft EIS was because the mine operator had made
    significant changes to the plan of operation, and so we were
    required to do a supplemental EIS because of that. So where we
    are in terms of the next step is that the FEIS, which is the
    final EIS, as well as the draft record of decision, is
    projected for December of this year, and then a decision,
    including the beginning of the objection period, is projected
    for the spring of 2024. So right now, we are projected to have
    that ready by the spring of 2024.
        Mr. Simpson. I appreciate those comments, and I will tell
    you that the Forest Service people that have been working out
    there on this project have been great to work with, so
    appreciate that.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. The Forest Service has been working with Idaho
    to develop a multipurpose, non-motorized public trail between
    Stanley, Idaho and the Redfish Recreation Complex. The Redfish
    Stanley Trail has been in the works for almost as long as I
    have been a Member of Congress. I look forward to this
    project's completion. And I know that we have had legal issues
    in the last year or so with the contractor and stuff, but can
    you confirm this project is slated to be completed this year,
    and are there any updates on the possible completion date that
    you can speak to?
        Mr. Moore. Yes, sir. So as soon as the snow is off the
    ground, work will commence. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Simpson. That might be June or July or August, the way
    things are going.
        Mr. Moore. That is Mother Nature.
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah, it is.
        Mr. Moore. But the plan is to have it operational and open
    to the public in August of this year.
        Mr. Simpson. Great. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. Ms.
    Pingree.
        Ms. Pingree. Thank you for your questions, Mr. Chair. I
    would like to yield my time right now to Mr. Kilmer, who has
    two other hearings he needs to be in, and I will be here for
    the duration. So go ahead, Mr. Kilmer.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Kilmer.
        Mr. Kilmer. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the
    ranking member. Thanks, Chief, for being here. I do this every
    year, and, like, you are a good person. You have great people
    in our region and at the Olympic National Forest, but I am just
    at a loss. I represent an area that used to be very timber
    dependent. I saw a lot of my friends' parents lose their jobs,
    a lot of my neighbors lose their jobs because of decline in
    harvest levels. And every year I come to this hearing, and I
    just plead with you and I plead with your predecessors because
    in our region and on the Olympic, we are just failing. We are
    failing to produce meaningful harvest levels, not just to
    support timber-dependent communities, but to support forest
    health.
        I sent a bipartisan letter with 20 my colleagues to you
    earlier this year asking how the Forest Service will prioritize
    increasing active forest management for a healthier ecosystem
    and for sustainable timber outputs. We have not heard back. We
    were told by the region that there would be what they call a
    tactical pause to try to do planning, so instead of the
    historic goal of 20 million board feet, they set a target of 10
    million board feet. The actual last year was 3. And so the
    consequence of this is there is a bunch that is not getting
    done. There is no road maintenance, which is important for
    recreation, for timber harvest, and for conservation. We have a
    long list of partners that have restoration opportunities that
    are getting delayed by staffing capacity, or being deemed low
    priority, or that are being stuck in permitting hell.
        And I come here every year, and, like, every year, I just
    sort of plead with the Forest Service and say what do you need.
    So, like, we have worked to fix fire borrowing, and we have
    increased appropriations to the Agency, and we passed an
    Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act, and plowing
    more resources in. And yet as I look at things in my region,
    you know, we have an awesome forest collaborative with
    conservation community folks and timber industry folks, and for
    the life of me, like, I don't understand why they wouldn't just
    take a walk because we are not getting the support from the
    Service that we need, and I am at a loss.
        So, one, I am pleading for your help, but two, like, I want
    to ask, like, one, how are you working through the new 3-plus-1
    strategy to ramp up the ability to do larger-scale management
    programs and increase timber harvests? Two, what are the plans
    to solve some of the capacity issues and address the backlog of
    vacant positions in our region? What are you doing to increase
    partnerships and to improve the contracting process? We also
    recently heard you are also working on establishing keystone
    agreements to help with these capacity issues. How is that
    process going? What are you doing to address the maintenance
    backlog on the ONF that is impacting recreation, and harvest,
    and conservation projects, and what is the plan so that I am
    not back here next year? I don't want to bang on you, and I
    don't want to bang on your team in the region or on our forest,
    but it is just so disappointing that we are just failing the
    communities I represent.
        Mr. Moore. So thank you for the question, and it was a
    really loaded question because, you know, I could cover the
    entire Agency's operation by answering that question. So let me
    try and start nationally, and then I will work down to the
    Olympic National Forest where you are.
        So looking nationally, you know, we have set a target of
    about 3.4 billion board feet this year, and that is an increase
    from just 3 billion board feet just last year. We also, within
    the next 5 years, have set a target of 4 billion board feet,
    and we are dependent on implementing the wildfire crisis
    strategy to help us get there. We have also looked at doing a
    lot of our work through partners and collaboratives, which you
    mentioned, but in order to do a lot of this work through our
    partners, we also know that we needed to fix the infrastructure
    which we operate on, and that meant looking at our contracting
    policies. That meant looking at our grants and agreements
    policy to make it easier for partners to work with us since we
    are going to be so dependent.
        You mentioned the keystone partnerships. We do. We have the
    National Forest Foundation. We are looking at up to about $240
    million with them. The Mule Deer Foundation is about $50
    million, and also we have about $50 million that we work with
    National Wild Turkey Federation. So these are some of our
    keystone partners, and we are looking to even expand that even
    more with other partners. And so we have had to really look at
    our infrastructure and just how we do business, and so we spent
    much of this year changing how we operate internally, looking
    at policy shifts, policy changes in order to make that easier.
        Now, when I look at the actual targets themselves, we are
    increasing the accountability in the system. For the first
    time, I have given each of the regions a target to achieve, and
    so each region also has a target to achieve. I am meeting with
    all of my senior leadership team once a month. That is the
    accountability piece that is in the system. We want to talk
    about what are the challenges, what are the issues, and how can
    we address those issues in real time to keep things moving
    because we have a lot at stake. That is our accountability to
    Congress that you were generous enough to provide us with a
    bill, and IRA as well a GAOA, and we want to redeem our
    responsibilities to Congress by holding ourselves accountable
    to achieve what we have said that we would achieve.
        Now, looking more specifically at the region, they had a 3-
    plus-1 process, and basically what that was getting at is
    having 3 years of sale prep or pipeline kinds of things, plus 1
    year. Now, what we want to do there as well is, you know, we
    have had a lot of fires. We had a lot of reasons for not being
    able to accomplish that. In fact, a lot of our timber sales
    that we had planned to sell, the fires burned through them and
    destroyed them. We have disease and insects that are spreading
    across the country that is also affecting them. And, you know,
    when we try and put up a sale, particularly with disease and
    insects, you have a couple of years to try to get that sale
    done. Otherwise, blue stain sets in, and the quality of the
    wood is not as high.
        We also have some other challenges. Most of the material we
    have to look at, getting at the wildfire crisis strategy, are
    small-diameter, low-value material. And so another part of our
    strategy is to look at creating new industries with our wood
    innovation grant.
        Mr. Kilmer. Yeah.
        Mr. Moore. And so we have been providing wood innovation
    grants to look at things like cross-laminated timber, and
    cross-laminated timber has been really good. We have six plants
    across the country right now. We have about 1,600 buildings
    that are being built or being designed to be built across the
    country with CLT. In fact, one of the things that we are proud
    of to show that it has a lot of strengths is that the tallest
    building in the world right now is in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    using cross-laminated timber. I believe it is about 25 stories.
    So we are trying to create a new industry with the type of
    material that we have plenty of supply. We still have reason
    for saw logs, we still have reason for our traditional program,
    but we have so much material out that we have to create new
    industries with some of the wood innovations.
        Now, looking specifically at your area there, you know, the
    Olympic National Forest, what I am told is that we are trying
    to provide a consistent and stable supply. And when we look at
    what the Olympic National Forest has to provide, it is really
    restoration opportunities rather than a traditional timber
    program. If we look at it for restoration purposes for that
    forest and that type of ecosystem, what we have and what we
    think we can do on a consistent and stable basis is about 10
    million board feet. I know that is not where the forest has
    been, but we know that, and I am being told that we can make
    that a stable type of an operation. Now, in order to do that we
    have also provided them with some additional funding this year
    to actually achieve that. And so our expectation is that they
    will achieve 10 million board feet and that we are looking at
    that to be a stable amount going forward.
        Mr. Kilmer. I know I am over my time, Chairman, but I would
    love to follow up with you.
        Mr. Moore. Sorry I took so long.
        Mr. Kilmer. No, no, it's----
        Mr. Simpson. That is okay.
        Mr. Kilmer. We need your help. We can't do this every year.
        Mr. Moore. I am interested in working with you,
    Congressman.
        Mr. Kilmer. Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Moore. I can set up additional time with you.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. Okay.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Cloud.
        Mr. Cloud. Thank you, and welcome. I am new to the
    committee, so it is great to be here with you and to talk to
    you about the work that you are doing and the good work that,
    you know, boots on the ground are doing throughout. You
    mentioned university grants, and I was wondering. Our staff had
    actually tried to find information on what grants are going to
    universities and had a hard time finding that. We couldn't find
    it available online. I am not saying it is not there. I am just
    saying if it is, it is difficult to find. I was wondering if
    you could provide a list of all the grants that the Forest
    Service----
        Mr. Moore. Sure. We would be happy to do it.
        Mr. Cloud [continuing]. Had over the last fiscal years or
    so.
        Mr. Moore. Yeah, we will follow up for sure.
        Mr. Cloud. That would be great.
        I wanted to go to roads because, you know, a number of the
    budget is plus-up, but that is one that is noted to decrease,
    which is concerning to me. As my colleague just mentioned,
    there is some backlog work there. I know in Texas in the Sam
    Houston National Forest in Walker County, there are some
    neighborhoods there who need access because of the roads. They
    can't get their mail delivered because the roads go through the
    forest property. They have signed a cooperative agreement, but
    the Forest Service, they keep telling us, is unresponsive, and
    so they are having a hard time with what they are dealing with
    and getting answers to that. And so to hear from that and then
    to find out that we are going to minus the roads and then plus
    up some of these areas that are less tangible, I should say,
    that is a concern to me.
        So first of all, is the Forest Service back to 100 percent
    not teleworking? Is everybody back in where they are supposed
    to be?
        Mr. Moore. So, Congressman, we have not been at 100 percent
    telework. It depends on what part of the Agency you were in and
    whether that was remote work or telework. Most of our employees
    who work on the ground have never really teleworked. They have
    always worked out in the field.
        Mr. Cloud. They were kind of social distanced anyway.
        Mr. Moore. Yeah. Well, where we were at, and we all
    struggled, even as a country, when the pandemic first hit, and
    so we were really trying to find a way to operate during the
    pandemic. And, you know, what I would say is that the unsung
    heroes are our recreation technicians who were out there with
    our publics. The publics only agreed to stay indoors for a
    while, and they began to go and visit a lot of our recreation
    sites. In fact, we had record number of visitors visiting our
    recreation sites. And our recreation technicians and recreation
    folks are on the front line of a lot of sometimes angry public,
    and so that is part of the unsung heroes in all of this.
        Mr. Cloud. Right.
        Mr. Moore. And we talk about our firefighters for good
    reason, but we have so many other employees within the Agency
    that are on the front lines. Now, as you leave the forest
    district and the forests and you move over to the regional
    office, that is where you begin to see more telework, more
    remote work, and when you get to the Washington office level,
    then that is true. But one of the things that we found doing
    this pandemic is that----
        Mr. Cloud. So I have a number of things to go through.
        Mr. Moore. Okay.
        Mr. Cloud. I have limited time. So they are still
    teleworking is my question, or they are not?
        Mr. Moore. Yes. Oh yes, teleworking is still an option for
    many people.
        Mr. Cloud. For many people.
        Mr. Moore. Yeah.
        Mr. Cloud. Productivity seems to go down. I found this,
    from agency to agency to agency, the response. We deal with
    case work every single day in our office, and it is a notable
    decline over the last couple of years in response rates and
    those kind of things, and I would encourage everyone to get
    back to work.
        Mr. Moore. Our productivity, sir, just for your
    information, has not gone down. In fact, it has gone up.
        Mr. Cloud. Oh, okay. Can you address why the decrease in
    roads?
        Mr. Moore. Well, it is the budget, and looking at the
    fiscal year 2024 budget, we are going to still be able to do a
    lot of significant work with this proposed budget. I will
    always be concerned that we don't have enough money to do all
    the work that needs to be done out there. I look at the storms
    that have passed across the West recently, particularly in
    California where we have significant road damage, and I am
    concerned about our ability to do the work necessary to open up
    access back to the forests, but also into communities where
    these roads lead to.
        Mr. Cloud. I would note that in your budget, actually the
    highest percent in at least this part that we are looking at
    here, a 70-percent change increase in other accounts. That is
    pretty vague. What is that?
        Mr. Moore. Well, it is things like recreation facilities.
    You know, if you are going to put up a timber sale, as an
    example, we you do archaeological surveys, wildlife surveys.
    There are a lot of other things that we do that traditionally
    has not been funded as well. And as we look at implementing the
    wildfire crisis strategy, we have to look at the entire budget
    if we are going to have all of this work in sync with each
    other.
        Mr. Cloud. Okay. And I have one more question. I don't know
    where the clock is.
        Mr. Simpson. Go ahead.
        Mr. Cloud. Okay. By my calculation, we are spending about
    $5,000 an acre managing our forests, which seems like a lot. I
    realize I am not schooled in this like you, so I am not
    assuming. How much of that is D.C. office? How much of that is
    these other regional offices? How much of that is boots on the
    ground, firefighters, people working in the forests, people
    helping people get access to the forest, you know, building
    these recreation facilities and such?
        Mr. Moore. Yeah. So, Congressman, I am not sure how you
    come up with that number and what all it involves or what all
    it includes. If I look at the work that we actually do on the
    ground, it is much less than that on a per-acre basis. If I
    look at how the forest is budgeted, particularly on those
    resource-related areas, on average we are doing about $1,200
    per acre. That varies depending on the location in the country.
    It could go as high as $5,000 in some of those locations like--
    --
        Mr. Cloud. How did you get $1,200 because, basically, I
    took the budget and divided it by millions of acres, so, you
    know, there is a $1,200 figure. I mean, I am trying to figure
    out how much of this is overhead----
        Mr. Moore. Yeah.
        Mr. Cloud [continuing]. And how much of this is boots on
    the ground working.
        Mr. Moore. I think you have over simplified that----
        Mr. Cloud. I am sure I have.
        Mr. Moore [continuing]. Because all of that doesn't go into
    per acre cost unless you are wanting to make a point about how
    much money we get and you just multiply it across the acres,
    but that money is not intended to go on improving acres or
    doing work out on the ground. So if we separated it out and
    look at the money that is really allocated to do work on the
    ground, it is much, much less than that, although depending on
    where you are, cases like Lake Tahoe at times can be $5,000 per
    acre because of the restrictions, you know, that we have in
    certain parts of the country. But there are also other parts of
    the country where we can get the work done for $800. So on
    average, we are looking anywhere between $1,200 to about 1,800
    per acre.
        Mr. Cloud. Okay. And I will just say I am coming to this
    conversation, this is my first hearing, and so I am coming with
    no assumptions. I am trying to get an understanding basically
    where the breakdown is, where the workforce, I think, how many
    employees you said? There are 30,000?
        Mr. Moore. Yeah, 31,000.
        Mr. Cloud. Thirty-one thousand, what I thought, and how
    much of that is firefighters? How much of that is park managers
    or, you know?
        Mr. Moore. Yeah, right.
        Mr. Cloud. How much of that is D.C. office, and, you know,
    if I could get a breakdown of that, that would be very
    helpful----
        Mr. Moore. I would be happy to give you that, sir.

        [The information follows:]

        Response: As of Pay Period 13 2023 (ending June 17, 2023):

         There are 992 employees working in the Washington
    Office
         There are 2,828 employees working in the Regional
    Offices (Regions 1-10)
         There are 1,591 employees working in Forest
    Service Research Stations
         There are 1,085 employees working in Job Corps
         There are 251 employees on Enterprise teams
         There are 377 employees working in State, Private,
    and Tribal Forestry
         There are 65 employees working in Law Enforcement
    and Investigations. Please note that our Law Enforcement has
    many employees in the field, this is the number of positions
    not stationed in a Forest.
         There are 68 employees working in the Work
    Environment and Performance Office
         Across all National Forests service-wide there are
    24,058 employees
         The grand total is 32,315 employees (full time
    equivalents).

        Mr. Cloud [continuing]. Just to try to understand.
        Mr. Moore. Sure.
        Mr. Cloud. Get a better overarching view of the Forest
    Service, so I appreciate that.
        Mr. Moore. Okay.
        Mr. Cloud. Thank you.
        Mr. Moore. I would be happy to provide that.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Cloud. Ms. Pingree.
        Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much. It is great to have you
    here today, and thank you for your answers to our questions. I
    have a couple programs I want to talk about, but I want to just
    start with the budget here.
        So last week in a response to a request from our committee,
    Secretary Vilsack provided a letter that highlighted some of
    the difficult cuts that would occur at the USDA if we were to
    return to fiscal year 2022 funding levels. That has been one of
    the things that has been talked about as we proceed in this
    budgeting process. So it is certainly my hope we are not going
    there, but I would like to have you highlight some of the
    challenges you would face if we were return to fiscal year 2022
    levels just so I can better understand the detail of what that
    would look like.
        Mr. Moore. So I have my preference, but we have to do a lot
    of discussions about where those budgets would come from. But
    based on where I am right now, if we look at the intent behind
    fiscal year 2024 budget, what we are trying to do is make it
    right to the organization. And if I take firefighters as an
    example, we are doing a number of things that is really
    critical for firefighters, not only the pay increase to make it
    equitable to non-Federal firefighters, but we also are looking
    at things like portal-to-portal, where we pay other entities to
    come and help us fight fires. We just want to do the same thing
    for our employees. We are looking mental health and well-being.
    We are looking at the housing issue there. And so if we look at
    those types of things, those are the right things to do by our
    employees that work so hard.
        Now, if we were to have a budget cut in those areas, what
    we would have to do is reduce the number of firefighters but
    provide them with the same benefits that I just mentioned
    because there has to be a correlation. We have to treat our
    employees like we value them. And so whether we cut 2,000
    firefighters, or whether we cut 1,000 firefighters, 3,000
    firefighters, we want the firefighters we have to have those
    same benefits that I mentioned there that this fiscal year 2024
    budget provides. And the same would go for implementing
    wildfire crisis strategy where we have a lot of our resource-
    related positions that are really getting out protecting
    communities and saving lives. That would be reduced as well.
        Ms. Pingree. Yeah, thank you for that, and I really do
    appreciate it. I know the chair mentioned it earlier and I said
    in my opening remarks, the understanding that we have to have
    our Federal firefighters on par with, you know, local and other
    communities, and make sure that we are providing all that
    support, both in wages, but also, as you said, housing and
    mental health issues, you know, whatever it is. We increasingly
    understand how valuable this force is to us, so.
        One program I want to talk about is agroforestry. We don't
    always get to it in this committee, but I am lucky to be on Ag
    and this committee, so, and here we are. Well, that, as many
    people may not know, it is an intentional integration of trees
    or shrubs with crop and animal production, and there is a
    growing interest in agroforestry to help mitigate the effects
    of climate change, sequester more carbon in the soil. So I was
    pleased to see the announcement of two USDA partnerships for
    climate-smart agriculture commodity grants that will advance
    agroforestry. I anticipate a growing number of producers will
    be seeking technical assistance and more information. In the
    omnibus, I was proud to help secure $2 million for the National
    Agroforestry Center. So could you talk a little bit about what
    initiatives the Forest Service is working on in the area of
    agroforestry and how can we accelerate some of those practices?
        Mr. Moore. Yes, and by the way, thank you for all of your
    work in that area. It is one of the unsung heroes in what we
    are trying to do. So under the Secretary Vilsack's direction,
    USDA is trying to operate as one USDA. And to reflect that, we
    are going to be entering into a partnership with the Natural
    Resource Conservation Service to produce and promote a lot of
    the agriculture-related technologies, training, and educational
    material to reach the agroforestry producers in a way that we
    are going to be ensuring value to them. So that is just one of
    the components that we are planning to do at the direction of
    Secretary Vilsack.
        Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, I am going to run out of time,
    but I have more questions for the next round. So thank you so
    much, and thanks for talking about that.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you for that answer. I am not going to
    bring up whether it ought to be one land management agency with
    the BLM. We talked about several years ago when Norm Dicks was
    chairman of this committee about moving the Department of
    Forestry over to the Department of Interior. We didn't get a
    very good reception, not from anybody. [Laughter.]
        So I am not going to bring that up. I am not even going to
    talk about it. Mr. Amodei?
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief, so gone are the
    good old days when I used to come down to Alameda to see you--
    --
        Mr. Moore. Yeah.
        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. And Admiral Rick over at his old
    office building and----
        Mr. Moore. Right.
        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. And tell you that the Forest
    supervisor at Humboldt-Toiyabe told me to say hi to you, and
    that people who couldn't pass the Forest Service entrance exam
    to work at Humboldt-Toiyabe ended up in the Pacific Southwest
    Regional Office. [Laughter.]
        I do want to put it on the record, though, that you took it
    very well, and your staff, after being momentarily stunned,
    took it equally as well. [Laughter.]
        So it is nice to see you. Just a couple of things that I
    want to follow up on. First, one of the things that we are
    finding, not to try to combine everything under one umbrella,
    if you will, is that at least in Interior and in the Bureau of
    Land Management, when you look at staffing, not just fire, but
    all staffing----
        Mr. Moore. Right.
        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. That they are running at about 60,
    70 percent on average, at least in the 6th District offices in
    Nevada.
        Mr. Moore. Yeah.
        Mr. Amodei. And so we are being told that part of that is
    compensation, and for the lower levels, GS-6, 7, 8, 9, where
    they are being asked to live quite simply can't afford to take
    the job even if they want it because you can't rent, you can't
    buy, you can't whatever, at the same time that we are being
    told that in the Park Service, those folks have housing with
    their deal, which was news to me. It looks like it is news to
    you, too, but maybe it isn't. And so you are sitting there
    going, well, I get nobody gets all the resources they want.
        Mr. Moore. Yeah.
        Mr. Amodei. It is like, hey, if this is an institutional
    thing where we are, and I think it is beginning to look that
    way, chronically open on staff positions which nobody can
    afford to take, I think that is something we need to talk about
    to say from an appropriation standpoint, well, what is the
    answer there. Just having positions on the book at the lower
    end that nobody will ever take isn't solving anybody's problem.
    So I would like to follow up with that.
        The second thing is, I would really like to follow up and,
    you know, from your history because you were over the Tahoe
    Basin Management Unit. After the recent fire realities there,
    you have had the opportunity to go take a big look at what the
    infrastructure there is for delivering water for fire
    suppression. And so as you go you look through pump stations,
    and tanks, and all the stuff that goes into that, this
    committee forwarded some stuff last time that talks about, hey,
    for infrastructure type stuff, the Forest Service can spend up
    to $10 million. And so we recently followed up, and they are
    not Nevada.
        Mr. Moore. Yeah.
        Mr. Amodei. I mean, South Tahoe Public Utility District is
    one of them. I love the acronym, STPUD. [Laughter.]
        I can relate to that. That is why I am like, hey, I got to
    do that issue for STPUD. But anyhow, they have got their
    allotment or allocation, or whatever, from Forest Service that
    says, hey, you got $2.5 million. And so my question for follow
    up is, so what is the process that the Forest Service uses with
    a $10 million up to authorization to go, it is $2-and-a-half
    million, and here you go. So it is like, well, okay. I am not
    saying because you had $10, you are supposed to do 10, but I
    would like to have some confidence. And I don't know, so I
    would like to have some confidence that that number reflects
    good, solid consideration, weighing whatever the value
    judgments are and going with that.
        Mr. Moore. Okay.
        Mr. Amodei. So those are the things which would be best
    left for, although you got an aviation guy who does your budget
    stuff, but at least he was an Army guy. That is good. I will
    look forward to the talk. But anyhow, with that in mind, any
    thoughts just off the top of your head, especially on that
    allocation of up to $10 million and here is $2.5?
        Mr. Moore. Yeah. You know, you said a lot, and you hit on
    the crux of a lot of concerns that we would have internally as
    well. And you started talking about the whole housing for all
    employees, and we talked about the housing issue for
    firefighters, but a lot of other employers will also benefit
    from that.
        In terms of recruiting to go into some of our locations, it
    is becoming more of a concern, and I will give you an example.
    Last year, we hired 3,500 people, but we lost 2,700 through
    attrition and other reasons. And so out of all of that hiring,
    we were only able to net about 800 people in terms of capacity.
    When we look at some of our locations across the country, and
    it is across the country, more and more of our communities are
    beginning to be really expensive, particularly at the lower end
    of the grade scale. So anything less than a GS-5, you are
    asking them to really work at the lower end, and depending on
    where you are, that is not enough to even pay for rent.
        And so it is a real concern that we have across the Agency,
    and it is something that we all need to spend a bit more time
    on in terms of how do we address what is happening in our
    country right.
        Mr. Amodei. We can probably start with what are you doing
    now. I know some agencies are saying, hey, we are buying rooms
    in a hotel for seasonal people, not that that is a solution.
    But anyhow, probably a good place to start is here is what we
    are doing now, from something to nothing. Anyhow, go ahead.
        Mr. Moore. And we can and we are doing a little of that,
    not a lot, where the Forest Service would purchase or rent a
    facility and then, particularly when we have employees coming
    on detail, that they pay a percentage of their salary toward
    living conditions. So we just don't have the funds to do a lot
    of that, particularly the more we move into more of this
    century. We have locations, sir, that we are being forced to
    consider do we have enough presence there to continue to stay
    in the community.
        Mr. Amodei. Yeah.
        Mr. Moore. And as we look at that journey level of employee
    who has a family, they are concerned about schools. They are
    concerned about housing. They are concerned about a lot of
    things. And I don't know if this is just what the Forest
    Service is facing or if this is what our country is facing in
    terms of the labor workforce right now.
        Mr. Amodei. We look forward to following up with you.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Harder.
        Mr. Harder. Thank you. I would like to start by just
    vigorously seconding Mr. Amodei's point on the workforce
    issues. I know in California, you know, Cal Fire starts out
    their folks at $70,000 a year. The Forest Service starts at
    $20,000 a year, and it is a pretty hard argument to be making
    that you can take folks. And so, generally, the only folks you
    are going to get are people that like the benefits or, you
    know, don't work out for one reason or another for Cal Fire. So
    I would love to work with you, Mr. Amodei, on a solution there
    because we desperately need it.
        I wanted to start by talking about the hazardous fuels
    reduction. I remember the discussion that we had around the
    infrastructure bill, and we were excited to get more support
    for that. I think you were able to get about 3.2 million acres
    treated last year. This year, you are looking about $4.2
    million with this budget request, but that is still a fraction
    of what we need. I remember last year hearing as much as, you
    know, 10 times. We have the capacity to do actually 10 times
    more acres. We have the need to do 10 times more acres of fuel
    management. Is that accurate? Where does this leave us now even
    with this budget request in terms of what is still remaining
    that is left untreated that is still a pretty significant fire
    risk?
        Mr. Moore. So looking at the wildfire crisis strategy, we
    said we want to do two things. One, we needed to treat 20
    million acres of Forest Service-managed land, but we also
    needed to treat 30 million acres of other Federal, tribal, and
    private lands. And so what we have done in the crisis strategy
    is that we mapped fire sheds all across the country, but
    particularly, and let me just stick to the West right now, and
    in the West, a fire shed is about 250,000 acres. We have about
    250 fire sheds across the West that the wildfire crisis
    strategy is trying to respond to.
        Looking at the fiscal year 2024 budget, we are able to move
    into about 134 of those 250 fire sheds. And when you look at
    our ability to do that, you would have to ask, and we do, so
    how many communities are you going to protect with that? You
    know, it is one thing to talk about fire sheds, but what about
    municipal water sheds? What about communities? In the 130, we
    are going to be looking at trying to have a positive effect on
    about 200 different communities throughout the West.
        So that is our goal. I think that the fiscal year 2024
    President's budget moves us a long ways in trying to achieve
    that goal. In doing so, we are doing a number of things which I
    mentioned earlier. We are also creating new industries with
    wood innovations. You know, I talked about CLT. We have talked
    about biochar. We have talked about some of those things that
    are emerging in our country, and we are trying to lean into
    those things that is emerging here in the country. And so we
    are pretty pleased with the fiscal year 2024 budget. It doesn't
    do everything, but it sure does a whole lot more than what we
    have been able to do in the past.
        Mr. Harder. But, see, even with this budget, you know, in
    California, you have about 20 million acres of Forest Service
    land just in California. And, of course, this works for the
    whole West, that there are still many times this number of
    acres that are left untreated that should be, you know, high
    priority, but maybe medium priority because they didn't quite
    make the list. Even if this is achieved, isn't there still a
    lot of unmet demand on hazardous fuel reduction?
        Mr. Moore. Yeah, there will always be that, you know. But
    let me point out, though, though our scientists are telling us
    that when you go into an area, and let's just stick with the
    fire sheds, if you will, in order to have a positive outcome on
    how fire behaves in a fire shed, you need to treat between 20
    and 40 percent of that fire shed. And so even though in
    California you may be talking about 20 million acres, but don't
    forget the way California is designed, you know, we are working
    with the State and other private landowners there, so it is not
    just the 20 million acres, you know. It is how do we have an
    effect on a hundred million acres that have there.
        And in order to do that, the governor's task force is
    really doing a really good job of looking at an integrated
    approach, bringing in Federal, State, private nonprofits,
    everyone into the equation. And so we feel that right now, that
    is really one of the better approaches to take to try to get at
    landscapes, regardless of jurisdictional boundaries because
    that is how you are going to have a positive outcome on how
    fire behaves and moves.
        Mr. Harder. Thank you. One last question. Given the
    constant challenges of workforce, given the unmet demand for
    hazardous fuels reduction, it feels like technology needs to be
    a much bigger piece going forward for the Forest Service's
    plan, you know, drones for fire suppression, satellites for
    surveillance. I saw these, you know, IT capabilities, but that
    seemed like a little bit of a different piece. What does the
    innovation budget for the Forest Service look like, and what
    are the opportunities that you see to expand that?
        Mr. Moore. So what we are doing, and you mentioned it here,
    we are moving more into the era of drones. In fact, we have
    about 100 employees right now that are certified and qualified
    to operate drones. When I look at trying to introduce more
    prescribed burning into the ecosystem, we are looking at the
    southern region as an example where they do over a million
    acres a year in there. So we are looking at drones replacing
    helicopters for prescribed burning.
        What we are also seeing, too, though, is that we have a
    really good use for drones to do resource monitoring. And so we
    want to experiment with that as well so that when it rains, as
    an example, you don't have to worry about actually physically
    going out. We also have agreements set up with the Department
    of Defense to look at how we might use satellites, particularly
    during fire activities. So we are using technology in a much
    bigger way. We also are moving away from having fire towers out
    to look for fires out across the landscape and looking at
    setting up a camera system that can detect smoke from long
    distances. So we are moving in that direction, Congressman, and
    we realize that we need to lean much further into the
    technology arena.
        Mr. Harder. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Stewart.
        Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, again, Chief,
    welcome. And I hope you understand and will forgive those of us
    who are bouncing. We have got other----
        Mr. Moore. Sure.
        Mr. Stewart. I wish I could have been here, but I think I
    have reviewed your comments, and I appreciate something that
    you mentioned, which I am going to mention in just a moment. If
    you were to look at a map of Utah and my district, it would
    look like I have about half the State. It is not quite that,
    but it is close. I have downtown Salt Lake City, but I have
    very rural and very beautiful parts of the State, and obviously
    the Federal lands and Forest Service is a big part of that. One
    group that we work very closely with are our sheriffs----
        Mr. Moore. Yes.
        Mr. Stewart [continuing]. Which law enforcement in rural
    communities is quite different than law enforcement in
    Washington, D.C., or, again, in Salt Lake City. And we have not
    always had a great relationship between the local sheriffs and
    the Federal Government, Federal agencies through the
    cooperative law enforcement contracts. We have seen less of
    that recently. We think there are real advantages in having
    those. Obviously, it is a bit of a financial benefit to the
    local sheriffs, many of which are in very, very rural counties
    that don't have much money, you know, a very small tax base. I
    mean, some of these rural counties have a few thousand people
    that live in them.
        But that is not the primary reason I am interested. The
    primary reason is I feel like it benefits the community and law
    enforcement generally for them to have these contracts. I am
    wondering if you would respond to that, whether you feel like
    there are more resources we can make available, and whether you
    agree that it actually is a good solution to a problem?
        Mr. Moore. Okay. Thank you. So I am a firm believer in
    cooperative agreements. In fact, I have worked out there enough
    to see value in those agreements where we have the local
    sheriff department helping to patrol a lot of the National
    Forest System's and but also to respond to some of the
    concerns, you know, that happens on the weekends or in the
    evenings. And it is something that I think we should all be a
    proud of, how the law enforcement community is really working
    together to try and do the work that is needed, regardless of
    the, like I was saying earlier, the boundaries. So I am a firm
    believer in that program, and I do think that it needs to be
    much more than what it currently is.
        And so we have been trying to make some shifts where we can
    based on the budgets that we currently have. One of the
    problems and the biggest concerns that we have right now is
    that same budget line item that is in law enforcement's budget.
    That same budget has to do the must-haves, you know, like the
    cameras that our law enforcement personnel needs to have and
    the equipment. And so in addition to the must-haves, then what
    is left or what is balanced is the coop agreements with a lot
    of our local sheriffs' departments, but I will submit to you
    that that is a very important program. It is one that we should
    all be proud of how the law enforcement community is working
    together to try and get a lot of this work done. It is just not
    enough.
        Mr. Stewart. Well, thank you, and I appreciate it, and,
    please, let's work together to try to increase some of this
    funding. And if I could, just two more comments on this. Number
    one is there is a reason why local sheriffs are elected----
        Mr. Moore. Yes.
        Mr. Stewart [continuing]. Because they are accountable to
    the people. The sheriffs know the people many times, and we
    have seen incidences, and I am sure, Chief, you are aware of
    some instances where there was some conflict that was
    unnecessary. And I think primarily it was because the Federal
    agency law enforcement just didn't have the training, and they
    didn't have the same background and relationships there. So I
    think that cooperation is actually very important, and we
    appreciate your support of that.
        The last thing, and I am just going to mention this because
    it is way beyond what we could discuss here, and more than
    that, probably the answer still remains vague, but we want to
    work with you. And that is the idea in the West, the Western
    forests, the small-diameter trees being determined to not have
    any commercial value, and, therefore, we can't, you know, find
    commercial businesses that are willing, you know, try to take
    that to market. I am stumped by that for a couple reasons. If I
    am standing in the middle of Sequoia National Forest, I mean,
    and then you compare it? Yeah, that is a small-diameter tree.
    And by the way, I have gone out and cut small trees for
    firewood. It is beautiful timber, and really, it seems to me, I
    can't imagine it not having commercial value, but we have got
    this impediment to doing that.
        Again, it is more than we can discuss here in the time that
    I have, but if we can continue to work with you to find the
    market. And by the way, if you want to talk about healthy
    forests, if you want to talk about fire mitigation, allowing
    commercial access to this timber is a critical part of that.
        Mr. Moore. Right. I would be happy to follow up with you.
    In fact, I look forward to it. Just briefly, I had mentioned
    earlier about the wood innovations, though, where we do hear
    comments like this. We are trying to create new innovations for
    wood use, so if a tree is small diameter and has low value, we
    still can make products out of it. We still can create economic
    opportunities for many of our small rural communities. And so
    we have been issuing grants, even for mill owners that want to
    retrofit their mills to handle smaller material.
        Mr. Stewart. Yeah.
        Mr. Moore. And so we are doing a lot of that trying to
    address a lot of the problems as they come up. So far, we have
    been received really well on some of the grant opportunities
    for retrofitting the mills, and we are continuing to look at
    doing that, but I would love to follow up with you on some
    specifics there in Utah.
        [The information follows:]

        Response: Congressman, we certainly agree that it is
    incredibly important to develop commercial markets for small-
    diameter trees, and other low value wood products that are
    being removed from forests, as a component of forests
    management. Central to this work is our wood innovations
    program. The Forest Service recently invested $43 million
    dollars in 123 projects nationwide through Community Wood
    Grants and Wood Innovation Grants. These projects are resulting
    in new and expanded markets for wood products and wood energy
    including mass timber construction, engineered wood products,
    biochar, and combined head and power energy projects.
        Given the importance of this topic, we would be happy to
    follow up with you regarding the specific issues in Utah.
    Please contact Jake Donnay at Jacob.Donnay@usda.gov to set up a
    briefing.

        Mr. Stewart. Thank you. We look forward to that, and,
    Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Zinke.
        Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Chief, good to see
    you guys again. You know, as Interior Secretary, I wanted the
    Forest Service in the worst way to crosswalk----
        Mr. Moore. And it was well known, sir. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Zinke. So I am sure the Great American Outdoors Act has
    been very, very helpful.
        Mr. Moore. Yes.
        Mr. Zinke. You know, my concern is that it was intended
    really to make sure that it goes to infrastructure, and I
    believe housing was part of the infrastructure on that, but it
    seems, as I review it, a lot of it is going to studies. And so
    if you just look at that, and I ask you to look at it to make
    sure that the focus was on getting things done and not do an
    analysis of how to get things done.
        And then in regards of forest fire, I am sure you have the
    same frustrations. A lot of it is litigation. I have talked to
    the superintendents in Montana, and they want to do the right
    thing. They recognize the health of the forests. They recognize
    that we have created a new industrial complex called
    firefighting. Eisenhower talked about the military industrial
    complex, and now we have firefighting industrial complex. It is
    huge. We are spending $4 to $5 billion, plus the damages. It is
    in probably the $20-billion range when you talk about the
    damage, equipment, focus, and effort, and a lot of your
    attention now is on fighting fires rather than managing
    forests.
        The concern that I have is that we make sure you have the
    tools to managing properly the forests, but in every case, they
    always talk about litigation. They are trying to do the right
    thing, but they are stacked up on four, or five, or sometimes
    six lawsuits by various people. Do you share that concern on
    the amount of litigation over what seems to be a very simple
    timber sale that is in line with a sustainable yield? There are
    plenty of studies out there. We know we know what it takes to
    have a healthy forest, but every time we enter a timber sale,
    there seems to be a lot of litigation.
        Mr. Moore. Yeah. So, Congressman, I as a public servant, I
    accept all of us and how we are as a country, and in this
    country anyone can litigate us on anything. That is my reality
    as a public servant, and so I have to just deal with that. So
    my opinion doesn't mean a lot, particularly if it infringes on
    someone else's right, and so we are left to deal with that.
        Mr. Zinke. Well, let me shape it the other way rather than
    your opinion. Do you see that the speed of which you would like
    to manage the forests, to a degree, has a cause and effect of
    the litigation?
        Mr. Moore. Yeah. You know, I would love to be able to go
    out and do a lot of things that we feel needs to take place,
    but, you know, we have checks and balances in our system, and I
    am okay with that. I will give you an example. You know, I look
    at this wildfire crisis, and you mentioned in your opening
    comment that we are spending a lot of time fighting fires
    rather than managing the forests. And what we are trying to get
    at is the more we create health and resiliency in the forests,
    the less fires we going to have----
        Mr. Zinke. A hundred percent.
        Mr. Moore [continuing]. But, you know, which comes first?
    Right now, we have an issue with unwanted fires across the
    landscape, and so we have no other choice but to deal with that
    issue. And on the other side of us, what we are trying to do is
    to create the health and resiliency in these ecosystems so that
    we can reduce the number of fires. And it is tall order, and it
    is a big job, but that is our commitment to try and achieve
    that.
        Mr. Zinke. Well, I am sure this committee, and I don't mean
    to speak for the chairman, but we have talked many, many times.
    We want to work with you and make sure you have the tools
    necessary to go after, and the goals are the same. It is not a
    particularly partisan committee. The goal is the same, healthy
    forests, but healthy forests, we have knocked out the timber,
    smaller companies, so they can't go in, and all of a sudden the
    haul distance is so far, it becomes uneconomical, even for the
    micro industries that are emerging.
        Management of the forests entails a set amount of material
    so our smaller mills can make sure that their return on
    investment and make the right investment over the long period
    of time. And when the litigation happens, they are not being
    able to get a known throughput, thus those mills go away, and
    it creates another series of problems. So I would like you to
    look at ways that we can be helpful----
        Mr. Moore. Sure.
        [The information follows:]

        Response: Congressman we appreciate your commitment to
    issues of forest management both from the perspective of
    industry and to address issues related to litigation. We would
    be pleased to set up a briefing with your office to discuss
    these topics further. Please contact Jake Donnay at
    Jacob.Donnay@usda.gov to set up a briefing.

        Mr. Zinke [continuing]. To have a strong dialogue to make
    sure. And also these mills, we have to guarantee them, to a
    degree, enough material so they can survive. And, you know,
    timber prices go up and down, but soon as you knock a timber
    mill out, then it is a couple hundred miles to the next one,
    and then all of a sudden our forests, we don't have the
    mechanism other than prescribed burns to manage our timber. So
    I appreciate what you do, and you were very, very wise to bring
    on board Chuck Rhodey.
        Mr. Moore. Yep, I love that notion, too. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Ellzey.
        Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. Thank
    you for being here. I am an aviator by trade. This is a part-
    time gig. [Laughter.]
        But I have been flying my whole life, and I remember the
    first time I saw Always and the firefighting unit that was in
    that movie. And I, from time to time, before I figured out what
    I was going to do with my life, thought about being a fire
    service air tanker pilot. With the increase in fires across the
    country and, seemingly, the importance of the air tanker unit,
    do you all have what you need? Do you have the employees? Do
    you have the pilots? Do you have the tankers? Are they old? Are
    they new? Is there a good plan in place for going forward in
    the future because doing this job is very hard on those
    aircraft.
        Mr. Moore. Yes.
        Mr. Ellzey. And I understand exactly how hard that is. So I
    am asking you, and this is my only question today, do you have
    what you need in the Air Service?
        Mr. Moore. I think so. Through contracting, you know, we
    have the opportunity to call when needed but also exclusive
    use, so, so far it is working. We will have to see how that
    continues to work into the future.
        Mr. Ellzey. Okay. If you had any pot of money that you
    could just go grab, and anything that you could do to improve
    your service, top three things on your mind that keep you up at
    night. If you could fix anything, what would they be?
        Mr. Moore. Continuous and stable budget, particularly
    increases, and I think you hit on it, and I think that is where
    you are going, but, you know, we have a real problem out there
    in our Nation's forests. And, you know, a lot of times when we
    look at just a landscape, and regardless of jurisdiction or
    boundary, that is a lot of different land ownerships there. And
    any time there is a fire that destroys a large area, and
    particularly when you have private businesses that are
    dependent on that landscape, it has a devastating effect.
        And I think if we can get to the point where we can look at
    if we make an investment here, we can avoid the cost here. And
    we did a cost avoidance analysis a while back, and what it
    demonstrated is that with a small investment, you can avoid a
    huge cost from fires. And I would like to be able to look at
    more of that type of analysis to really justify the value and
    doing the work that we are doing now because you avoid huge
    payoffs down the road. And it is whether we are talking about
    clean, whether we are talking about carbon that is going into
    the atmosphere, whether you are talking about burning up, let's
    just say, 100,000 acres of private land, that is probably $100
    million.
        And so we have to look at the different values of that, and
    we have seen that, particularly with some of the large timber
    owners where fires have burned through and destroyed some of
    those private lands. That is lost money, that is lost value,
    and we have to be able to come together to operate in a way
    that we can prevent a lot of what is happening. And so how do
    we talk about the value, and of the investment to be made, and
    what we save on this end?
        Now, we are exploring some of that now with conservation
    finance ecosystem services. We are exploring that. Nothing is
    more frightening than when an insurance company drops a
    homeowner's insurance, but we are seeing that. How do we
    prevent that from happening to homeowners that happen to live
    in some of these areas that are susceptible to a higher fire
    danger? We have a lot of work to do, and I would like to be
    able to look at a number of those things.
        Mr. Ellzey. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chief. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I got a few comments and questions,
    I guess. I have been working for, like, 20 years with different
    chiefs, different administrations, whatever, on wildfire
    fighting and the air capacity that they had. I have always felt
    like the Forest Service should have at least a small fleet that
    they could use for initial attack and that type of stuff, and I
    realize we do, what, 90 percent, 95 percent through contract.
    But it changes every time there is a new administration, a new
    chief, on what they think they need and stuff. This committee
    cannot fund 10 new helicopters, you know, if that was what you
    would need, and former Chief Tidwell told me he would take
    helicopters over anything else.
        What we need is a 10-year plan of what you would like in
    terms of air service that the Forest Service owns,
    understanding it is going to be a very small percentage of the
    overall wildfire fighting thing, but so that we can plan on
    that in the budgets. And if we could get that and start that, I
    think we could do it through different administrations and
    different chiefs, if you know what I mean.
        Next, just a question. Why don't we fight wildfires at
    night? As you know, they blow up in the day. They calm down at
    night. And lot of countries now, Australia particularly, is
    looking at nighttime wildfire fighting with air tankers and
    stuff.
        Mr. Moore. We do fight fire at night, you know. That has
    been a misconception for quite a while now. We didn't do it as
    much years back, and, you know, there is generally a reason for
    everything, right? And the reason we stopped night flying is
    because of aircraft flying into each other, and----
        Mr. Simpson. Oh, that is not good.
        Mr. Moore. No, it is not, but we have better technology
    now. We have night vision. We can see better. And so we had
    brought on a night flying aircraft down in Southern California
    to just kind of tiptoe back into that arena. And what we are
    looking at now is adding additional night flying helicopters,
    for example, up in the Northern part of the State.
        We have also been working with some of the counties who
    also have that capability, you know, whether it is, you know,
    large cities. Some of the counties have that. So we are
    exploring more and more of that, but we are doing night
    fighting of wildfires.
        Mr. Simpson. Good. Following up on what Mr. Zinke had to
    say, you know, I agree with you fully that the public has a
    right to say how the public lands are managed, and it is not
    your fault that you spend all this money in lawsuits.
        Mr. Moore. Right.
        Mr. Simpson. It is because of the process that we have
    created in Congress, whether it is with NEPA or any of the
    other things that allow you to challenge a decision almost
    every step of the way, and the same lawsuits go on and on
    forever. And right now we are having a lawsuit about fire
    retardant, and I don't want to ask you about the particulars of
    the lawsuit. What would be the impact if you lost this lawsuit
    and lost the ability to use fire retardant? I mean, I almost
    can't believe that.
        Mr. Moore. So first of all, we are going to plan for
    whatever happens, and the loss----
        Mr. Simpson. Well, do you have something to use in its
    place?
        Mr. Moore. No, we have nothing currently to use in place of
    retardant, water perhaps. But we are in the process of working
    with the EPA to get a permit that is going to take some time,
    though, perhaps 2 to 3 years. And so that is our approach right
    now, and we are waiting to see what happens in the courts.
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah, you know, if I am a wildfire fighter and
    you are not using fire retardant, I am out of there.
        Mr. Moore. Well, it is a concern for sure.
        Yeah. I want to ask, and this is just a comment. I once
    asked, I believe it was Chief Donbeck, so that was a long time
    ago. That tells you how long I have been here. [Laughter.]
        I once asked him, I said, when you decide to do a timber
    sale and all of the cost it takes to put that together, how
    much of the money that it cost is spent on what you believe to
    be a good, sound scientific decision, and how much of it is
    spent on trying to make it bulletproof from a lawsuit. And he
    said, depending on the sale, he said between 25 and 50 percent
    is spent trying to make a good, sound scientific decision on a
    timber sale. Between 50 and 75 percent is spent trying to make
    it bulletproof from a lawsuit, and that was 20 years ago.
        I don't know if that same situation exists today, but
    somehow Congress has got to change the way we do NEPA and those
    other environmental laws, not to weaken them, not to take away
    the public's right to have a say in how things are managed, but
    when you can file a lawsuit with a, you know, a stamp, we got a
    problem in this country. And so we need to make it make more
    sense and not cost so damn much money in court where we could
    spend that money actually managing the forests. And that is one
    of the frustrations I have had for 20 years.
        It is not your fault. It is our fault, and it doesn't apply
    just to the Forest Service. It applies to every land management
    agency, almost every agency in government. So I am hopeful that
    we will take a look at that. It is a tough process to do
    because there are organizations that make a living off of
    lawsuits, and we got to change that mentality in this country
    and, again, maintain people's rights to have a say in how
    things are managed and stuff. So I appreciate it. Ms. Pingree.
        Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have just
    got one more thing I want to talk about, but it is always such
    a treat for me to be in this particular hearing because the
    issues that all of you experience in the West are just so
    significantly different than what we have on the East Coast.
    Now, I come from the most forested State in the Nation, so we
    care deeply about our forest, but they are not public land, so
    it is just so different, and I know you know Maine and my
    region well.
        But one of the things you have talked a lot about today,
    which I have enjoyed hearing about, is how the wood innovation
    grants work and how some of this transition, which really
    applies to forest restoration lands and some of the small-
    diameter timber that people have been talking about, because as
    my State lost virtually almost all of our paper mills and
    really had to transition our wood products industry, we have
    benefitted so much from the wood innovation grants and really
    thinking about, as you talked about, cross-laminated timber. We
    have a facility about to come online that will be wood fiber
    insulation, so that is going to be significant, and that can
    use waste wood. Biochar, another opportunity.
        And I know we have been funding it, and it is one of the
    things I am really interested in. And I see that in the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we also created a new grant
    program which is called Wood Products Infrastructure
    Assistance. So I am just interested in how you see that money
    being spent, anything else you want to say about the importance
    of this. And I think while we have been able to benefit from
    this really to revitalize our industry and bring back some of
    those jobs we had been devastated by the losses of, I can see
    how it is going to impact some of my colleagues into the future
    as well.
        Mr. Moore. You know, Congresswoman Pingree, we are of the
    mindset now that we want to work with all of our partners and
    look at what are those opportunities out there. And you
    mentioned some of the ones that we are working on, but we also
    want to create the opportunity to be creative on what is
    possible. We do know that we are learning a lot. Cellulosis
    nanomaterial is another one of those things that we are looking
    at. We know that----
        Ms. Pingree. I am glad you can say that term because I
    don't dare bring it up because I can't get it out right all the
    time, but it is amazing----
        Mr. Moore. Yeah.
        Ms. Pingree [continuing]. You know, you can make plastic
    from trees, basically.
        Mr. Moore. Right, and it strengthens material. In fact, it
    is known to strengthen concrete by 19 percent, which uses less
    rebar and things like that, and also putting it in the bumpers
    of cars.
        So we are looking at really trying to move into the
    innovative period to look at different uses for woods that are
    not used in a traditional way. We still need the traditional
    way of using wood, but there is so much more material out there
    that we generally burn. We just pile. And so rather than to do
    that, what can we do to create economic opportunities for our
    communities to create. And so we want to look at the science
    community, both university system as well as private and
    Federal, and put our heads together, and we are starting to
    explore that.
        I am really pleased with what we are able to do now with
    some of the types of science and the types of research that we
    are finding for different uses of wood, and I look for us to
    continue creating new opportunities. I also see us making
    shifts to a new type of industry, and I am really pleased to
    see a lot of our researchers and scientists working with the
    university system, as well the private and even the military,
    to look at ways of using wood. And I don't know what we are
    going to do as a country, but as we look at ecosystem services,
    and as we look at even potentially some type of a cap-and-trade
    system for carbon sequestration, what are the opportunities
    there that we can be looking at, and how do we begin to account
    for what we do and how much carbon is lost, how much carbon is
    sequestered.
        And so I think we are just exploring those types of things,
    but I am pretty excited about the potential.
        Ms. Pingree. That is great, and I would just add, and, you
    know, any time any of my colleagues want to come visit some of
    the work we are doing in Maine. It is very interesting, and
    some of it is in former paper mills. Our wood fiber insulation
    facility that is about to go online will employ 100 people. It
    is like cross-laminate timber. It is one of those entities that
    once, you know, they are established, then they will be looking
    to do that in other places around the country because it is a
    relatively new product for the United States, but it is used in
    Europe all the time. So, you know, there are great implications
    for all of these things.
        And the other thing, I think often people forget, and
    particularly from the environmental sector, think, oh, well, we
    can't cut any more trees, but the fact is you cut a tree, you
    use that wood product in construction, and the carbon in that
    tree is stored forever. So you have done your carbon
    sequestration job twice, once you are growing the tree and then
    once when you keep it in the building. So I think the more we
    are getting back to using wood products in building is just a
    win-win for all of us so.
        Mr. Moore. I agree.
        Ms. Pingree. So I yield back. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Moore. It doesn't want to stay on.
        Mr. Simpson. Oh, it doesn't want to stay on?
        Mr. Moore. Would you like to use mine? [Laughter.]
        Mr. Simpson. Oh, there it is. I was just going to say, and
    the worst thing you can do for sequestration is to burn that
    tree.
        Ms. Pingree. That is true.
        Mr. Simpson. And that is what happens with the wildfires
    out there. It is amazing the amount of carbon we put in the air
    through wildfires.
        Mr. Moore. Right.
        Ms. Pingree. Right.
        Mr. Simpson. And, I mean, we try to save carbon, sequester
    carbon, all that kind of stuff, and then, boom, you know? It is
    amazing. Anyway, Mr. Cloud.
        Mr. Cloud. Thanks again. Thanks for sticking around. Sorry.
    I am right under the speaker and kind of create some feedback.
    This is for my colleague from Texas.
        Mr. Simpson. Together, two Texas----
        Mr. Cloud. He knows me too well and doesn't want me to be
    heard. [Laughter.]
        Voice. I wonder if those Texans overheard----
        [Laughter.]
        Voice [continuing]. Says this guy. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Cloud. We were talking about cooperation with local law
    enforcement.
        Mr. Moore. Yes.
        Mr. Cloud. And I am wondering from firefighters because
    part of the budget is a big plus-up with firefighters, and we
    want the firefighters to be paid, you know, what the rate is
    and what they should be paid. Just because we raise the budget
    doesn't make immediately there to be more firefighters. And so
    we can draw firefighters, but sometimes, depending on the
    region, we will just be drawing them from the State or local
    firefighters, which will solve one problem, create another. I
    am wondering if there is a way or if maybe there is a program
    already in place about local, regional, State cooperation, if
    you could speak to that, what we can do to, you know, maybe
    supplement what is going on locally already to help.
        Mr. Moore. Yeah.
        Mr. Cloud. You know, because sometimes, you know, they do
    tremendous work and are far braver than I would be in that
    certain circumstance, but some it is waiting around for a
    problem to be solved as well, you know, to arise. Anyway, if
    you could speak to maybe if that is a potential----
        Mr. Moore. Sure.
        Mr. Cloud [continuing]. Or what is standing in a way of
    that might happening?
        Mr. Moore. Well, so let me start from a self-serving point
    of view first. That has been part of the Forest Service's
    problem. You know, we have lost a lot of our journey-level
    firefighters, and they have gone on into the wildfire
    community, whether that is with States or other entities, and
    it has created loss of an experience for us. The good news,
    though, is that most of the Forest Service's hiring is at the
    lower end of the level, so we are not taking generally from
    other benefits. We are bringing people in, training them, and
    then they are going out into the wildfire community, generally.
    Not always, generally.
        And to give you an example, when we talk about hiring
    11,300 firefighters, most of those are at the GS-8/9, below,
    and the majority of them is at the GS-5 and 6 level. And when
    you talk about hotshot crews, which is a very experienced crew,
    a lot of them are G-6s. Some are GS-5s. So we have really,
    really technical experts at that low end of the scale, and, of
    course, they are going to go on to where they can be paid
    better. And that is why this fiscal year 2024 budget is such a
    blessing to the Agency because it gives us an opportunity to
    pay the Federal firefighters a fair compensation to the other
    non-Federal firefighters.
        Mr. Cloud. I am on board with that. The question I am
    having is that, you know, we have to build a pipeline to train
    them to get them. It doesn't suddenly make more firefighters
    available when we are looking at all the issues we need to
    solve nationally. Do you have the mechanism, is there a plan in
    place to have cooperation with----
        Mr. Moore. Oh yes, yes.
        Mr. Cloud [continuing]. The State and local----
        Mr. Moore. In fact, each State has agreements----
        Mr. Cloud. Right.
        Mr. Moore [continuing]. On how we are going to approach
    firefighting. In fact, the State of Idaho, we met with the
    governor just recently there looking at signing an agreement
    between the Forest Service and the State. And generally, how
    that works is the closest resource responds to the initial
    attack, and it is for a certain amount of hours, and then, you
    know, then you look at what the agreement says in terms of how
    reimbursements are made.
        So we do have that across the country in different States
    to really talk about how when a fire happens, how each of the
    entities are going to work together. But when you look at the
    firefighting now, in most areas, it is mixed. It is a
    combination of State, county, volunteer fire departments, paid
    fire departments, as well as the Federal firefighters.
        Mr. Cloud. Okay. I guess what I was wondering, you don't
    feel like there are any authorities or any hurdles in the way
    of you being able to supplement what you are doing with local
    resources and to pay them.
        Mr. Moore. We are already doing a lot of that now, you
    know. In addition to just looking at, let's just say, the
    Federal Forest Service firefighters, we have what we call Ads,
    administrative determined, so we have about 6,000 that we can
    pull from there. We also have what we call militia, and that is
    a part of the organization that are not qualified as
    firefighters, but they have the qualifications and a
    certification for different parts of the firefighting program.
    And when I look at the South, whether that is Texas or just
    generally South, and the East, most of their firefighting
    workforce is militia. So that 11,300 firefighters does not
    include that number of folks, nor does it include the 6,000 ADs
    that we can draw from, nor does it include, well, all the
    neighbors, whether it is the State folks, county, or volunteer
    fire department. Altogether, 2 years ago, to give you an
    example, we had about 33,000 firefighters at one time out
    fighting fires, and that was a combination of State, Federal,
    local, volunteer, and as well as private contract firefighters.
        Mr. Cloud. Okay. The only other thing, I guess, I would say
    is I want to echo with Secretary Zinke was saying about, you
    know, housing versus studies.
        Mr. Moore. Yeah.
        Mr. Cloud. And that is kind of what I was getting to when I
    was like it seems like there is some overhead. I am trying to
    figure out where it is. You know, when a project is listed, you
    know, this project cost us this much, to know how much of that
    was actually infrastructure versus the litigation involved in
    it, you know. I would be curious to know how much you are
    spending on litigation and not only, you know, in preparing for
    it, but the settlements that are going out as well to see what
    needs to be done there.
        You know, we like to think that is above board and that it
    is an accountability check, and certainly sometimes it is, but
    I have been here in D.C. long enough to know some of that is a
    little self-dealing that is going on politically, and----
        Mr. Moore. Would you like for us to provide you that?
        Mr. Cloud. Yes. Yes.
        Mr. Moore. Okay.
        [The information follows:]

        Response: Congressman, we understand your interest in this
    topic, and your desire to understand the total cost to the
    agency that pertains to litigation. In general, we would
    estimate this by providing the number of full-time employees
    dedicated to litigation, but there are other factors that cost
    the agency. For example, agency leadership spends time working
    on issues related to litigation, and there are other indirect
    costs that litigation creates. Additionally, since we cannot
    forward project this estimate, any estimate would be a
    retrospective look at past fiscal years.
        Project cost estimations do not include any contingency
    funding for litigation. Litigation costs are not measured as a
    direct or indirect project management cost and we are unable to
    include litigation costs as a component of project management
    because there isn't a methodology to predict which projects
    will ultimately end up in litigation.
        We would like to offer you a briefing in order to provide
    you with the best information and context to support your
    inquiry. Please contact Jacob.Donnay@usda.gov to set up a
    briefing.

        Mr. Cloud. If you could, that would be good to know as
    well.
        Mr. Cloud. Thank you.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Zinke.
        Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know you have said
    that you have been here for many, many chiefs, but you haven't
    been to Pinchot, so you are not that old. [Laughter.]
        So a couple comments. When I talk about going to the
    frontline with wildland firefighters themselves, a lot are
    seasonal, and what they are telling me is there they are living
    on overtime.
        Mr. Moore. Yes.
        Mr. Zinke. Would that be a fair assessment?
        Mr. Moore. Yeah. I mean, you know, when you look at the
    overtime hours that a number of our firefighters are making, it
    depends on the fire year, of course, but anywhere from 600 to
    1,200 hours of overtime.
        Mr. Zinke. And they are saying they couldn't make it
    without overtime? Is that----
        Mr. Moore. Well, it depends on where they live. That is
    true, and then you have to worry about an overworked
    workforce----
        Mr. Zinke. Right.
        Mr. Moore [continuing]. When that happens.
        Mr. Zinke. And then also pay equity real quickly, the
    tribal firefighters.
        Mr. Moore. Yes.
        Mr. Zinke. A lot of times, you know, in Montana, side by
    side. There was the Elmo fire. You have two groups, and bad as
    the Forest Service pay is, I think the tribal pay is even
    worse. So, you know, and there are a lot of troops that, you
    know, same thing that they have. They get someone qualified,
    and they will leave to you, and then you will put more training
    on them, then they will leave. Are you concerned also because
    we depend on our tribal firefighters also for forests? Are you
    looking at the umbrella of not only your troops, but theirs as
    well as pay?
        Mr. Moore. Well, I can't look after the tribal, but I will
    tell you, I do think it is unfair. I do think something has to
    be done about that. I think when you look at the firefighting
    community, you know, what is fair and what is good, it should
    be for everyone.
        Mr. Zinke. I would agree. Lastly, the Good Neighbor
    Program. Let's talk about something that is good.
        Mr. Moore. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Zinke. So what I am seeing and talking to different
    counties and the States, you know, the Good Neighbor Program,
    it began kind of as a pilot program, has continued to expand,
    and it seems like is a great program. Would you be in favor of
    looking at expanding that program perhaps on acres or forests
    as a whole, perhaps, as a pilot?
        Mr. Moore. Yeah. You know, one of the really great things
    about the, and there are many great things, but about the 2018
    farm bill is that it allowed that to happen. Now, we believe
    that under the Good Neighbor authority, you know, where you
    used to have timber sale receipts, the States could keep those
    receipts, and so we have a lot of agreements with the States.
    Where we do not have that is with the counties and the tribes,
    and that is probably why we don't have much participation from
    the counties and tribes because right now, under the existing
    bill, they are not allowed to keep the receipts. I do believe
    that if that was changed, then you would see a lot more
    participation with the Good Neighbor authority because it
    really is a great tool for how we do our work.
        Mr. Zinke. And last question, and thank you. I agree with
    you on that. So, you know, Europe, I have always looked at
    their forests. You know, they don't tend to have the
    catastrophic burns. They manage, and perhaps it is a little
    unfair to compare apples and oranges. They don't have the
    wilderness. When a tree is first beginning, they know when they
    are going to harvest it. They are Germans, they are very
    efficient, but what I do admire is they don't have the problem
    of doing a single timber sale.
        And perhaps we should look at a forest more holistic
    because we know what the sustainable yield is. We know that
    that is the amount of material that has to come out of the
    forests, and it is coming out one way or the other as a burn,
    or by harvest, or innovation, so it is coming out of the
    forest. But the Europeans do it where they have one contract, a
    longer period, and they don't have individual timber sales that
    are subject to litigation. And so the throughput over time is
    more predictable. It is known.
        Have you heard of that? Have you looked at that management
    scheme on a forest before?
        Mr. Moore. No, I have not compared what we do to what the
    Europeans do. I will say also that, you know, I feel like we
    are doing an excellent job based on the laws that governs us,
    and if they were to change, then we could potentially change
    how we do business as well.
        Mr. Zinke. Well, it seems to me a forest is a breathing
    entity, and what we are doing is we are stopping, we are
    starting, we are stopping, we are starting. We are fighting
    fires, but it is not a journey, which we know.
        Mr. Moore. Right.
        Mr. Zinke. And a lot of the healthy forests are at risk
    where there is watershed. So, you know, I encourage us all to
    look at maybe a pilot program on a forest scale of, you know,
    that scale, and look at it and see if we can do longer-term
    contracts that we have known throughputs and the investment can
    be there. So if you are a startup business, hey, look, there is
    going to be this amount of material. I don't know where it is
    going to come from, but it is going to come from forests, and
    that is why we rely on foresters to tell us, look, whether it
    is a selective cut, or a little more aggressive, or a little
    less aggressive, you know, that is what you guys do.
        So I would encourage us all to look at maybe a couple of
    pilot programs in different regions, you know, to look at a
    different model that perhaps would sidestep some of the point
    litigation that is going on on a small timber sale. So thank
    you.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you.
        Mr. Zinke. And I wish you the best of luck. I think you are
    doing a great job, and you have a tough task ahead of you.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Congressman.
        Mr. Zinke. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, and you will notice most of the
    questions have been about wildfire fighting, and obviously it
    is a huge issue, a huge issue for you. And what you described
    is you are training people that are then going to higher pay
    and stuff, you know. We are hearing from the Tribes and every
    entity. They train the law enforcement officers, and the law
    enforcement officers then go to the cities, you know, that have
    higher pay. This is throughout government.
        I was a city councilman in Blackfoot, and we had towns of
    50,000 people 25 miles on each side of us, and we were a town
    of 10,000. We were the training ground for Idaho Falls and
    Pocatello. You know, that is a problem, and I told the Tribes
    during the hearing that we are going to try to solve that
    somehow. So it is the same problem that you have.
        Mr. Moore. Yeah.
        Mr. Simpson. And you talk about the different groups or
    organizations that fight wildfires, that it is not necessarily
    just one, just you. When I was, I think, my second year here, I
    called my chief of staff when he was out in Idaho in August and
    said, hey, let's go fight a wildfire, and he looked at me like
    I was crazy. [Laughter.]
         I said, no, I called. They had the huge fire up in Salmon,
    Idaho, Clear Creek fire, and I said, I called the chief out
    there, the superintendent of the forests up there, and we would
    like to come up and have you treat us as if we were wildfire
    firefighting, a couple people. So they brought us up. I said we
    are not bringing any press or anything like that. We just want
    to learn what it takes to fight one of these fires, and that is
    a town of 5,000 people that had to be set up to fight this
    wildfire.
        It is stunning logistics of what it takes to fight one of
    these wildfires. How do you know the next day, how do you
    predict where it is going to blow up, make sure you have the
    people in place, that they have the water, the food, safety,
    and that kind of stuff. It is amazing. So we got to go to the
    planning session, then we got to take food to them the next
    morning for breakfast around the mountain. You know, it is like
    a 30-mile trip to get around the mountain.
        But there were Federal firefighters. There were State
    firefighters. There were local firefighters. The army was
    there. We had some National Guard there. I mean, it is a
    combination of everything.
        Mr. Moore. Right, mm-hmm.
        Mr. Simpson. And they ought to all be treated equally.
        Mr. Moore. Right. I agree.
        Mr. Simpson. So anyway, I thank you for being here today.
    It has been a good discussion. There are a lot of areas that
    the Forest Service covers that we didn't get into questions
    today, but we have a number of questions that we are going to
    be submitting to you, and we would like a written response as
    quickly as you can. And if members have additional comments or
    statements, they should submit those to the committee within,
    what, 5 days so that we can get those questions to you, too,
    and we would appreciate it very much.
        Again, thank you for being here today and taking our
    questions. We look forward to working with you as we work
    through this budget year.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chair.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. The committee stands adjourned.
        [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.007

                                              Thursday, March 23, 2023.

                                  MEMBERS' DAY

        Mr. Simpson. [Audio malfunction in the hearing room.]
    Ranking Member Pingree and the members of this subcommittee to
    pass a bill. Before we get under way, I would like to yield to
    my friend, Ranking Member Pingree, for any opening statements
    that she may have.
        Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank you
    for holding this hearing, and thank my colleagues for being
    here today to talk about their priorities in the 2024 process.
    So thanks so much for being with us.
        Mr. Simpson. [Audio malfunction in the hearing room.]
                                  ----------

                                              Thursday, March 23, 2023.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. AUMUA AMATA C. RADEWAGEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
        TERRITORY OF GUAM
        Ms. Radewagen. [Speaking native language.] Thank you,
    Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Pingree, for the
    opportunity today to testify on the needs of American Samoa for
    their budget under the Interior Department and their Office of
    insular Affairs.
        Tuna is to American Samoa what the potato is to Idaho and
    the lobster is to Maine. Without them, our economies and
    identities would be drastically reduced. Now, what would happen
    if the President declared that potato growing could be outlawed
    or that lobster couldn't be caught in an area bigger than
    Alaska and Colorado combined, because that is what the
    President bragged about yesterday, declaring that over 777,000
    of tuna fishing grounds be off limits to the U.S. fishing
    industry and that is canned at the American Samoa cannery.
        In our case, 80 percent of our exports and port traffic
    revolve around StarKist Tuna operations that employ nearly
    4,000 people in our territory, second only to the local
    government as an employer. Expanding the Pacific Remote Marine
    Island National Monument, or we call it the PRMIN, without
    allowing for fishing management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
    will devastate our economy. So yesterday, I sent a letter to
    Commerce Secretary Raimondo and Interior Secretary Haaland, who
    is a dear friend, strongly opposing this expansion, and I have
    a copy here for the committee's record. So please support us by
    ensuring the American Samoa and Economic Development Credit,
    also known as the Section 30(a) tax credit provision, is
    extended to maintain those jobs. Please let your Ways and Means
    colleagues, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Neal, know how
    important its renewal is to us.
        To that end, I thank the subcommittee for its recent
    support for funds for the architectural planning and design of
    a hospital expansion to help improve and alleviate the poorly-
    conditioned facilities we are struggling with. This is 60-year
    old infrastructure that has endured over 300 inches of tropical
    annual rainfall that has left us in a state of disrepair, well
    documented by the Army Corps of Engineers, since 2018. As a
    result of my territorial colleagues' efforts, we were able to
    secure additional support from the Treasury Department to use
    American Rescue Plan funds to further improving our sole
    hospital's dire situation. The American Samoan Government has
    signed a design contract and announced the location of a new
    medical facility in the village of Tafuna located in the
    Western District. Attached to my written testimony is
    information from ASG's American Rescue Plan Act oversight
    office executive director, Keith Gebauer, outlining the local
    and Federal funds that have been allocated for this project.
        While the planning and project is well under way, the
    primary obstacle to construction that remains is our geographic
    and economic isolation. Inflation disproportionately affects
    the Pacific region as we deal with the rising cost of imported
    diesel. As such, I am requesting a modest increase of $1
    million to the American Samoa Government operations account to
    partially offset inflation and allow ASG to move forward with
    their hospital improvement plans uninterrupted.
        At the Pacific Islands Country Summit in September 2022,
    the U.S. announced the U.S. Pacific partnership strategy and
    $810 million in additional extended or expanded programs for
    the region, subject to congressional approval. The Federal
    Government recognizes that investment in the Pacific is
    necessary to push back against adversarial forces in the
    region, and I thank this committee for recognizing that need
    for support extends to the territories.
        I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman and ranking member,
    for your time and consideration of my request. I yield back.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.013

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate you being here today.
    And I am going to ask Congresswoman Garcia to give her
    statement, and then we will ask questions of both you.
        Ms. Garcia. That would be great. We got a long day. I am
    like the eagle.
                                  ----------

                                              Thursday, March 23, 2023.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. SYLVIA GARCIA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        TEXAS
        Ms. Garcia. I, too, thank you, Mr. Chair, and ranking
    member, and the members for doing this Member Day here, and it
    is always so important to hear directly from members about the
    projects that they have in their districts that are a priority.
    I am proud to represent Texas' 29th Congressional District,
    which includes the cities of Houston, South Houston, Pasadena,
    Jacinto City, and Galena Park. My district is 77 percent
    Latino.
        First, I would like to discuss two of my community projects
    under the EPA STAG Drinking Water State Recovery Fund account
    for cleaner water that I strongly urge the committee to
    consider. The first is in the city of Jacinto City, and that is
    one of the small cities around Houston. I have a request for
    $3.2 million, which will provide safe drinking water and fire
    protection to a diverse mix of residences and small businesses.
    These pipes will be replaced with larger polypropylene pipe,
    which will eliminate the threat of lead poisoning. It will also
    allow the water system to operate at a pressure that can ensure
    the delivery of safe water to each user and supply adequate
    pressure and fire flows. Again, that request is $3.2 million.
        The second one is for a project in the City of Galena Park,
    another of the small cities around Houston. This $6 million
    project request will improve the city's drinking water system
    by installing and replacing distribution pipes to prevent
    contamination. The new pipes will also improve water pressure
    and quality, and, again, this one is for $6 million, another
    water project.
        The third request that I have for the committee to consider
    is general appropriations for funding clean air programs. Mr.
    Chairman, most of the entire petrochemical complex is located
    in my district, likewise, almost 80 percent of the Houston Ship
    Channel. So we get all the ships. We get all the manufacturing.
    We get all the plants. Those are in my district. Again, my
    district is a working-class Latino district.
        Residents in and around the area regularly struggle with
    healthy air quality due to high amounts of ozone pollution and
    smog. Unfortunately, the Houston region frequently ranks among
    the highest in the country for air quality issues. In fact,
    right now, we are ranked number 8 in the country for the most
    ozone in our city, and that is by stats from the American Lung
    Association.
        Air monitors have helped us pinpoint problematic areas, and
    specific pollutants, and their effects on people's health. For
    example, we know that poor air quality can aggravate
    preexisting health conditions, like asthma and allergies, and
    technology can help us caution those residents who are near a
    particularly high ozone area before they go outside. As someone
    who has allergies all the time, I can attest to that because I
    watch those numbers before even I leave my house, and I am not
    near the Ship Channel.
        My community is trying to monitor air quality more closely
    and more equitably through local, community, State, Federal,
    and private initiatives. We are trying to get ahead of any
    potential hotspots. Increasing the number of air monitors and
    pollution abatement programs through adequate Federal funding
    is one more step in that direction. Clean air is a public
    health issue.
        We need to do more to help our communities, so
    specifically, I am asking the committee to robustly fund the
    EPA State and Tribal Assistance Grants Programs. These grant
    programs offer funding for a variety of clean water and clean
    air initiatives. My letter asked for strong funding for this
    program, specifically those focused on air monitoring and
    pollution abatement programs. This funding would greatly help
    communities like mine and those around the country that have
    long been underserved. Everyone deserves a God-given right to
    breathe clean air, period. I am proud to see that this
    committee prioritized strong funding for this program last
    year, and I sincerely hope that the committee can once again
    prioritize funding for this critical program.
        Thank you again for your consideration to these three
    requests. I am happy to answer any questions that you might
    have. I yield back.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.020

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, and thank you for being here.
    First, let me ask, Congresswoman, America Samoa, is 300 inches
    of rain unusual? You know, I have no idea how much rain you
    usually get.
        Ms. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, it is pretty
    average.
        Mr. Simpson. Is that pretty average? Do you have any idea
    why the administration declared this huge area unavailable for
    tuna fishing? What was the reasoning?
        Ms. Radewagen. Perhaps it was environmental concerns, but
    the bottom line is that they didn't even bother to consult with
    us, consult with our governor, and consult with the
    stakeholders out there. And these are U.S. waters, and what it
    is doing, it is devastating our economy because----
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
        Ms. Radewagen [continuing]. We are a one industry economy,
    and that is canned tuna. We are the home of Charlie the Tuna,
    so when you go to your supermarket and you buy StarKist tuna,
    most likely it was canned in American Samoa.
        Mr. Simpson. See, I had no idea that that was a huge
    industry there, and I eat a lot of tuna from the can.
        Ms. Radewagen. So do I.
        Mr. Simpson. Interesting.
        Ms. Garcia. Especially during Lent.
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah. Congressman Garcia, have you put in
    requests for those specific projects in the community? What do
    we call them?
        Ms. Garcia. Project funding? Yes.
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
        Ms. Garcia. They are community-based project funding, yes,
    sir.
        Mr. Simpson. Okay.
        Ms. Garcia. I just wanted to make you aware of them.
        Mr. Simpson. Okay.
        Ms. Garcia. The one that would come under more of your
    jurisdiction is continuing to fund the air monitoring and air
    quality.
        Mr. Simpson. Air quality. Yeah. Okay.
        Ms. Garcia. And they really do help. Well, I have had prior
    lives, and my prior life was as a State senator, but before
    that one, I was county commissioner. And it was always a
    challenge to try to get as many monitors as we could so that we
    would know where the trouble spots were----
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
        Ms. Garcia [continuing]. So that we would know to alert
    people in order to work on abatement issues. And I must say
    that any time that we brought that to the attention of industry
    there, we worked together to try to resolve the issues and
    figure out where to put them and how to set them up.
        Mr. Simpson. Okay. Thank you. Congresswoman Pingree.
        Ms. Pingree. Yeah. Well, thank you again both for coming,
    and thank you. You know, we never know enough about the
    territories. We always learn from hearing about it, and I had
    recently just heard about the President's declaration, and
    didn't realize that that was such an important part of your
    economy, had no idea that every can of tuna that I purchased
    comes from there. Are the tuna fishermen who fish in that area
    exclusively from American Samoa, are there other countries who
    fish there, or is that----
        Ms. Radewagen. It is----
        Ms. Pingree. I am not that familiar with it.
        Ms. Radewagen. They are American Samoans, and they are from
    the U.S.
        Ms. Pingree. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. So it is primarily, and it all
    comes back and it gets processed where you live, yeah.
        Ms. Radewagen. Yes.
        Ms. Pingree. Well, thank you for filling us in about that
    and also the challenges. I am glad to hear we are moving
    forward with funding that hospital, but it sounds like you
    might need a little bit more to get it done.
        Ms. Radewagen. Thank you.
        Ms. Pingree. Yeah, and thank you, Representative Garcia.
        Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
        Ms. Pingree. Always interesting to hear about your district
    and those programs at the EPA and the STAG grants, critically
    important to all of our States. So good to hear you are
    submitting those.
        Ms. Garcia. Thanks.
        Ms. Radewagen. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. We thank you both for being here today and
    informing us of your requests. And keep in touch with us as we
    try to put a bill together, which is going to be, you know, who
    knows when and what, when we ever get a budget resolution done.
    So I look forward to working with you to address your concerns.
    I would say that you did mention potatoes because of Idaho and
    lobsters because of Maine, but you could have mentioned
    potatoes because of Maine, too, so that was a double whammy
    there, you know. You got them. [Laughter.]
        Ms. Radewagen. You have got a point.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you both for being here.
        Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
        Ms. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Garcia. Thank you for sharing your visitor.
        Ms. Pingree. That was a very----
        Mr. Simpson. For the members' information, both
    Representative Schrier and Representative Griffith, other
    things came up, so they are not going to be able to make it. So
    thanks to our colleagues for taking time to join us today and
    discuss the issues that are important to your districts, and
    this subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Statements submitted for the record follow:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.025

                                               Tuesday, March 28, 2023.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                                   WITNESSES

    HON. DEB HAALAND, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
    DENISE FLANAGAN, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
    JOAN M. MOONEY, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
        INTERIOR

                Opening Statement of Representative Mike Simpson

        Mr. Simpson. The committee will come to order.
        Madam Secretary, thank you for being here today, and thank
    you for our conversation last week in advance of this hearing.
    I look forward to our discussion on several important issues
    facing the Department of the Interior. While I don't agree with
    all of your decisions or the Administration's policy, I am glad
    that we have been able to work together on many bipartisan
    issues like working to meet our treaty and trust obligations
    with American Indians and Alaska Natives, and implementation of
    the Great American Outdoors Act.
        I am thrilled to return as chairman of this subcommittee
    after serving on it for over the past two decades. This
    subcommittee oversees funding for the public land agencies,
    like the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service,
    and the Forest Service. And as chairman, I have a unique
    opportunity to influence Federal policies that directly impact
    Idaho and the rest of the Nation. Since nearly two-thirds of
    Idaho is Federal land, our Federal land management policies
    have a direct impact on our State's economy and on the lives of
    Idahoans who live, work, and recreate on or near Federal lands.
    This is why as a lifelong Idahoan, I have spent my career in
    Congress working to ensure the land management agencies are
    good neighbors and have the tools to manage our lands
    effectively and efficiently.
        As you know well, your Department also has the sacred
    responsibilities for meeting our Federal Government's
    commitment to Indian Country. This subcommittee, under both
    Republican and Democratic chairmen, has committed to addressing
    the greatest tribal needs, including education, tribal land
    management, law enforcement issues, and health issues. These
    continue to be nonpartisan subcommittee priorities. We welcome
    your active involvement working with us and our American
    Indians and Alaska Native brothers and sisters.
        I know my colleagues also have a lot of priorities that
    they will want to discuss with you today, and I want to quickly
    mention a few things. One is ensuring that we are not dependent
    upon our adversaries for minerals. During our meeting, you
    discussed the work being done to identify those resources in
    the United States, which is a good first step, but we also must
    work together to get them out of the ground. Here in the U.S.,
    that can be done safely and in a way that protects the
    environment better than anywhere else in the world.
        And in terms of the budget, the President has requested
    almost $17 billion in discretionary funding for the Interior
    Department. At a time when our Federal deficit continues to
    rise--in fact, it has doubled since I first joined this
    committee--we need to have a serious discussion about how to do
    more with less. I will be looking for ways to increase
    efficiencies, reduce duplication, and ensure that Federal
    dollars are spent wisely with a demonstrated benefit. I know
    there are many stakeholders and partners involved in the
    Department's work, and I appreciate the leverage that non-
    Federal partners provide for many programs and projects.
        I look forward to talking more about this and many other
    issues that our members will want to discuss with you today,
    and with that I would like to yield to Ranking Member Pingree
    for her opening statement.

                  Statement of Representative Chellie Pingree

        Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    having us for this hearing. Good morning, Madam Secretary.
    Thank you for being with us today to discuss the fiscal year
    2024 budget request for the Department of the Interior. We are
    thrilled with the job you are doing there, and we miss you in
    Congress.
        Your budget continues to build upon this Administration's
    commitment to addressing the climate crisis by requesting
    significant increases to advance science and enhance
    conservation efforts but ensures that we are upholding our
    treaty and trust obligations, and it comprehensively expands
    the Federal Government's response to wildland fire. As the
    steward of Federal land, your Agency faces significant climate-
    related challenges, from drought, wildfires, floods, and
    invasive species, so I am pleased to see a continued emphasis
    on science.
        This budget includes an additional $288 million for the
    U.S. Geological Survey to carry out important work, such as the
    Groundwater and Stream Flow Information Program, which provides
    data for forecasting water availability. The utility of this
    work goes beyond resource management and is used for decision
    making by the agriculture sector. The budget also seeks to meet
    our responsibilities and legal obligations to protect Indian
    trust assets and resources and to provide direct services, such
    as education, public safety, and justice. A total increase of
    $690 million is proposed for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, with
    targeted investments to address missing and murdered indigenous
    peoples, the legacy of the Federal Indian boarding schools, and
    native language revitalization. I believe these increases are
    appropriate and necessary. Finally, I am pleased to see that
    the budget takes a holistic approach to wildland fire, focusing
    on both a healthy landscape and a healthy workforce. I am
    supportive of the Administration's commitment to supporting
    wildland firefighters and their families through better
    compensation, safe housing, and providing the health and well-
    being assistance.
        Secretary Haaland, thank you again for appearing before us
    this morning. I appreciate your testimony and the answers to
    our questions. I yield back.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Ranking Member Pingree. Secretary
    Haaland, you may proceed with your opening statement. Your
    official statement will be submitted for the record.

       Statement of Honorable Deb Haaland, Secretary, Department of the
                                    Interior

        Secretary Haaland. Good morning, Chair Simpson, Ranking
    Member Pingree, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
    the opportunity to testify in support of Interior's fiscal year
    2024 budget request. Our 2024 budget totals $18.9 billion in
    current authority, an increase of $2 billion from the 2023
    level.
        First, I want to highlight several important proposals.
    These include significant reforms to support the Wildland Fire
    Workforce, mandatory funding for future Indian water rights
    settlements, expanding Good Neighbor and stewardship
    contracting authorities, to include the Fish and Wildlife
    Service and the NPS, reclassifying legally-required tribal
    sovereignty payments, contract and leasing costs from
    discretionary to mandatory funding, and $6.5 billion over 20
    years from the Department of State to fund economic assistance
    under the Compacts of Free Association.
        Let me begin with our Indian Affairs budget request. This
    administration has made a steadfast commitment to strengthen
    government-to-government relationships with Indian tribes with
    a total request of $4.7 billion for Indian Affairs programs.
    Investments will address missing and murdered indigenous
    peoples, the legacy of Federal Indian boarding schools, and
    native language revitalization. BIA's budget includes $48
    million for the Tribal Climate Resilience Program to support
    climate resilience planning, including relocation. In response
    to concerns by tribal leaders for public safety and their
    communities, the budget includes an increase of nearly $86
    million above 2023. We also request $1.6 billion for Indian
    education programs. Notably, the 2024 request for BIE
    construction will support seven school projects.
        Turning to wildland fire, the 2024 budget honors President
    Biden's commitment to address this issue to assist
    firefighters, supporting an additional 370 Federal and 55
    tribal fire personnel. Complementing the pay reforms, we also
    include $993.3 million for fuels management activities, an
    increase of $46.3 million above 2023. These investments are
    crucial as wildfires were noticeably higher in 2022 than the
    10-year average.
        Stewardship of our natural resources sources is a core
    mission for us as Interior manages about 20 percent of
    America's public lands. Our request covers $3.2 billion in
    annual funding for conservation efforts that supports key
    initiatives, such as wildlife corridors and youth corps
    partnerships. The request also includes $140 million for Fish
    and Wildlife Service partnership programs that support
    voluntary conservation on public and private lands, a key focus
    of the America the Beautiful Initiative. To complement the $681
    million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, I am proud to
    propose $12 million in discretionary funding for a new tribal
    LWCF program, which is a top priority for Tribes.
        At the Department, science is our foundation. The USGS
    works with partners across the country to maintain 20,000
    groundwater monitoring wells, 11,800 stream gauges, and 3,800
    earthquake sensors. It also directly monitors 70 volcanoes. The
    budget includes $128 million that supports nine regional
    Climate Adaptation Science Centers with university partners. We
    are also looking forward to the Landsat Next Mission that will
    take advantage of new technologies for global imaging data.
        When it comes to energy, we are excited to be on our way to
    achieve the administration's goals to deploy 30 gigawatts of
    offshore wind capacity by 2030. As of last month, BOEM has
    conducted 11 wind energy lease sales for areas in the Atlantic
    and Pacific Oceans. That is more than 2.5 million acres of
    commercial wind energy lease areas. The budget includes over
    $64 million for BOEM's Renewable Energy Program, including a
    $12 million increase for permitting. Onshore, BLM is also
    making progress to permit 25 gigawatts of renewable energy on
    public lands by 2025. BLM has permitted more than 126 renewable
    energy projects, processed many more, and is working to support
    much-needed transmission lines. To meet these needs we include
    $72 million for BLM's Renewable Energy Program.
        At the end of 2020, Interior's staffing was at a 10-year
    low of around 60,500. When fully enacted, the budget would
    support an increase of 4,000 personnel from the 2023 estimate,
    to over 68,000. Regarding infrastructure, our request includes
    more than $3 billion for operations and maintenance. In
    addition, there is $1.6 billion in mandatory funding available
    each year through 2025 through the Legacy Restoration Fund
    (LRF). At the end of 2020, our LRF Program will have initiated
    276 projects, touching all 50 States, Washington, D.C., Puerto
    Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Those projects will address
    $3.4 billion of our deferred maintenance backlog, creating an
    average of 17,000 jobs per year.
        Overall, the President's budget for Interior invests in
    programs to strengthen our Nation for all Americans. I look
    forward to doing this work together. Thank you, and we are
    pleased to answer questions if you have them.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  WIND ENERGY

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Madam Secretary, and, again, thank
    you for being here today. You talked about the offshore wind.
    What are you going to do if they find it is connected with the
    dolphins and the whales that have washed up on shore in New
    Jersey and stuff?
        Secretary Haaland. Well, of course we are very cognizant of
    that issue, and we are making sure we are communicating with
    the folks who are studying this. From my understanding, it
    doesn't have anything to do with offshore wind, but, of course,
    regarding the animals in the ocean, we have a responsibility--
    --
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
        Secretary Haaland [continuing]. For us as well. So we will
    stay on top of the issue and, of course, keep those
    conversations going.
        Mr. Simpson. One of the other things you talked about, the
    number of permits you've given for onshore wind and stuff. As
    you know, there is one happening in Idaho right now that is in
    the permitting process that would be the largest wind towers
    ever put on land. The space needle, I think, is 700 or 650 feet
    tall. These are, like, 704 feet tall. You plan on putting,
    like, 144 of them out there. They estimate that they will kill
    over 250 raptors every year. That means eagles, hawks, other
    birds, and nobody in the community, the whole valley, wants
    them there. How is BLM looking at this in the Department of
    Interior?
        Secretary Haaland. Of course we care about raptors. We care
    about every single animal on our public lands, and with that
    particular project, Chairman, we would be happy to get the
    details and be back in touch with your office about that.
        Mr. Simpson. Okay.
        Secretary Haaland. I don't have particular details with
    respect to that particular project.
        Mr. Simpson. Okay.
        Secretary Haaland. We will absolutely be in touch about it.
        [The information follows:]

                    STATUS OF LAVA RIDGE WIND ENERGY PROJECT

        The BLM takes its role of managing public lands for
    diverse, and often competing, multiple uses in the public
    interest very seriously. The Bureau is also committed to robust
    public engagement on projects proposed for development on the
    public lands. The BLM published a Draft Environmental Impact
    Statement (EIS) for the Lava Ridge Wind Energy Project on
    January 20, 2023, and opened a 90-day public comment period. In
    the Draft EIS, the BLM analyzed the potential impacts of Magic
    Valley Energy's proposal to a variety of resources, including
    air quality, avian and bat populations, big game habitats and
    populations, cultural and historic resources, eagles and non-
    eagle raptors, greater sage-grouse habitat, livestock grazing,
    pollinators, recreation, wildlife migration, soils, visual
    resources, water and wetlands. The BLM also considered the
    potential impacts of the proposal on Tribal interests,
    environmental justice, wildfire and fuels management,
    socioeconomics, and transportation. In addition, the BLM
    analyzed the potential impacts of three other action
    alternatives that were designed to avoid or minimize impacts to
    resources, including eagles and other raptors. Under all the
    action alternatives analyzed, tower heights would range between
    390 and 740 feet tall.
        The public comment period for the Draft EIS closes on April
    20, 2023. Since the opening of the public comment period, the
    BLM held in-person and virtual open house meetings. All
    comments the BLM receives during the public comment period will
    be appropriately considered and incorporated into the Final
    EIS. As environmental review of the project continues, the
    Bureau will further analyze potential impacts and consider
    options to best meet the BLM's multiple use and sustained yield
    mission. The BLM will also continue to engage with cooperating
    agencies and stakeholders to further explore potential
    protection measures, mitigation, and adaptive management
    approaches to reduce the potential impacts of the alternatives.

         INFRASTRUCTURE AND INFLATION REDUCTION ACT INVESTMENTS; HIRING

        Mr. Simpson. I appreciate that, and I didn't plan on
    bringing those up, but as I was listening to you talking about
    BOEM and the wind tower stuff, those came to my mind. Anyway,
    the Department received significant funding through both the
    Infrastructure Bill and the Inflation Reduction Act last year,
    more than $26 billion for everything from abandoned mine
    reclamation to forest restoration. I am very concerned,
    however, with the amount of new staff that are planned to be
    hired with this funding because, as you know, this funding will
    run out. It was an influx of cash outside of the annual
    appropriations process.
        I am interested to learn how the Department plans to avoid
    pinning Congress with a staffing cliff when the supplemental
    funding runs out. The Park Service, for example, got $500
    million just to hire people. That could be more than 2,500
    people. I know you mentioned that visitations on our public
    lands has increased, and, therefore, more staff is needed to
    help keep our public lands and facilities maintained and safe.
    I think that is a good discussion to have, but I think it
    should happen as part of the annual appropriations process,
    especially because you agreed that these visitation numbers
    will only increase. How does the Department plan to hire staff
    using its supplemental money so that it does not create a cliff
    for employees when no more money is available out of those
    funds that will run out?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you for the question, and I
    appreciate you caring about our staff. We agree that could be a
    difficult situation that we would like to avoid. We are moving
    out responsibly with respect to hiring and focusing on term
    employees. I mentioned in my opening statement that we are
    understaffed at the moment. We are working to build up our
    capacity in the Department, so if we had staff on a term basis
    and we could move them over, we would want to do that.
        We haven't hired a lot, and we are not hiring a lot. There
    are about 350 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law positions that we
    have hired so far, and as I mentioned, we are still rebuilding.
    So over time, given that we are understaffed at the moment, we
    are working to build up our capacity in the Department. So if
    we had staff on a term basis and we could move them over, we
    would want to do that.
        Mr. Simpson. Well, I appreciate that----
        Secretary Haaland. And agree wholeheartedly with you.
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah. As you know, we don't want to be forced
    into a position where all of a sudden that, because of the
    annual appropriation process, you are going to have to lay off
    a couple thousand people or something like that. So I am glad
    to hear that you are keeping that in mind as you look at the
    hiring with temporary funds, if you would.
        Secretary Haaland. Yes.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Ms. Pingree.
        Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair. With your permission, I
    would like to defer to Mr. Kilmer who needs to get to another
    committee, and I am still in here.

                           TRIBAL CLIMATE RESILIENCE

        Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the ranking
    member. Madam Secretary, great to be with you. Thanks, too, for
    coming out to my neck of the woods a while back. I really
    appreciated you highlighting the Tribal Climate Resilience
    Program in your testimony. When we did the tribal testimony
    days here, we heard from a leader out at the Quinault Indian
    Nation where you visited, and one of the things that he raised
    was simply to move their lower village of Tahola, where we took
    our photo together right on the bank of the ocean, is about a
    $400 million price tag. The BIA's budget for the entire Tribal
    Climate Resilience Program is $48 million.
        And so I guess to kick things off, I would love to just get
    your thoughts on how your Agency, how the Biden Administration
    can work with Congress, can work with this subcommittee to
    develop and to execute a more coordinated and comprehensive
    plan for helping these communities that are facing imminent
    threat, not just from the rising sea levels and more severe
    storms, but certainly the threat of tsunami as well. Their
    ancestral homelands are really in danger, and I would love to
    see us step up more than we are for these communities.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much, Congressman, and,
    yes, it is a large concern for us as well. In 2022, Interior
    committed $115 million from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
    for projects in 11 communities. Three Tribes with shovel-ready
    relocation plans have been selected to receive $25 million
    each, and eight other communities will receive $5 million each
    through the Inflation Reduction Act funding.
        With respect to community resilience relocation in Indian
    Country, President Biden has charged us all with an all-of-
    government approach, so we will look for partners to help with
    this issue. The Indian Affairs team is now working with FEMA to
    further increase the resources available to each Tribe in
    executing these relocation plans. These are Tribes who have
    been there for hundreds, thousands of years, and you can't just
    pick up and pack a suitcase and move. So we understand that,
    and we will continue to work with partners to make sure that we
    can move forward on that and certainly work with you.
        Mr. Kilmer. We would love to be your partner in this. I
    would also just mention when I was with the Quileute Tribe, you
    mentioned the all-of-government approach. They mentioned
    sometimes there is just sort of competing requirements from
    different agencies. If they use HUD funding for this, they
    can't use BIA dollars for that. If there are things where our
    committee or where Congress needs to change authorizations or
    change the rules so that communities can actually take
    advantage of a whole-of-government approach, I think we were
    eager to do that.

                        TRIBAL COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

        The other thing I just wanted to raise, you highlighted in
    your testimony some of the stark inequities facing Native
    American students in terms of access to education. Adequate
    funding for tribal colleges and universities is really
    important, and within that program, I am a strong supporter of
    funds being made available for endowments, which allow the TCUs
    to have more robust endowments and help their institutions
    provide scholarships, and conduct research, and access new
    technology, and expand and offer other academic programs. I was
    hoping you could just expand on the work that BIE is doing to
    close some of these gaps, to address some of these inequities,
    to deal with the poor condition of facilities, to expand TCU
    scholarships and adult education opportunities, and anything
    else you think we ought to know in terms of what is cooking on
    that front.
        Secretary Haaland. Yes, thank you so much for the question.
    And so BIE's budget includes $190 million for post-secondary
    education programs, TCU's tribal technical colleges and
    scholarships, including scholarships for postgraduate
    education. There is another $16 million in BIE for repairs and
    improvements at tribal colleges and university facilities. And
    many TCUs leverage funding by teaming with local and national
    businesses to provide training partnership opportunities for
    Indian students.
        And, yes, thank you for mentioning the all-of-government
    approach. TCUs receive funding from BIE, the Department of
    Education, and the USDA, which includes support for endowments.
    So we will keep working together with those folks and certainly
    understand your concern.

                             BROKEN PROMISES REPORT

        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. Before I yield back, I just want to
    invite your engagement on something that you worked on when you
    were here and that we are continuing to work on. The U.S.
    Commission on Civil Rights put out what was called the Broken
    Promises Report detailing all of the ways in which we fail
    tribal communities. Senator Warren and I introduced last
    Congress a bill called the Honoring Promises to Native Nations
    Act. We are going to reintroduce that bill and would love to
    just get any feedback or a partnership from you and your team
    on that. So with that, I yield back. Thank you, Chairman.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Amodei.

                     Remarks of Representative Mark Amodei

        Mr. Amodei. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, good to
    see you. I don't expect to cover everything that I want to
    cover, but as you can imagine, since over 80 percent of my
    State is owned by predominantly Department of Interior, and
    specifically BLM, I want to kind of set the stage for a few
    things that are top of our radar screen right now.
        First and foremost is the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It
    gives me no joy to say this, and I know Nevada is not big
    Indian Country by any national standard, but nonetheless, the
    problems that we experience on our various reservations and
    communities are just as important to the people there as they
    are in the larger populations. I would like to get with your
    BIA person, and I understand they are going to be in front of
    us later, but I would really appreciate your assistance through
    your liaison and hooking us up with them.
        Realty is something we have been talking about the whole
    time I have been here, and I don't know any personalities, and
    it is not my intent to impugn or offend, but, you know, it just
    hasn't gotten any better. People are waiting a decade to get a
    conveyed title where it is like try to build a home, try to do
    anything where you don't really own it, according to the title
    company, which is BIA. And I just have this feeling that we
    should have done better, and we could, and it needs emphasis.
    The same with the housing programs. So I am going to be
    contacting your folks and make you aware of who we have
    contacted and what we are doing to try to really move the
    needle on the dial for a change.
        I am also sure you are aware of what the problem is going
    on in Owyhee with the school and BIA contamination of a plume
    underneath the school there. When we talk about an all-of-
    government approach, that is good to hear. I think there is a
    role not only for EPA to play, but maybe FEMA and stuff like
    that since there is a significant contamination of their
    domestic water there. There is a lot of jurisdiction mixing the
    local school district as well as the local tribe, as well as,
    generally EPA, so we are going to be darkening your doorway, if
    you will, in the near future to make sure that we have your
    leadership on that.
        Next, I want to switch to a thing that is going to come
    before you that we have discussed before, and I appreciate your
    access, and that is a NASA request for a public lands
    withdrawal of over 22,000 acres in Railroad Valley, Nevada,
    because there are some lithium claims there, and they are
    afraid that, hey, somebody is going to come and start doing a
    lithium operation, which is going to ruin the reflectivity of
    the Railroad Valley. And I am going to provide you a letter
    before you have to make a decision next month summarizing our
    concerns.
        But let it just suffice to say that when a member of
    Congress asks NASA to be a cooperating agency in the NEPA
    process and NASA very politely and timely says, ``eeenh,'' as
    well as the county that has local planning and zoning
    jurisdiction, that is not, I think, what was contemplated by
    NEPA. And I sit here as a Republican with the cameras rolling
    who thinks actually the transparency and the due process
    provided by NEPA are important and good things, and this is an
    Agency which I know the right stuff and astronauts used to get
    Corvettes and all that fun stuff, but it is like, that is no
    way to run a NEPA operation.
        And along with the fact that it is like of all people, when
    somebody says, hey, we think we can run an operation with
    lithium. Remember the energy discussion just a minute ago? We
    think we can run a NEPA-compliant operation for lithium that
    doesn't do anything to the surface of the lake bed, and the
    response from the agency is nobody has ever done that before.
    That is a curious statement for an outfit that went to the moon
    when nobody had ever done that before, too. So while I fully
    support preserving their mission, the fact that they need to
    own it and exclude all notions of future multiple use is a bit
    on the arrogant side.
        But more for the letter. Wild horses. Thanks for what you
    folks are doing. I appreciate the fact that you guys are
    looking for long-term solutions as opposed to what is now a
    phenomenal expense. It is like, hey, we are just going to
    relocate them and feed them until the actuarial tables take
    over. So I am looking forward to an updated briefing on what
    the program is and how you are planning on getting this beyond
    just trying to get down to AML, which is not at hand or near so
    that we can be of assistance in helping you do that.
        I want to talk to you about employees for a minute. I try
    to be in every one of your district offices once a quarter. I
    don't make that, but I try to be there because you got over 80
    percent of the land. When you talk to those managers, field
    office managers and district managers, and it is, like, so how
    is your manning doing, womaning, whatever I am supposed to say.
    Personnel. That is an old term, too. How is your human
    resources doing? And it is, like, hey, listen, we are dependent
    on the office, 60 percent staff, 70 percent staff, whatever. He
    said, well, where are they, what is the problem.
        When they talk about the lower GS, you know, the 6, 7, 8,
    9s, even, it is, like, well, we have got plenty of jobs, but
    nobody can afford to take them. And you say, well, what is the
    affordability thing. Obviously, in Nevada, it is housing,
    whether you are leasing, whatever. I know your folks are doing
    extraordinary things for the fire crews. We are leasing blocks
    or rooms in motels and stuff like that. But when you look at
    things like the locality pay that is available for some people
    in the Western part of the State, the difference in salary
    between, for instance, a GS-8 in Winnemucca versus Reno is
    about $20,000 a year.
        Now, that is a nice, you know, statement, but then I find
    out that there is a long history of providing housing to Parks
    people, and not that that is a bad thing. So my challenge is,
    it is, like, how do we solve that problem, because if we are
    carrying positions on the books, which, quite frankly, are
    unfillable, and I didn't mean to go on all that. I see my time
    has expired, but I look forward to talking offline
    substantially about the solutions to those problems.
        Secretary Haaland. Absolutely. Our door is open for you,
    Congressman. We will be happy to have all of those
    conversations and appreciate your input.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.

                       POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF FUNDING CUTS

        Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Madam Secretary,
    recently in response to a request from our committee, you
    provide a letter that highlighted some of the difficult cuts
    that would occur at the Department if we were to return to the
    fiscal year 2022 funding levels. So I know you have prepared
    some of that. I just think since this is a budget hearing, I
    would love to hear a little bit of some of the highlights of
    the challenges you think you would face.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much, Ranking Member
    Pingree. Yes, I could give you a long list, but for starters,
    the proposal would have real and damaging impacts to our
    country. It would require a hiring freeze, and I have already
    mentioned that we are working to staff up a lot of areas. It
    would cause deep cuts to seasonal employees in our national
    parks, refuges, and on our public lands, with Parks taking a
    particularly large hit. It would be a 27 percent reduction
    impacting up to 5,000 staff. And that would translate to
    visitors seeing a significant drop in Park operations, and
    things that they require----
        Ms. Pingree. Mm-hmm.
        Secretary Haaland [continuing]. Empty trash cans, and clean
    bathrooms, and so forth. There would just be fewer services all
    around. It would also reduce the number of wildland
    firefighters we have, between 1,000 and 1,700 positions, and
    all those acres of fuel management that we feel we need to do
    in order to try to stay on top of things. As you know,
    wildfires go by years now instead of seasons. It would be a
    catastrophic risk during the upcoming fire season. And also,
    with respect to maintaining firefighter pay, which is something
    they deserve, when the BIL funding ends, that means a 50
    percent or $20,000 cuts to firefighters' pay unless additional
    funds are provided.
        It would also stall work on damn modifications. It would be
    risking flooding in some of our most vulnerable areas. And, you
    know, we have seen the snow pack on a lot of our mountains.
    When that flooding comes down, it would be difficult to deal
    with it. We could lose over 1,500 tribal law enforcement
    personnel and over 500 teachers and school staff at the BIE
    schools, along with a 25 percent cut for BIE K through 12
    schools and programs. And it would just overall reduce staffing
    needed to handle permitting for renewable and conventional
    energy, along with the critical minerals that we know our
    country needs as well.

                   TRIBAL PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE PROGRAMS

        Ms. Pingree. Thank you for that. Just a little follow-up.
    One of my questions was about the tribal public safety. Since
    that was a common theme in our tribal witness hearing, request
    for more public safety and justice, it looks like the 2024
    request is $67 million. You have just mentioned how many we
    would lose if we go back to fiscal year 2022. But of that $67
    million, how will that make an impact on the needs that we
    heard of during our tribal witness hearings.
        Secretary Haaland. If the cuts are implemented?
        Ms. Pingree. No, so I got that you said we might lose
    1,500, but I am curious, does $67 million go very far, or how
    far can we go in meeting the demand that we heard about the
    other day?
        Secretary Haaland. Right. Well, of course, I think the $62
    million would help a tremendous amount for Tribes across the
    country, and I know that, yes, we do have a very long way to
    go. However, in order to meet the need in Indian Country
    documented by the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 Report, it
    could go a long way toward that. Without this budget, we would
    not add roughly 222 Federal and tribal officers, which are
    badly needed. That is the largest priority for tribes across
    the country. When they speak to us about what their needs are,
    it is officers in the field.
        The budget It would add 120 Federal and tribal positions
    and investments needed to improve operation of BIA-funded
    detention and correction facilities. That is also a priority of
    Tribes. And it would support other public safety and justice
    programs, meet court-ordered requirements to the Navajo courts,
    and Fund needed maintenance and operating requirements at
    tribal courts across the country. So it doesn't seem like a
    lot, but it is a lot for Indian Country.
        Ms. Pingree. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Well, thank you for that, and
    thank you for putting the increase in the 2024. As you
    mentioned, it certainly was one of the biggest items that we
    heard about consistently from the tribes, and I think along
    with that, the chair mentioned, you know, making sure that it
    is an adequate pay so that they are not just training new
    officers and then losing them to local municipalities or other
    places. So that seems critically important, and thank you. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Ms. Pingree. Mr. Zinke.

                      Remarks of Representative Ryan Zinke

        Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Madam Secretary,
    you won't find this in the brief book, but thank you for your
    work with me on the Blackfeet Tribe. As the gentleman from
    Oregon has said, that we have made a lot of promises but not a
    lot of promises kept. In the case of the Blackfeet, we would
    like your commitment that you will continue to work with me and
    make sure the promise that was made to the great tribe is met.
        Secretary Haaland. We will always work with you.

                               CRITICAL MINERALS

        Mr. Zinke. Thank you. Let's shift to critical minerals.
        Secretary Haaland. Okay.
        Mr. Zinke. So, Madam Secretary, is it your policy that
    critical minerals should be sourced from countries that are
    stewards of the environment, like the U.S. and our allies, or
    sourced from Russia and China that don't share our same values?
        Secretary Haaland. Congressman, what I will say is the
    President is committed to----
        Mr. Zinke. It is pretty much a ``yes'' and ``no.'' It is
    your policy, madam?
        Secretary Haaland. Our policy is to work to make sure we
    have the best.
        Mr. Zinke. I will take that as a maybe. So are you aware
    that China produces more emissions than any other country on
    the planet?
        Secretary Haaland. I have probably read that somewhere.
        Mr. Zinke. Are you also aware that China produces 90
    percent of the world's plastic from four rivers?
        Secretary Haaland. I will take that as----
        Mr. Zinke. You also are aware that China is the biggest
    offender on illegal fishing.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congressman.
        Mr. Zinke. Have you read the Department of Interior report
    on critical minerals, dated December 17th?
        Secretary Haaland. December 17th of 2021?
        Mr. Zinke. 2017.
        Secretary Haaland. 2017. I have not read that full report
    from 2017.
        Mr. Zinke. Are you aware that China controls, by proxy
    production, the supply chain of critical minerals that are
    critical to both the EV world and defense?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you for that information.
        Mr. Zinke. Are you aware by multiple studies that in order
    to satisfy the present requirements of EV, and critical
    minerals, and defense, it would take an increase of 2,000
    percent of mining for 20 years. Are you aware of that?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you for the information,
    Congressman.
        Mr. Zinke. Are you also aware that Northern Minnesota is
    home to those critical minerals that are necessary for EV and
    our Defense Department?
        Secretary Haaland. I think there are critical minerals
    across our country, yes.
        Mr. Zinke. Before you put a moratorium, did you identify
    and fast-track those sources of critical minerals that you just
    mentioned?
        Secretary Haaland. Are you talking about in Minnesota and
    the boundary----
        Mr. Zinke. You had mentioned that there are other places
    within the United States that also hold critical minerals that
    are required for the country. Did you identify those and have
    you fast-tracked the production or permitting----
        Secretary Haaland. We are----
        Mr. Zinke [continuing]. Or identification?
        Secretary Haaland. In Minnesota particularly?
        Mr. Zinke. Across our country.
        Secretary Haaland. Across our----
        Mr. Zinke. Can you pick any place that you have identified
    for an alternative to critical minerals to fast track so we are
    not vulnerable to China and Russia for our very critical
    economy, both in defense and EV?
        Secretary Haaland. We are working currently on identifying
    those critical minerals. That is with the U.S. Geological
    Survey, and, of course, we----
        Mr. Zinke. You would identify, and you would agree that not
    having the critical minerals identified and produced in this
    country would present a security problem and prevent us from
    moving ahead on multiple issues, and we are vulnerable to China
    for very critical components of our economy. Would you agree?
        Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I know that energy
    independence is a priority of President Biden.

                                 KING COVE ROAD

        Mr. Zinke. Thank you. Let's shift to one of my favorite
    topics, the Aleutian Chain. As a Seal, I have spent a lot of
    time in the Aleutian Chain. So would you agree that pregnant
    women, either indigenous, native, or not, deserve access to
    healthcare?
        Secretary Haaland. Absolutely.
        Mr. Zinke. Well, would you agree that the Village of King
    Cove deserves that same access to healthcare?
        Secretary Haaland. I think every American should have
    access to healthcare.
        Mr. Zinke. Do you agree when the Wildlife Refuge was put in
    place by, I believe, President Jimmy Carter, did the village
    agree to give up their access to healthcare, the property that
    was traditionally theirs but then made into a refuge?
        Secretary Haaland. When I visited King Cove, they shared
    that information with me, Congressman.
        Mr. Zinke. So is there a study that would suggest a small
    acreage in the middle of the Aleutian Chain that was designated
    to be a wildlife refuge, a small gravel road would be an
    environmental catastrophe such that you would deny access to
    that village for healthcare?
        Secretary Haaland. Congressman, we are working to ensure
    that the Village of King Cove has the access that they need,
    and the conversations are ongoing.
        Mr. Zinke. And how you do that without a road? I have been
    there, and I have been a Seal, and crossed the beach. I know
    when the weather is inclement that nor a rotary wing or a boat
    will meet the requirement to go around the corner, but yet a
    road would, a small road.
        Secretary Haaland. Yes.
        Mr. Zinke. So how is this possible you are working with
    them when you removed the ability for them to have that road?
        Secretary Haaland. Congressman, two of my high-level staff
    were just in King Cove having conversations with the Tribe, and
    I want to assure you that we care deeply about that Tribe and
    want to make sure that they have access to the medical care
    they need.
        Mr. Zinke. And do I have your commitment you will work with
    this committee to make sure that the wonderful Village of King
    Cove has access to healthcare?
        Secretary Haaland. I will absolutely work with this
    committee on any item that you bring forward to us.
        Mr. Zinke. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Ellzey?

                               ENERGY PERMITTING

        Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. Madam
    Secretary, I would first like to congratulate you on your post.
    I wasn't here when you were in Congress, and as a military
    brat, thank you for your service to the country as the children
    of veterans, and clearly pulled yourself up by your bootstraps
    to get where you are today. It is an inspiring story.
        So I am going to ask about some energy questions today. I
    come from Texas just south of Dallas, and energy production is
    very important to my State, and so I have got some very simple
    questions. What is the average time for approval for drilling
    on Federal lands?
        Secretary Haaland. The average time to approve a permit to
    drill after they have the lease? I couldn't tell you the exact
    time, but I know that since I have been in this office, that
    those permits have been pushed through. We are working very
    hard to make sure we can be efficient in every single
    permitting opportunity that we have.

                            REMOTE WORK AND TELEWORK

        Mr. Ellzey. Can you tell me what percentage of your
    employees are working from home at this time?
        Secretary Haaland. Well, I think the Department of the
    Interior is unique in that we have a lot of employees who work
    out in the field. For example, our scientists with the USGS,
    are working in the field. I can get that number to you. If you
    want a percentage or an actual number, I would be happy to try
    to answer that question in a more detailed sense when I get
    back to my office.
        [The information follows:]

                    PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES WORKING AT HOME

        Although the percentages vary from month to month, as of
    March 2023, 39% of DOI employees teleworked one or more days
    per pay period, 51% worked full time at their office/facility,
    and 9% were fully remote. As part of a government-wide effort,
    Interior is reviewing the workplace plans and policies put in
    place during the pandemic to assess what is working well and
    what can be improved. It is our expectation that as a part of
    these assessments DOI will continue to substantially increase
    meaningful in-person work at Federal offices, particularly at
    headquarters and equivalents. However, we recognize that
    workplace flexibilities were available for federal employees in
    years prior to the pandemic and will also continue to be
    important to remain competitive in DOI's ability to recruit and
    retain top talent. We will consider this balance as we review
    recent changes in Interior's work environment to continuously
    improve our operations and identify better ways to accomplish
    our mission and provide services to the public.

        Mr. Ellzey. Okay. I appreciate that because I don't think
    that the Department of the Interior, but I think the Federal
    Government as a whole, Washington, D.C., even the mayor of
    Washington, D.C. has said please come back to work, Federal
    employees. And I think all of our Departments are notably
    behind the civilian populace because they have a job, and they
    got a guaranteed paycheck not going to work. And I am pretty
    sure that there is probably direct correlation between the lag
    time of getting these permits done and how many employees are
    actually at work. I think that is a very direct thing that is
    occurring there.

                              CARBON SEQUESTRATION

        So let's shift gears a little bit to carbon capture and
    sequestration, and the BOEM is already 5 months behind schedule
    on draft regulations for the OCS long-term sequestration. Can
    you tell me when we are going to see something from the BOEM on
    that subject since they are already 5 months late? How much
    longer are we going to have to wait for that?
        Secretary Haaland. I will get you an exact date as soon as
    I get back to my office. I couldn't tell you at the moment, but
    I would be happy to get back with you and let you know exactly
    when.
        [The information follows:]

           TIMING OF THE DRAFT RULE FOR OFFSHORE CARBON SEQUESTRATION

        Establishing a new offshore carbon sequestration program is
    a large and complex undertaking. BOEM and BSEE have been
    working closely on these regulations to ensure operations on
    the OCS will be safe and protective of the environment. We
    anticipate issuing proposed regulations for public comment
    later this year.

                              OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS

        Mr. Ellzey. You don't need to answer this question, but I
    am also curious how many folks at BOEM are actually at work or
    working from home. I think there might be a correlation there.
    So let's go ahead and go on to the 5-year lease program. So for
    the first time since 1980 since this program was instituted,
    DOI is already a year late in issuing the new 5-year program
    for offshore oil and natural gas leasing. When can we expect to
    see that? I mean, I have heard it is the end of 2023. How is it
    that we are a year late on something that is that vital to our
    Nation's economic and energy security needs, and so what is the
    plan going forward? How many of these folks are working, how
    many of these folks aren't because a 1-year lag on this issue
    is absolutely unconscionable in a time of worldwide possibility
    for war and energy insecurity. So when are we going to see that
    thing?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congressman. So just so you
    know, the previous administration abandoned the effort on the
    5-year plan. We picked it up again. We expect the final plan
    out in September, and after the required review period, it will
    be effective in December.
        Mr. Ellzey. This September.
        Secretary Haaland. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Ellzey. Okay. So it has been said that there might be
    11 sales. There might not be any. Can you confirm that there
    are going to be some lease sales in this 5-year plan?
        Secretary Haaland. I can't essentially pre-decide what the
    5-year plan will say, but I can say that when it is out in
    September, we will all know.
        Mr. Ellzey. Okay. So is that decision up to you?
        Secretary Haaland. Well, I am not the scientists. I am not
    the data people. But BOEM works on it. It comes through many,
    many eyes, including mine, and then after that, it is approved.
        Mr. Ellzey. Okay. One final question. The IRA mandated
    Interior hold to lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico that BOEM
    had previously analyzed, Lease Sale 259 by March 31st of this
    year, and Lease Sale 261 by September 30th, 2023. In both lease
    sales, Congress specified you shall conduct the lease sales in
    accordance with the record of decision approved by the
    Secretary on January 17th, 2017. Congress ratified the lease
    sales as described in the 2017 record of decision. Do you agree
    that Congress took away the Department's discretion with
    respect to holding Lease Sale 259 and 261?
        Secretary Haaland. Do I believe that Congress took away the
    discretion?
        Mr. Ellzey. Do you have any discretion at the Department of
    Interior on how you are going to conduct those sales, or did
    Congress stipulate how that was going to be had?
        Secretary Haaland. We will absolutely follow the law. The
    Lease Sale 259 is scheduled for March 29th, 2023, and 261, the
    end of September, and those will happen.
        Mr. Ellzey. Do you have the ability to remove any acreage
    from that?
        Secretary Haaland. I mean, I think once the plan goes
    through, we decide what is up for lease.
        Mr. Ellzey. Okay. I think that answered my question of
    whether or not you think Congress took away your ability to
    stipulate how that works. But my time has expired. I appreciate
    your answers to my question, and it has been nice talking with
    you.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Harder, I apologize. I didn't
    see you come in.

                             FLOODING IN CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Harder. No worries. No worries. I know I am over at the
    edge of the table here, but thank you so much, Mr. Chairman,
    yeah. And it is good to see all of you, Secretary Haaland, Ms.
    Mooney, and Ms. Flanagan. I will never get tired of saying
    ``Secretary Haaland.'' It has such a great ring to it.
        And I wanted to chat about how we can prevent future floods
    from devastating our community. Right now, my district is under
    water. We have had record rainfall for the last 3 months with
    no end in sight. As we speak, it is raining all across San
    Joaquin County, and it has caused catastrophic flooding where
    we have had 29,000 residents who have already lost power, major
    roadways have washed away, homes are sinking. Less than a mile
    from my home in Tracy, a minor levy collapsed. The roads were
    flooded. Folks had to be evacuated in many parts of our area.
    And that is not surprising because our geography makes us one
    of the most densely-populated flood plains in America.
        Right now, my community in San Joaquin County is at greater
    risk of catastrophic flooding than New Orleans was before
    Hurricane Katrina, according to recent scientific responses.
    And I think it is unacceptable that all we have seen is a lot
    of short-term post-disaster relief as opposed to the long-term
    strategic investment that can keep our community safe. Ninety
    percent of properties in Stockton across San Joaquin County are
    likely to flood given the rainfall that we are seeing right
    now.
        So given this danger, what is your Agency's plan to prevent
    future flooding, and what can we do to make sure the residents
    are kept safe?
        Secretary Haaland. Congressman, first, I just want to let
    you know that our heart goes out to the folks who are dealing
    with this, and we have seen all the reports, and, of course, it
    is devastating. And it is climate change, right? Some places
    are still in drought, and others are flooding. Our water
    managers work with all Federal, State, and local agencies to
    manage the system as best we can, so please be assured that
    Reclamation and other folks in our Department are having those
    conversations every single day during this terrible time. We
    also know that that we can't do it alone, so it will take
    cooperation on multiple levels. Our Reclamation leadership
    stands ready to work with you and your local governments and
    communities to move that forward.
        I assume that you have been in touch with Camille Touton
    and other folks from Reclamation who can give you details on
    all of those things, and if not, we will absolutely get you in
    touch with those. And we are also closely coordinating with the
    Army Corps of Engineers on any and all of those flooding
    issues.
        Mr. Harder. Thank you. One of the frustrations I have about
    the budget request that I saw is that I don't think it invests
    enough in flood management infrastructure. Estimates that I
    have seen are that we need, just across our State, $34 billion
    over the next decades to upgrade those dams, those levees. We
    saw what happened with the Orville Dam where, you know, many,
    many years of deferred maintenance led to a collapse that
    threatened the lives of folks all across the community, and it
    takes a lot more money to rebuild the damn than to make sure
    that we are doing more to fix those dams and levees.
        Secretary Haaland. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Harder. And unfortunately, we are currently investing
    about half the amount of money in water infrastructure to keep
    communities like mine safe. What do you think we could be doing
    to make sure that those investments go up, and are you open to
    talking about other ways to make sure that the Interior budget
    that you provide is investing more in that type of
    infrastructure that I think is needed?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much for the question. So I
    can say that Reclamation has invested $240 million in fiscal
    year 2022, from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funds for 46
    projects to address the aging water infrastructure. So even
    though it looks like the budget seems flat, there are
    investments from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the
    Inflation Reduction Act to help some of these issues.
    Reclamation included an additional $649 million for further
    aging infrastructure projects in our spend plan for 2023 as
    well.
        Mr. Harder. Thank you. Just to say I think in our State, we
    need about $1.4 billion per year in investment and flood
    infrastructure, so I appreciate the help. I think a lot more is
    going to be needed. Climate change is creating a lot more
    precipitation in our area. One last thing that I wanted to get
    your thoughts on, which is the proposed Delta tunnel, which is
    a project that would actually take some of that water from our
    farmers, from our area, ship it down to Los Angeles and Beverly
    Hills. It would increase the salinity of our land. Do you have
    thoughts on that project? I know that the Interior Department
    is reviewing permitting on that and would love a close look
    from the Department on a project that, I think, would be very
    harmful to our area.
        Secretary Haaland. We will absolutely take a look at it,
    and we are happy to be in touch with you and your office to
    specifically discuss that issue, if you would like, of course.
        Mr. Harder. Thank you so much.
        Secretary Haaland. Yes.
        Mr. Harder. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Ms. McCollum.

                     BOUNDARY WATERS WILDERNESS CANOE AREA

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Chair. Madam Secretary, welcome to
    the subcommittee. I know you testified when we had member
    witness day back a while ago when you served in the House, and
    we all have a lot of overlapping hearings today. I am the
    subcommittee's ranking member where I work firsthand on
    national security interests, making sure that our Nation has
    what it needs to be safe and strong, not only for today, but
    for tomorrow. And, Mr. Chair, I know you are going to do a
    great job working on a lot of our shared values. We will see
    what your number is, and we will look forward to working with
    you on that, but I just have to give a shout-out to Chair
    Pingree and all the great work she did in fiscal year 2022 and
    2023.
        You have a broad mission. You have obligations to Indian
    Country, conserving our lands, protecting biodiversity. And I
    want to ask a question on Indian Country, but I was coming up
    from the Defense Committee when I understand another question
    was going on about the decision on the Boundary Waters
    Wilderness Canoe Area, as we affectionately call it, the BWCA.
    The previous administration protected water resources in
    Montana that were going to possibly be mined and in Washington
    State, but the BWCA was not protected.
        In fact, there was a study that started happening under the
    previous administration which was stopped under the Freedom of
    Information Act, which I and others asked for information on
    that study. We were handed redacted copies. I want to thank you
    for completing that study because it is important to understand
    what 20 percent of the Forest Service's cleanest, purest water
    in that area, what could happen if those minerals were to be
    extracted, a mine was to fail, and these copper sulfide mines
    always fail, what that would mean to our water ecosystem up
    there, and what it would mean to also our national shared
    boundary with Canada.
        Twenty percent of the purest water in the United States is
    in the BWCA. Wars are fought over water. Wars will continue to
    be fought over water. And water is a resource which we fail,
    especially some of us from water-rich States, sometimes to
    really put an economic value on it, but it also has a moral
    value, so I want to thank you for that.

                               TIWAHE INITIATIVE

        I want to ask you a little bit about Indian Country, in
    particular. In your budget, you expand Tiwahe, which is a great
    initiative out of out of Red Lake where we heard testimony, the
    chair and I, from what is going on with opioid addiction, and
    that, and then fentanyl abuse, and just you know, how Tiwahe is
    an anchor in those communities to keep them together. The work
    that we are having to do with you on Indian education, tribal
    public safety needs, we heard so much of that in Public Witness
    Day, along with big thank yous for advanced appropriations.
        So could you kind of tell me in your budget your focus on
    making sure that the United States Government funds its trust
    and treaty obligations and also ensures those young children,
    who live on the tribal communities, who are part of our whole
    Nation's future, as well as protecting elders to retire with
    lives of dignity.
        Secretary Haaland. Yes, absolutely. Thank you very much,
    Chairwoman.
        Ms. McCollum. Former.
        Secretary Haaland. Well, you are chair of your other
    committee as well, and thank you. I am happy to see you today.
    Sure. So with respect to tribal programs in 2024, public safety
    and justice, an increase of $62 million. That is for law
    enforcement, corrections, and tribal courts. Thank you for
    mentioning, and I know you are a champion of the Tiwahe
    community programs. There is an additional $34 million for
    social services, ECWA, housing, wellness courts, and economic
    development in our budget. For our community and economic
    developments, plus $46 million, and that works on tribal
    broadband and native language revitalization. You likely know
    about our boarding school initiative and native languages is a
    large part of the healing that we feel needs to happen within
    Indian Country. Coming out of the boarding school initiative.
    BIE school construction is plus $136 million that is very badly
    needed. I know from some of the conversations I have had with
    tribal schools across the country, it is badly needed, so we
    are happy about the proposed budget increase, and then BIE
    school programs is a plus $61 million. So those are all things
    that are included in our 2024 budget, which we think will get
    us closer to where we need to be to live up to our trust and
    treaty obligations for Tribes.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Mr.
    Chair, with you and the ranking member's permission, I have to
    back and be ranking member of Defense. Thank you for the
    courtesy extended me.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, former chairwoman of this committee
    and ranking member of this committee. It seems like everybody
    that has been a chairman or a ranking member here stays on this
    committee pretty much because they like it and stuff. I
    remember that Norm Dicks, when he left, he had been on this
    committee since the day he entered Congress.
        Ms. Pingree. Wow.
        Mr. Simpson. He said it was the best committee he had ever
    been on, so he had been on here an awful long time. Let me ask
    you a couple questions.
        Secretary Haaland. Mm-hmm.

                            ROADS IN INDIAN COUNTRY

        Mr. Simpson. Funding or building and maintenance of roads
    in Indian Country is inadequate. In fact, Ms. McCollum and I
    could tell you that we were out on a reservation, on the Navajo
    Reservation. We both had Fitbits on, and they drove us, how far
    was that? Maybe 5 miles, 10 miles?
        Ms. McCollum. I don't know, but thousands of steps.
        Mr. Simpson. We got----
        Ms. McCollum. I think you cheated.
        Mr. Simpson. We were sitting on the van driving us out
    there, and we got, like, 30,000 steps just sitting on the van.
    That is how rough the road was. But anyway, even when there is
    funding, tribes often have to overcome multiple permitting and
    regulatory hurdles to use their funds, which increases costs
    and lowers the value of the road funding that the Tribes do
    receive. When I met with the Tribes in my district, the
    Shoshone Bannock, they talked about the difficulty and time lag
    in the permitting, environmental reviews, right-of-way
    processes, and so forth. And I hear these same concerns from
    other Tribes, and not only with Interior and Transportation,
    but also with state and local governments.
        It seems like we ought to be able to get Interior and
    Transportation Departments to streamline these projects and
    lower the number of hoops Tribes must jump through to repair,
    build, and maintain their own roads. Will you commit to working
    with me on this specific problem in my district with the
    Shoshone Bannock Tribes and the problem they are having with
    the roads, but also, will you commit to working with this
    subcommittee and my colleagues on the Transportation, HUD
    Subcommittees and the Secretary of Transportation on a
    streamlined process on how Indian Country gets approval to
    build and maintain its roads?
        And, in fact, in the regular appropriation process, I
    think, $52 million went to, if I remember correctly, to Indian
    Country, which is totally inadequate. And I have talked to the
    chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, and he is very
    interested in trying to increase that amount that goes to
    Indian Country. But roads in Indian Country are vitally
    important.
        Secretary Haaland. Absolutely. We would love to work with
    you, Chairman, and recognize that that is an issue, absolutely.
        Mr. Simpson. Okay.
        Secretary Haaland. So thank you. Yes, we are happy to work
    with you on that.

                    FEDERAL WILDLAND FIREFIGHTER PAY REFORMS

        Mr. Simpson. You bet. I want to talk just a little bit
    about wildland firefighter pay reforms. The President's 2024
    budget proposal includes increased funding for firefighter pay
    reforms. The cornerstone of the reforms is a permanent pay
    increase through a new authorization of a base rate salary
    table. The proposal would permanently increase pay for Federal
    wildland firefighters and provide additional compensation for
    all hours, including rest and sleep time, when they are
    mobilized on incident.
        Currently, the legislative authorizing fix allowed for this
    new pay schedule has not been presented to Congress. Has the
    Department estimated the impact that these reform proposals,
    and additional staff and related pay increases, and fixed costs
    could have on future discretionary budgets?
        Secretary Haaland. So we understand the issue. We have
    worked on this issue for a long time because it is important.
    We are increasing funding by $72 million in 2024 for those pay
    reforms and just want you to know that this is a priority of
    ours. We recognize that firefighters are, they are saving our
    communities. They are doing all they can to fight these fires,
    and we as a country need to support that work.
        Mr. Simpson. I fully agree with that. I was just wondering
    if we have looked out at 2025, 2026, 2027, what that is going
    to do to future discretionary parts of this budget. You know,
    that is something that we need to look at as we put this in
    place.
        Secretary Haaland. Absolutely, yes, and we are happy to
    have that conversation with you as well.
        Mr. Simpson. Okay.
        Secretary Haaland. We are happy that we moved for an
    increase for this 2024 budget.
        Mr. Simpson. Additionally, we have heard from Tribes about
    how increasing the pay of Federal employees only further
    exacerbates the hiring and retention problems for Tribal
    firefighters. Does the Department's proposal cover Tribal
    firefighters as well, not just those in BIA, but also for the
    Tribes, and does the Department's budget provide for funding to
    Tribes to execute the pay increase? We not only have problems
    with firefighters, and Tribes training firefighters and then
    them going to higher-paid positions in other places. But as Ms.
    Pingree mentioned with law enforcement, the same thing happens.
        Secretary Haaland. Yes.
        Mr. Simpson. It is like Tribes of the training grounds for
    everybody, and if they can get a job at a higher pay, then they
    go. Somehow we have got to address that, but this will kind of
    exacerbate that problem, which doesn't mean it shouldn't occur,
    but have we thought about does this affect the Tribes? Does
    this cover Tribes also?
        Secretary Haaland. Yes. So Interior's 2024 budget pay
    proposal provides increased pay for tribal and Federal
    firefighters. So that there is pay parity for tribal wildland
    firefighters, it is a high priority for all of us----
        Mr. Simpson. Okay.
        Secretary Haaland [continued]. Because we recognize that.
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
        Secretary Haaland. We want to make sure they can stay in
    their communities and do the work that they want to and not be
    drawn away by higher pay.
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
        Secretary Haaland. They should get what they are due.
        Mr. Simpson. Lastly, what conversations has the Department
    had with the authorizing committees of jurisdiction on the pay
    reforms, and should no authorizing fix be passed by the House
    and Senate, what part of the pay reforms would the Department
    be able to execute this year?
        Secretary Haaland. If it is okay, Chairman, Joan has
    studied this issue intensively. I would love to just have a
    conversation specifically about that with you, if that is okay.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Okay. You bet. Thank you. Ms. Pingree is next.

                              LANDSAT NEXT PROGRAM

        Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the budget requests
    $12 million in satellite operations to kick off the Landsat
    Next Program. This is the longest continuous space-based record
    of the earth's surface, and thanks to this partnership between
    DOI and NASA, changes in the Earth's surface have been observed
    for 50 years. The data has applications in areas as
    agriculture, cartography, geology, and forestry. So could you
    just tell us a little bit more about how this budget builds on
    the change and what is the difference between Landsat 8 and 9?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much. So we all love
    Landsat. Landsat Next will unlock new capabilities for the next
    generation of Landsat users with new applications for research
    on water quality, crop production, plant stress, the snow pack
    dynamics, and that is planned to launch around the end of 2030.
    So it will basically extend the over 50-year continuous
    observation record of Earth's land surface with several
    upgrades, increase the frequency of observations, produce
    better imagery with finer resolution, which we think is helpful
    to the scientists, and it will collect more than 20 times the
    data as Landsat 9. So it is bigger and better.
        Ms. Pingree. Wow.
        Secretary Haaland. It is awesome.
        Ms. Pingree. Sounds great. I mean, it is certainly
    something that is critically important with our changing
    weather and all the other issues.
        Secretary Haaland. Absolutely.

                           MAINE OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY

        Ms. Pingree. I want to do a parochial issue here. I want to
    do a parochial issue on Maine's offshore wind. So Maine's
    floating offshore wind research represents a tremendous
    opportunity for Maine and the country to secure our leadership
    position on building a domestic floating offshore wind supply
    chain and working to support coexistence with our iconic
    fishing industry. Before submitting the application for a
    Federal research lease, the State went through an extensive
    site assessment and a stakeholder process, which included many
    public meetings with interested stakeholders and existing ocean
    users.
        I understand that after the State's application was
    submitted to BOEM, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a draft port
    access study that puts the project at risk. So I am just
    curious about what you are doing to ensure that the State's
    preferred site is allowed to move forward without delay so we
    can ensure that this project can move ahead, supporting many of
    our shared offshore wind, economic development, and
    environmental goals.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much for the question, and,
    of course, DOI has a strong partnership with the Coast Guard,
    and supporting offshore wind siting, and safe maritime
    navigation, which is something I think they are particularly
    concerned with. So right now, BOEM is working with the Coast
    Guard to incorporate their recommendations on the maritime
    traffic routing in the Gulf of Maine. We will make sure that we
    are talking those things out. We understand how important this
    is to Maine, and we will work concurrently to try to avoid
    those delays. So to your question, we will keep those
    conversations going and to keep moving forward.
        Ms. Pingree. Thank you for that. I hope it is not an
    extensive delay, and I guess I would just say again sort of a
    more plain language, you know, we all know offshore wind is
    challenging for a variety of reasons. It is really important to
    have consultation with the fishermen. Determining that site
    where the application process was, did take a lot of
    conversations with fishermen and others, and so the fact that
    the Coast Guard study was done after that and seems to have
    some conflicting concerns, I think it is a really important
    conversation to have moving forward. So I know you said you are
    involved in that, and I will look forward to hearing more about
    it.
        Secretary Haaland. We will make sure that those
    conversations are rectified. Thank you.
        Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Reschenthaler?

                                 GREEN NEW DEAL

        Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam
    Secretary, you were in Congress in the 116th Congress, correct?
        Secretary Haaland. Yes.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. And you were supportive of the Green New
    Deal?
        Secretary Haaland. Yes, I ran on that.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. You co-sponsored it.
        Secretary Haaland. Yes.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. You said, ``I 100 percent support a
    Green New Deal.''
        Secretary Haaland. Yes. I ran on that when I had my first
    campaign in Congress, yes.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Are you aware that the Green New Deal
    bans fracking?
        Secretary Haaland. Congressman, if I could just say----
        Mr. Reschenthaler. It is a ``yes'' or ``no.''
        Secretary Haaland. I am aware of whatever the Green New
    Deal had at the time, however it was many years ago that I
    signed onto it.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. It does, and I will enter the Green New
    Deal in the 116th for the record.
         But are you aware that it also bans clean coal?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congressman.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. So is that a ``yes?''
        Secretary Haaland. Honestly, it is 2023.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. You were a----
        Secretary Haaland [continued]. And I probably co-
    sponsored----
        Mr. Reschenthaler. You were a co-sponsor of the bill. Are
    you aware it bans clean coal?
        Secretary Haaland. Yes, I would be happy to look it up and
    refresh my memory on the bill. I sponsored a lot of bills.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. I can read you the resolution----
        Secretary Haaland. I sponsored a lot of bills when I was in
    Congress.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. You also said you 100 percent support a
    Green New Deal. Are you aware also that the Green New Deal bans
    oil and gas Leasing?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congressman.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Is that a ``yes?''
        Secretary Haaland. If you are telling me and you are
    reading it from there, yes.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. All right. So you would agree that the
    Green New Deal bans fracking, bans oil and gas leasing, and
    bans clean coal. Do you still support the Green New Deal?
        Secretary Haaland. Congressman, as the Secretary of the
    Interior----
        Mr. Reschenthaler. It is a ``yes'' or a ``no.'' Do you
    support it or not?
        Secretary Haaland. Well, I am a Secretary of the Interior
    now. I am no longer a member of Congress.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. So you do still support the Green New
    Deal. Yes or no.
        Secretary Haaland. In my current capacity, I am not----
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Would you still have co-sponsored the
    bill in the 116th had you known that it banned all this?
        Secretary Haaland. I am not sure of the question. I co-
    sponsored it when I was a Member of Congress. I am no longer a
    Member.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Knowing all these points, would you have
    still co-sponsored the bill? It is a very simple question.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you. I ran on the Green New Deal.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. ``Thank you'' is your response? It is
    ``yes'' or ``no.'' Would you have co-sponsored or not?
        Secretary Haaland. I co-sponsored it, yes.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Okay. And you don't regret that.
        Secretary Haaland. No, that is----
        Mr. Reschenthaler. And you still stand by your statement
    that you 100 percent support the Green New Deal.
        Secretary Haaland. When I was a Member of Congress, yes.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Okay. I am glad for the record we have
    established that. By the way, Mr. Chairman, I would ask
    unanimous consent that H.R. Res. 109 from the 116th be entered
    into the record.
        Mr. Simpson. Without objection.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. And I would point anybody of interest to
    page 7, specifically lines 18 and 21.

                               CRITICAL MINERALS

        Mr. Reschenthaler. All right. Madam Secretary, critical
    minerals.
        Secretary Haaland. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Electric vehicles and renewables are
    heavily dependent on critical minerals, correct?
        Secretary Haaland. Yes.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. China accounts for 63 percent of the
    world's rare earth mining, correct?
        Secretary Haaland. I don't know that particular----
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Will you stipulate that China is the
    majority of rare earth elements or they control the mining of
    rare earth elements to a great majority?
        Secretary Haaland. I don't know what the percentage of what
    China produces.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. All right. Well, I am telling you right
    now----
        Secretary Haaland. You can tell me that and I will see.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Reschenthaler [continuing]. 63 percent of rare earth
    mining and will stipulate to it. By deductive reasoning, that
    would mean that electric vehicles and renewables deepen our
    reliance on China, correct?
        Secretary Haaland. Yes. Okay.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Okay. Knowing this, your Department
    blocked critical minerals in Rapid Creek Watershed, correct?
        Secretary Haaland. Okay.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. They did, correct?
        Secretary Haaland. Okay. Okay.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. I mean, it is your Department, and you
    banned critical mineral mining. Okay. Would you also agree that
    your Department also banned it in Northeast Minnesota?
        Secretary Haaland. Are you talking about the Boundary
    Waters----
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Critical mineral mining in Northeast
    Minnesota?
        Secretary Haaland. Well, we did a mineral withdrawal in the
    Boundary Waters Conservation Area.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. So yes. So yes, you banned it there.
        Secretary Haaland. I don't know what kind of minerals were
    there. I don't think they were critical minerals.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Okay. I can tell you they were critical
    minerals in Northeast Minnesota.
        Secretary Haaland. Okay.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. I am the co-chair the Critical Mineral
    Caucus. I can tell you that. So knowing that your Department
    under your leadership banned the critical mineral mining in
    Rapid Creek Watershed in Northeast Minnesota, would you not say
    that those actions further deepened our reliance on China?
        Secretary Haaland. I----
        Mr. Reschenthaler. It is a ``yes'' or ``no.''
        Secretary Haaland. No, because critical minerals can be
    mined----
        Mr. Reschenthaler. So let me get this straight.
        Secretary Haaland [continuing]. In other areas----
        Mr. Reschenthaler. So let me get this straight.
        Secretary Haaland [continuing]. Of our country.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. You banned the mining of critical
    minerals in places like Rapid Creek Watershed in Northeast
    Minnesota, where, by the way, we have tons of environmental
    protections. You also just told me that China is accountable
    for the majority of critical minerals, and before that, you
    told me that EVs and renewables are heavily dependent on
    critical minerals. And now you are telling me that you banning
    critical mineral mining in the United States doesn't deepen our
    dependence on China? Explain that.
        Secretary Haaland. May I say something, Congressman?
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Of course.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much. Since January 2021,
    the BLM has approved 20 new mines or mine modifications or
    expansions.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. I am talking specifically about critical
    mineral mining, and you just told me that your Department
    banned critical mineral mining in Rapid Creek Watershed in
    Northeast Minnesota. You also told me that we are heavily
    dependent on China. Would your actions not make us more heavily
    dependent on China? It is a ``yes'' or ``no.''
        Secretary Haaland. Since 2021, the BLM has approved 20 new
    mines or mine modification and expansions.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. We are talking about critical mineral
    mining, not just any mines.
        Secretary Haaland. We are approving mines, and we----
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Okay. Okay. Well, any reasonable person
    would look at the actions you have taken and concede that your
    actions that made us further dependent on China, particularly
    rare earth elements. But with that, I yield back.
        Secretary Haaland. Okay.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Reschenthaler. Mr. Amodei?
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary----
        Secretary Haaland. Yes?

                        NASA LAND WITHDRAWAL APPLICATION

        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. Just a quick follow-up things. I
    want to let you know that your IG did a nice job of regarding
    work of the solicitor's office at the Interior level for
    purposes of the aforementioned assets to the [inaudible]. And
    they did a good job of scrubbing the CFRs and found a provision
    that said, A, the agency that is going to make the decision can
    assist the agency that is supplying in some circumstances,
    which, arguably, I think can apply to the NASA application. We
    are going to do, through this committee, try to do some
    legislation to say that is fine. NASA is not synonymous with
    NEPA----
        Mr. Simpson. Put on your mic because you are so interesting
    to listen to, and I want everybody to hear.
        Mr. Amodei. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have never
    said that before. I am glad I came today. [Laughter.]
        But anyhow, we are looking at that with an idea to say,
    hey, listen, that is fine to tell somebody how to do an
    application or whatever. But I think when you are talking about
    a public lands withdrawal where there are arguably claims,
    rights involved, that the agency that is deciding probably
    shouldn't be helping the agency that is applying for something
    that would require the extinguishment of claims and things like
    that. So we will try to thread the needle on that. We obviously
    want your input on that, but I don't think in a due process
    sense it is right to say, hey, we are applying to agency X, and
    agency X has a CFR provision, not a statute, a CFR provision
    which says, oh, by the way, go ahead and help them because it
    just doesn't sound like you as the ultimate decider ought to
    also be responsible for helping them with their application, in
    at least a global sense. So I want to give you a heads up on
    that.
        I have another question which is, are you aware of any
    instance where the 1874 mining law trumps NEPA, and let me tell
    you why I am asking you the question. There have been some
    folks who have said, well, NASA is afraid, and this thing
    about, oh, maybe the 1874 mining law will allow somebody to
    mine that Playa and destroy NASA's whatever. And it is, like, I
    am unaware, unless I have missed it. NEPA is NEPA. It isn't
    subject to the 1874 mining law or anything else like that,
    unless I have missed something. So I will ask you that question
    knowing that you probably don't know that off the top of your
    head.
        Secretary Haaland. Mm-hmm.

                   FUNDING FOR AVI KWA AME NATIONAL MONUMENT

        Mr. Amodei. If you do, fire away, but we are going to be
    following up on that because it would be unique to me to find
    that out. And then the last thing I want to bring to your
    attention for follow-up purposes, there was recently a
    designation by the White House of a new area in Southern
    Nevada. Can you tell me who has operational responsibility for
    operating that as designated in that executive order? Whose
    budget does that fall under in terms of doing what you have to
    do for areas like that?
        Secretary Haaland. Of AVI KWA AME you are speaking of?
        Mr. Amodei. Yes.
        Secretary Haaland. That would be the BLM.
        Mr. Amodei. Okay. So it is fair to let Ms. Stone-Manning
    know, hey, we would kind of like to know how you are going to
    pay for operating this, not as public land, but as special
    public land.
        Secretary Haaland. Absolutely, and she will be happy to
    have a conversation with you about that.
        Mr. Amodei. Great. Thank you, ma'am.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
        Mr. Amodei. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Zinke.

                          CRITICAL MINERALS AND MINING

        Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I would
    like to enter the Department of Interior Critical Minerals
    report of December 2017. There seems to be confusion by some on
    what a critical mineral is or isn't, for the record. Even Lewis
    and Clark recognized the Missouri was one the largest of
    channels in our country. I believe they said it was wider,
    cleaner, and more powerful. So for the record, clean water does
    start in Montana.
        Now, having said that, also, Madam Secretary----
        Voice. [Inaudible.]
        Mr. Zinke. Yes, sir, it is, on both sides. Thank you. Madam
    Secretary, would you agree that gravel is also mining? A gravel
    mine would be a definition of a mine?
        Secretary Haaland. If it is, well----
        Mr. Zinke. Because you mentioned that the Department of
    Interior has improved 20 mines. Would gravel be one of those?
        Secretary Haaland. I don't know what the particular 20
    mines are, but we are happy to get back in touch with your
    office, Congressman.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.027

        Mr. Zinke. Okay. One of my favorite topics is Montana.
    Would you agree in the case of our position, our colleagues,
    that in the case of wind in Maine in or animals in Montana,
    that the States should be coordinated with and worked with?
    When you place a mine, or an, or a wind farm off the coast of
    Maine, do you think the States should be coordinated with?
        Secretary Haaland. We really work hard to make sure that we
    are in contact with all local communities and stakeholders in
    any----

                          BISON RESTORATION IN MONTANA

        Mr. Zinke. Well, I am glad you said that because your
    Secretary Order 3410, Restoration of Bison on Prairie
    Grasslands, the CMR happens to be in the great State of
    Montana, and I note that you excluded the State governments in
    that body of working group. Was that an oversight, or do you
    intend to make a correction that the State should have a place
    on the table when you are talking about moving bison in the
    great State of Montana?
        Secretary Haaland. We would be happy to have a further
    conversation with you. We would be happy to have a conversation
    with the State.
        Mr. Zinke. Do I have your commitment that you will place a
    representative from the great State of Montana when it comes to
    moving bison within our State?
        Secretary Haaland. We will obviously be in touch with any
    stakeholder with respect to any of the issues that our
    Department manages.

                              2017 CLIMATE REPORT

        Mr. Zinke. And I am sure in the case of Maine's wind, they
    would also like a rep, you know, on dealing with our
    communities. It would go a long ways. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I
    would like the climate report from Department of Interior also
    entered in the record of 2017. Madam Secretary, have you read
    that climate report from 2017?
        Secretary Haaland. From 2017?
        Mr. Zinke. Now, that was the last U.S. Government report on
    climate change. It was a multi-agency, multiyear climate
    change. I believe, get me wrong, it may have been 1,762 pages,
    as I remember reading it. Have you read it?
        Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I don't believe I have read
    that whole entire 1,700-page report, but----
        Mr. Zinke. Well, let me give you some excerpts.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
        Mr. Zinke. So we hear a lot about ocean rising. How much
    has the ocean risen? I asked that same question to U.S.
    Geological Survey around about a table about this size. I said,
    can you give me how much the oceans have risen in the hundred
    years broken down in 20-year increments. I think it was a fair
    question because a lot of what we are concerned with, villages,
    climate change. So what was the answer? It depends on the
    model. In fact, there are 200 models and over a thousand
    variables. So I asked again, what does the empirical data say
    because as a geologist, I understand plate tectonics. Oceans
    and islands rise. They subside. Continents move. So what is the
    empirical data? Well, sir, it is from a few millimeters to a
    couple centimeters. We don't know. It depends on the model.
        Now, I fully recognize that in some villages, there are
    signs of tsunamies, erosion, but it seems to be that no one
    actually reads the report. No one actually read the critical
    minerals report. Those are essential to decision making. So,
    Mr. Chairman, I ask that both be entered in the record, and I
    would hope that decision makers would read those two reports
    that I didn't change a comma on either of them.
        Mr. Simpson. Without objection.
        Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

                          GREAT AMERICAN OUTDOORS ACT

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Just a couple quick things. Great
    American Outdoors Act, great program. Great bipartisan support.
    You don't see that very often. You don't see that very often
    with a couple Secretaries sitting around the table talking
    about the great work of the Great American Outdoors Act. I
    won't ask you specifically now, but I would like a follow-up,
    if you could, on what we have done with the Great American
    Outdoors Act to address the backlog and how that is going, how
    of it is being used in planning versus actually doing work on
    the ground because what we thought when we enacted that was
    actually to get work done. And sometimes we spend a lot more
    time, as some people around this table have told me, on
    planning that we do on actually doing things. So if I could get
    a follow-up on that, if you would get back to me on that.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.029

        Secretary Haaland. Absolutely.

                               CRITICAL MINERALS

        Mr. Simpson. One of the other things, critical minerals I
    knew would come up, and it has come up obviously. You said that
    we are researching where the critical minerals are in this
    country and stuff. I have read several reports from the USGS,
    and they know where they are.
        Secretary Haaland. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Simpson. Just because a critical mineral is found
    someplace doesn't mean that you can go mine it, though. The
    problem is trying to get permitting to mine some of the
    critical minerals that we really should be mining, and we can
    do it in an environmentally safe manner, and we need to balance
    that. I mean, there are other factors that come into whether
    you permit or mine or not in some of these places. So I
    understand that, but we need to get busy on providing some of
    these critical minerals in this country because it is not only
    national defense, it is not only battery technology, all of
    that kind of stuff that all of us want, so it is a difficult
    issue.

                          FY 2024 BUDGET CONSIDERATION

        And then lastly I will say I appreciate the question that
    the ranking member asked about what would happen if we went
    back to the 2022 levels, the devastation that would occur. The
    Department of Interior would probably just close the door down
    there. I understand that. Some of those things might be true.
    Some of them might not be true. If you look at going back to
    the 2022 bill, we might have different priorities now, so we
    might prioritize things that you don't see cuts in. Others
    might see bigger cuts, that kind of stuff.
        But I will tell you what is also devastating to this
    country, and that is the horrendous inflation that we have
    seen, and every economist that I have ever talked to has said
    that it is caused by excessive spending by the Federal
    Government. And as you know, we went on a spree that would
    embarrass drunken sailors of just spending. We have got
    billions, I mean billions of dollars sitting out there in COVID
    relief, and we can't find out where it is, or I guess we can
    find out where it is, but we are not taking the time to find
    out where it is, or haven't over the last few years.
        When we passed the $1.9 billion COVID relief bill, we
    didn't even look and find out if it was necessary. We didn't
    find out how much money was still unspent in the other COVID
    relief bill that were bipartisan. You know, anybody that tells
    you that the Infrastructure Bill, which many Republicans voted
    for, was paid for is crazy. The reason I voted against it is
    because they kicked the can down the road on the tough issue,
    and that is how you are going to pay for it in the future.
        So in 5 years, we are going to be back around the table,
    going, geez, how are we going to pay for transportation. That
    has been a problem for the last 10 years, but nobody has been
    willing to take it on. But because of all of the excessive
    spending that went on the last several years, inflation is out
    of control. So it is not just what it would do to the
    departments across government but what our country needs. And
    so, you know, when I have looked at some of the scenarios, I
    would be glad to go back to 2022 if that is what we ended up
    with, but I think it might be worse than that in some
    Departments.
        So it is going to be challenging, but we will get through
    this, and we will hopefully do the right thing for the country,
    both in what we fund and how much we spend. So I appreciate you
    being here today. Ms. Pingree, do you----
        Secretary Haaland. Chairman, may I respond very quickly,
    please?
        Mr. Simpson. Sure. You bet.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you. So the Department has a
    mission, and that is to conserve and protect our public lands,
    our cultural heritage for all Americans, plus, of course, to
    live up to our treaty and trust responsibilities to our
    Nation's Indian tribes. We are unique in that in times of
    hardship, and heartache, and whatever else experiences that
    Americans experience, for example, the horrible 2 years of the
    pandemic, they flocked to our public lands----
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
        Secretary Haaland [continuing]. To find solace, to fill
    their emotional gas tanks, if you will. And so I apologize, we
    don't see this as just jobs. Our people are committed to the
    work they do at the Department. We know how much people rely on
    our public lands, and so we are committed to ensuring that we
    can do that work and complete our mission with respect to that.
    So I just want you to know that it is personal for a lot of us,
    and we are just very appreciative for the support that you are
    giving the Department for all of the things that we know that
    we have to do for the American people. Our public lands belong
    to every single person in our country, and we acknowledge that
    every single day we come to work.
        Mr. Simpson. Well, I appreciate that, and I agree fully
    with what you just said, and that is the difficult thing. I
    have stayed on this committee for 20 years because I love
    virtually every agency that it deals with. I mean, we have got
    National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the
    Humanities, which people always try to defund. I think they are
    very important and they are a very small part of the overall
    budget and stuff.
        And I didn't mean to downplay the importance of what the
    Department of Interior does. I could sit with the Department of
    Energy and the researchers at our National Labs, and they feel
    the same way about the work they do, and they are right.
        Secretary Haaland. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Simpson. I know that every chairman that I have known,
    whether it was all the way back to Norm Dicks and the chairmen
    that have come along since, myself included, Ms. Pingree
    included, Ms. McCollum included, Mr. Calvert included. I have
    always asked leadership for a higher allocation in our 302(b)
    because we have so many programs that everybody likes, and we
    have fought to try to get that up there. And I think that Ms.
    Pingree and Ms. McCollum were more successful than me and
    Calvert were in trying to get that allocation up, but it is a
    tough time for budgets all across the spectrum. But as I said,
    I don't know what our 302(b) is going to be yet, so we will
    just have to wait and see where it comes down.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Ms. Pingree.

                               CRITICAL MINERALS

        Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much, Madam
    Secretary. I appreciate all of your thoughtful remarks today
    and your answers to our question, and I just wanted to make a
    couple of quick comments. The former Secretary was mentioning
    those two reports. I am happy to go back and look at them, but
    I just wanted to comment on, you know, this whole topic of
    critical mining minerals. You know, I think it is so easy to
    turn it into a political football, but the fact is whether it
    is defense issue, whether it is electric cars, which, by the
    way, they are demonstrating a Ford F-150 on the Capitol Hill
    today and I drove it this morning. If you guys haven't given it
    a try, that is a nice vehicle.
        Mr. Simpson. If you order one, how long will it be before
    you get it?
        Ms. Pingree. Well, because we got to get a few more things
    going in the supply chain. I am just saying it is a nice car,
    and we are all going to drive electric cars soon. But my point
    is, you know, it might be a good roundtable conversation for
    this committee because we got to bring it into the realm of,
    okay, you know, as Mr. Amodei said, we can get to the moon. We
    got to figure out how to do mining.
        I mean, my State has significant mining laws. They are very
    concerned about mines. We also have a lithium deposit that
    people are talking about. But how are we going to be able to do
    that if we don't really have a serious conversation about what
    is the next stage of technology work, and how does the
    permitting process work.
        It just seems like it would be a really useful conversation
    for us to have because one way or the other, we are going to
    end up having to deal with this issue, and it just can't be
    this sort of political football, do you know, how much need,
    you know, it is all in China. You know, it is everywhere, and
    it is everywhere, not just the boundary waters. It is in my
    State. It is probably in your State. It is all over the place.
    So I just want to say, it is 2023. We got to figure this out.

                                 SEA LEVEL RISE

        And I just have to say sea level rise, I don't know about
    all those models. I am happy to look at it, but I represent
    coastal communities. I live in a coastal community. Half my
    earmarks last time were thinking about--maybe I shouldn't have
    but are about dealing with my community. I got sewer problems,
    water problems, the waterfront, the working waterfront. There
    isn't a town in my State that isn't already dealing with sea
    level rise, so to us it doesn't matter what model it is. You
    get a severe storm. We had one on Christmas Eve Day this year,
    and all of a sudden, your coastal businesses are under water,
    or you can't afford to get insurance anymore because the
    insurance company doesn't want to cover you, or you can't get a
    mortgage at the bank.
        So, I mean, we are way beyond having a model that tells us
    whether or not it exists. We have to deal with this right now,
    and that is certainly a, you know, important issue that you
    deal with and everything, everybody else, but that is just
    where we are.

                               Concluding Remarks

        So I appreciate having you here. I appreciate the great
    work that you do. It is great to have this committee. It is
    really a wonderful opportunity to dig in on some of these tough
    issues that we all have to deal with and face, and I appreciate
    your indulgence on that, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Simpson. You bet. Do you have anything, Mr. Zinke?
        Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, thank
    you for your time, and believe me, I know how difficult the job
    is, but I also know all the rewards. So thank you for serving
    all these years, and I appreciate your candidness when you are
    here. You have you have a great staff, and believe me, from the
    bottom of my heart, we will work with you to make sure our
    lands are protected, our treaty rights are respected, and we
    can move forward on the critical issues that face this country.
    Thank you. Mr. Chairman, yield back.
        Mr. Simpson. Secretary Haaland, thank you for taking the
    time to join us this morning. I think it was a constructive
    discussion on a lot of different issues, and we will continue
    to have those discussions as we move forward with this. I think
    we all have the same goals in mind. We want to protect this
    beautiful environment we call America, whether it is from the
    high plains deserts and mountains and forests in Idaho, to the
    seashore in Maine, because they grow potatoes, too. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah. We look forward to working with you and
    continuing our work over the coming months. Again, thank you
    for being here. We appreciate it.
        The committee stands adjourned.
        [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                               Tuesday, March 28, 2023.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                   WITNESSES

    MICHAEL REGAN, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    FAISAL AMIN, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        Mr. Simpson. The hearing will come to order.
        Good afternoon, and welcome back for the second time today
    to discuss the President's budget proposal for fiscal year
    2024. Earlier this morning, Secretary Haaland and the Interior
    Department joined us, and now we are pleased to welcome
    Administrator Regan from the Environmental Protection Agency.
    Thank you for being here today, Mr. Regan.
        As you know, I previously served as chairman of this
    subcommittee, and I am very excited to be back in this role
    again, in part because I am a lifelong conservationist from a
    Western State and recognize the importance of protecting and
    preserving our land and water resources. But as I said the last
    time I was chairman and will say it again, the overspending has
    gone on for too long, and we need to tighten our belts. When I
    chaired this subcommittee a decade ago, we wrote and passed a
    bill in the House that reduced EPA funding by 18 percent. I
    thought it was only 17, but it was 18 percent. We again need to
    have a serious and reasoned discussion about our Federal
    spending.
        The President's fiscal year 2024 budget proposal for EPA
    totals $12 billion, a 19.2 percent increase above the current
    level. If enacted, this would be the highest level of funding
    for EPA in history, and the record high budget request comes
    alongside the unprecedented influx of more than $100 billion
    EPA received from several large spending packages this year.
    Already, the Agency has hired an additional 742 staff using
    money just from the Infrastructure Bill. One of my concerns is
    what all of this hiring is going to do to the Agency down the
    road because the money from the packages last year is
    temporary, not permanent. Is the agency going to be pinning
    Congress with a hiring cliff down the road?
        Additionally, while the increase in the EPA budget request
    is staggering, it is concerning that the budget proposal flat
    funds many bipartisan and popular programs and grants that go
    directly to States, tribes, and local governments. In fact the
    proposal, eliminates or reduces funding in some of the most
    popular places, like rural water technical assistance funding,
    while substantially increasing select program enforcement and
    environmental justice by $312 million, clean air by $459
    million. That will be dead on arrival in this House. Finally, I
    am concerned about the EPA barrage of burdensome regulations
    that are harming everyone, from farmers, energy developers,
    critical mineral development, and American families who will
    bear the brunt of the cost.
        Just a few weeks ago, the House passed, with bipartisan
    support, a Congressional Review Act Disapproval Resolution on
    the administration's Waters of the U.S. Rule, rule which went
    into effect 8 days ago on March 20th for all States, except
    Texas and Idaho, due to a court decision. From where I sit, it
    seems like the rulemaking staff at the EPA is continuing to
    sprint to get as many regulations as possible on the books
    which will have serious consequences on our economy, jobs,
    energy security, and reliability. Rolling back the WOTUS rule
    received bipartisan support in Congress, and I hope that is a
    clear message to the administration that Americans are
    concerned about overregulation.
        I know many of my colleagues have questions for you today,
    and I am ready to have the necessary and tough deliberations
    about how best to spend our limited Federal resources in order
    to ensure our natural resources, our waters and lands in Idaho
    and across the country, are protected and preserved while still
    promoting economic development and job creation. Thank you,
    Administrator Regan, for being here today, as I said, to have
    this discussion with us. Now, I would like to yield to Ranking
    Member Pingree for her opening statement.
        Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome back to the
    subcommittee, Mr. Regan, and, Mr. Amin, thank you for being
    here. The EPA's budget request totals $12.1 billion, an
    increase of $1.9 billion over the enacted level, to support its
    mission to protect human health and the environment. The
    request proposes substantial increases to address the climate
    crisis through robust funding for the EPA science and
    technology and environmental programs. It makes important
    investments in environmental justice programs so that we can
    continue to address historic underinvestment in underserved and
    overburdened communities.
        The budget request also makes key investments in EPA's
    workforce. Not only has the EPA mission expanded tremendously
    over the last decade, but the growing challenges around climate
    change requires more expertise and more staff. To recognize
    these growing demands, since fiscal year 2021, this committee
    has worked in a bipartisan manner to increase the EPA's budget
    by nearly $900 million. These investments have paid off, and we
    increased funding in all areas, areas that both Democrats and
    Republicans care deeply about. Historic funding levels for
    environmental justice, for example, reaches all States and many
    rural areas in both conservative and progressive districts.
    Historic funding levels for clean air and clean water programs
    make sure we all breathe clean air and have access to clean
    water, no matter where you live and who you vote for.
        We cannot and should not reverse progress we have made to
    protect human health and the environment. The EPA should be
    fully resourced and staffed. Recent rhetoric about cutting
    Federal spending to its fiscal year 2022 levels would have a
    damaging impact on the EPA. It would amount essentially to an
    $800 million dollar cut when you include fixed costs. This is
    unacceptable. Mr. Regan, I look forward to hearing more about
    what this cut would mean to the EPA. I am also interested in
    hearing more about the new Federal standard, which would
    regulate PFAS in drinking water, which will bolster public
    health across the Nation. This is a significant step to deal
    with these harmful forever chemicals, and I look forward to
    hearing more about the progress you have made on this and PFAS
    in air and soil.
        Thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us today.
    We appreciate your testimony and your answers, and I yield
    back.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Ranking Member Pingree. We are
    fortunate to have the ranking member of the full committee with
    us, and I would like to yield to Ms. DeLauro for any opening
    remarks.
        Ms. DeLauro. I think in all the time I have spent in the
    House of Representatives, this is a very first time I have been
    in this room. I swear to God, I said where is 2008, you know?
    Whoa. This is great. It is wonderful. Okay. Thank you.
        Ms. Pingree. A distant era.
        Voice. We are in close quarters here, so.
        Ms. DeLauro. Yes, but, you know, it is homey. This is
    great. Thank you. A real thank you to you, Chairman Simpson and
    to Ranking Member Pingree, for holding what is an important
    hearing. And Administrator Regan, it is really wonderful to see
    you as well as you, Mr. Amin, you know, and your work at the
    Agency.
        You know, the EPA plays a very critical role in all of our
    lives. We witnessed this recently on a national scale as
    critical cleanup work surrounding the disaster in East
    Palestine and the spill in the Delaware River continues right
    now. The EPA is central to cleaning up the contaminated water
    and lands that people rely on. Right now, parents and cities
    around these areas, even many miles away, do not know if they
    can turn on their tap out of fear of the water their kids are
    going to drink. They are scared to breathe the air outside
    their homes, but the EPA has a key role in understanding the
    size and the scale of these disasters, oversees the cleanup,
    making sure those responsible do not cut corners.
        For this reason, I am proud that in the 2023 bill we passed
    in December, we strengthened the EPA's ability to serve
    American families. We included critical funding to restore and
    preserve our lands and bodies of water, including critical
    funding for the Long Island Sound. We dramatically expanded
    environmental justice efforts to address unacceptable pollution
    in underserved communities. We provided funds to clean up
    contaminated sites, hold polluters accountable, and we
    strengthened water management projects, including investments
    in lead pipe replacement and water and sewer infrastructure.
    The President's 2024 budget builds on these critical
    investments by strengthening environmental enforcement efforts
    and recommitting to clean water, land, and air programs, so
    that these are safe, healthy today and for future generations.
        I am also glad to see a significant increase for
    environmental justice work. People of color and historically
    underserved communities are hardest hit one when disasters of
    all kinds strike. We saw this as recently as this weekend as
    tornadoes swept through vulnerable communities across
    Mississippi and Alabama. We have so much work to do. However,
    there are some of my Republican colleagues who are calling out
    to cut the 2024 budget to the 2022 level and even more. These
    are extreme, in my view, and we also have some former
    Republican officials who would fully eliminate critical
    programs that threaten so much of the progress we have made to
    ensure the health and safety of our communities.
        As you have mentioned in your letter to me, Mr. Secretary,
    on the impacts of these cuts, they could set our success back
    years, threatening the sustainability of water systems that
    thousands of people rely on, undermining critical improvements
    to clean water and wastewater infrastructure. Regulators who
    ensure water is safe to drink and who keep things like lead and
    asbestos out of our water would be eliminated, especially
    impacting tribal lands. Progress being made towards addressing
    forever chemicals, such as PFAS, would be reduced. Programs
    that address wildfires would be delayed, putting lives at risk
    and letting our firefighters down. These cuts would jeopardize
    work to ensure compliance with environmental laws, an area that
    has brought in billions of dollars, catching those companies
    who are cheating emissions testing.
        The health of our environment and our communities cannot
    fall victim to denial and to political stunts any longer. Mr.
    Administrator, I know you agree. I look forward to our
    discussion, and with that, many thanks to you, Mr. Chairman,
    and to you, Ranking Member Pingree. I yield back.
        Mr. Simpson. With that, Administrator Regan, you may
    proceed with your opening statement. Your officially-submitted
    testimony will be included in the record.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you, Chairman Simpson, and Ranking Member
    Pingree, and Ranking Member DeLauro, and members of this
    committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
    today to discuss the necessary vision laid out in the United
    States Environmental Protection Agency's proposed fiscal year
    2024 budget request. In this budget request we lay out an
    ambitious plan for EPA, with the goal of building a healthier,
    more prosperous Nation, while ensuring global competitiveness
    and energy independence and security. President Biden's
    proposed fiscal year 2024 budget request for EPA provides $12.1
    billion to advance key priorities, including protecting air
    quality, upgrading our Nation's water infrastructure, tackling
    the climate crisis, and rebuilding core functions at the
    Agency.
        Over the last year we have made significant progress
    towards many of these goals together. I am proud of the
    foundation we have laid and the partnerships that we have
    underpinned our success, but there is still much more work to
    do to ensure that all of our children have safe, healthy places
    to live, learn, and play, to build a stronger, more sustainable
    economy, and to advance American innovation and ingenuity.
    Simply put, investing in EPA is investing in America.
        Across the country, poor air quality still affects millions
    of people, perpetuating harmful health and economic impacts. In
    fiscal year 2024, the Agency will protect our air quality by
    cutting emissions of ozone-forming pollutants, particulate
    matter, and air toxins. The President's budget includes $1.4
    billion to improve air quality and set standards that reduce
    pollution from mobile and stationary sources. EPA's work to set
    these standards provide certainty to industry, build on
    advances in technology, and reinforces market movement towards
    a cleaner energy system that provides safe, reliable, and
    affordable energy.
        A thriving economy also requires clean and safe water for
    everyone. Although progress has been made, many still lack
    access to healthy water, face inadequate wastewater
    infrastructure, and suffer from the effects of lead pipes.
    America's water systems are also facing new challenges,
    including cybersecurity threats, climate change, and emerging
    contaminants, such as PFAS. The budget proposes more than $4
    billion to upgrade drinking water and wastewater infrastructure
    nationwide, with a focus on underserved communities.
        Over the last year, I have had the privilege of traveling
    across the country from Jackson, Mississippi to East Palestine,
    Ohio. I visited communities in many of your States and have
    seen firsthand the environmental and public health challenges
    many of your constituents continue to experience. I have spoken
    to families who have been sickened by the air they breathe. I
    have met with people who live with toxic waste in their
    backyards. I have seen conditions in this country that are
    simply unacceptable in the United States of America.
        From investing in our Nation's climate resilience to
    cleaning up contaminated land and water, there is no shortage
    of important work to be done, and, members of the committee,
    EPA is up for the task. We are eager to work with all of you to
    deliver for our fellow Americans and to secure our Nation's
    global competitiveness, but we need your support. Both the
    urgency and economic opportunity presented by climate change
    require that we leave no stone unturned, and we know the
    development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental
    laws, regulations, and policies have not always ensured that
    fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people,
    regardless of race, color, national origin, or income.
        In fiscal year 2024, EPA requests additional funding and
    staff for the Environmental Justice Program. The funding will
    help to expand support for community-based organizations,
    indigenous organizations, tribes, States, local governments,
    and territorial governments so that they can develop and
    implement solutions to their environmental justice concerns
    through our multi-partner collaborations.
        The fiscal year 2024 President's budget positions the EPA
    to create durable environmental policy, investing in America,
    and setting our Nation on a path to win the 21st century. It
    will allow for us to meet the pressing needs faced by millions
    of Americans and fundamentally improve people's lives for the
    better. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to
    submit this testimony for the record, and I look forward to our
    continued partnership to achieve these ambitious yet necessary
    goals, and I welcome all questions. Thank you so much.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               WATERS OF THE U.S.

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Again, thank you for being here
    today. I want to start off with something that I am sure that
    you have never heard of before--Waters of the United States--
    and I am going to ask this, and it is going to sound a little
    partisan. I don't mean it to be, but it is just how I kind of
    view things. This administration has been actively trying to
    repeal anything that has Trump anywhere near it, whether it was
    the Trump EPA or the Trump rule at the borders, or the Trump
    this or the Trump that. I mean, look at what happened within an
    hour after the President was sworn in. What was it, 36
    executive orders repealing Trump stuff? It has worked real well
    at the border.
        I want to know what you found was lacking in the Trump rule
    on Waters of the United States that you had to correct, and I
    hope it wasn't getting Trump's name off of the Trump rule that
    was written during his period. Secondly, why in the world would
    you issue the WOTUS rule when a major case is before the
    Supreme Court? It is almost like you are trying to sway the
    Supreme Court or saying to hell with you, this is what we are
    going to do. Why wouldn't you sit back and say, okay, we have
    written it. We think this is what we got to do. Let's see what
    the Court says because we may have to change it some or we
    might not.
        But right now, my fear is this. Two years from now we have
    a different administration. Now we got a different WOTUS rule,
    and it just goes on and on. This doesn't seem to be, like, that
    big of a problem to try and solve. I mean, we are trying to
    redefine what Waters of the United States are because the Court
    said I don't know what ``navigable water'' means. We ought to
    be able to solve this damn problem. I have been working on it
    or at least dealing with it for 24 years since I have been in
    Congress, so I will let you respond to that venting.
        Mr. Regan. No, I appreciate the question, and I come to
    this from the perspective of a former State regulator that had
    the challenge of trying to implement the Obama WOTUS rule and
    then trying to implement the Trump WOTUS rule. Let me start by
    saying that this is very different from both. The Trump rule
    was vacated nationally by multiple courts, so there was no
    basis for us to move from. It was vacated nationally by
    multiple courts. This rule that we are proposing is much more
    balanced and narrow than the Obama rule.
        So I have engaged more of our ag constituency than any
    administrator in modern history, and what I learned from that
    was what could we do to improve upon the lack of an existing
    rule. So we went back to 2015 and then we codified what we
    consider to be streamlined interpretations of two Supreme Court
    rulings. And then based on the engagement that we had, we
    created or clarified exclusions that support farmers, like
    prior converted crop land, and for ranchers, like artificial
    ponds used as drinking water for their herds. We also
    simplified and narrowed the test that the Supreme Court set to
    make it easier to determine which waters are covered and which
    aren't. And then when we embedded exemptions for normal
    agricultural activity, regardless of whether they are covered
    by waters or not.
        So these are just a few of the reasons why the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture supported this rule. I think
    Secretary Vilsack said from day one you have got to follow the
    rule, but we need for you to engage, and we need to improve
    upon this rule. So we didn't wait because there was nothing for
    us to wait on because the previous rule had been vacated by
    multiple courts at a national level.
        There are also some aspects of this rule that Sackett case
    won't touch. And so what we decided to do was move forward, try
    to codify a number of exemptions that were requested of us by
    the agricultural community, and I obviously respect the Supreme
    Court's position. I will respect the Supreme Court's ruling.
    What we have now is we can adjust, if the Supreme Court rules
    this summer, we will adjust this rule, and we will move forward
    in a much more expeditious way than waiting until June and then
    starting a 2- to 3-year rulemaking process.
        So I think we are ahead of the curve in terms of having the
    framework for moving forward. The Sackett case may or may not
    have some impact on that. Whatever that ruling is, we will
    build it in and continue to move in addition to those
    exemptions that we built in.
        Mr. Simpson. You need to come to Idaho and speak to some
    farmers because I will tell you, and these are not extremist
    farmers, MAGA farmers.
        Mr. Regan. Sure.
        Mr. Simpson. They are everyday people who are concerned
    that it is going to substantially affect their ability to
    produce on their farms and stuff. And there are States who
    believe that EPA is trying to take over the State's traditional
    role in Waters of the United States, and that, essentially, the
    EPA wants to control all the waters. I mean, that is what I
    hear from a lot of things, but later on, I will tell you a good
    thing about the EPA, too. My time is up. Ms. Pingree.
        Ms. Pingree. I will defer to Ranking Member DeLauro.
        Mr. Simpson. Okay.

                                  BUDGET CUTS

        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Administrator.
    First of all, I want to just say thanks for really responding
    to the letter that I sent asking for your assessment of, going
    back to the 2022 budget, what effect would that have on the
    2024 budget, because some of my Republican colleagues are
    calling for that. And what I am particularly concerned about is
    what the cuts mean for American families. So we are talking
    roughly, and it could be more, is a 22 percent cut. EPA's
    funding would go down to about $7.9 billion, the lowest level
    since 2013. What impact does the Agency foresee on its work
    were we to revoke funding to the fiscal 2022 levels? Can you
    elaborate on some of the examples you provided in your letter?
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely. I think that I will continue with
    the theme of our agriculture community. We find ourselves over
    the past 50 years struggling with the Endangered Species Act.
    Now, we find ourselves entangled with the courts and the courts
    putting us on deadlines. I don't believe that any farmer should
    have to wake up to a Court ruling and the Court decides what
    tools a farmer can use to grow food, fuel, and fiber in this
    country. If we are going to get new pesticides and new
    herbicides registered, we have to have the workforce to do
    that, and so while we are taking pesticides and herbicides off
    the market, we need to be replacing them. So it will set back
    our agriculture community.
        I think the task of TSCA and looking at how we handle
    toxics in this country, if we are set back in this budget, we
    will not be able to accomplish what the bipartisan legislation
    set up for us to do in 2016. You are talking about $100-plus
    million cut in our PFAS work, which, you know, as a former
    State secretary of North Carolina, I visited 90 of our 100
    counties, red, blue, and independent counties. PFAS is
    indiscriminate, especially with our small rural communities,
    and so----
        Ms. DeLauro. And forever.
        Mr. Regan. And forever, and so we are seeing the harmful
    impacts of that. So those are just three examples of, you know,
    the bread-and-butter aspects of EPA is to protect public health
    and the environment. That would significantly hamper our
    ability to do so.
        Ms. DeLauro. Just quickly, have my colleagues on the other
    side of the aisle made any similar requests for information
    about the impact of the cuts they intend to make? Yes or no.
        Mr. Regan. You know, I am not quite certain, but I have had
    a lot of conversations on both sides of the aisle about why
    this budget is important.

                               LONG ISLAND SOUND

        Ms. DeLauro. Okay. Great. I have a quick question, which is
    parochial. The Long Island Sound, ecological treasure, health
    of my State depends on it, home to thousands of species of
    wildlife, is an engine for our State's economy. Over the years,
    I have been successful in advocating, and this is on a
    bipartisan basis, we have been successful in advocating for
    securing investments in the Long Island Sound. But I am
    concerned about the deep cuts to the program that rolls back
    the significant progress we have made in the health and the
    well-being of the Long Island Sound.
        You stated in your letter that cuts as high as $95 million
    could come from the geographic programs. And I might add the
    Long Island Sound is just one of the geographic programs. We
    are looking at Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, Gulf of
    Mexico, San Francisco Bay, Chesapeake Bay, Lake Pontchartrain,
    South Florida just to name a few, so that this is just not one
    area of the country. And so what kind of an environmental
    economic impact will the cut have on communities located near
    these water bodies of national significance?
        Mr. Regan. Well, we are talking about a significant
    decrease in our ability to protect water quality for one of the
    most densely populated areas of the country, 9 million people
    living near the watershed. We appreciate your leadership and
    the $8.6 million. This is a great example of how we can improve
    our economy while improving public health and our ecosystems
    Tourism, watershed protection, water quality protection, this
    is critical, and so if we don't get these resources, obviously
    it significantly hampers our ability to continue to pour in
    those tourism dollars because we have a threat to the water
    quality, not just for drinking, but for recreation as well.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, and I will answer one of your
    questions. Yes, I hadn't sent him a letter, but I have talked
    to the heads of all the different agencies about the impacts
    and stuff, so.
        Ms. DeLauro. I appreciate that very, very much. Just to say
    this one thing, Mr. Chairman, if you allow me. I think
    sometimes phrases sound very good. ``Let's cut back to 2024 for
    204,'' and people say, okay, yeah, but I think it is incumbent
    on us, both sides of the aisle, for us to take a look at what
    that means and how that gets translated into very, very
    critical issues in every one of the appropriations.
        Mr. Simpson. I would agree with that.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. And I have no problem with that. The other
    thing we are trying to look at is trying to slow down
    inflation, and inflation has been caused by all the excessive
    spending that is going on, but that is neither here nor there.
        Ms. DeLauro. Well, no, we will have that discussion at
    another time, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah, we will have that discussion at another
    time. Ms. Pingree.

                             ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

        Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much. I am going to just
    continue a little bit on this same tack here. Can you guys give
    me a sense about the environmental justice and where we would
    see rollbacks there? It has been so impressive to see the work
    that your organization has done and with the funding we have
    had available, but if we had these cuts and went back to 2022,
    how would that setback environmental justice?
        Mr. Regan. Well, it would set it back significantly, and I
    say that because, you know, whether it is Lowndes County,
    Alabama, or McDowell County, West Virginia in Appalachia, I
    have been visiting communities all across this country, tribal
    communities as well. There are a lot of communities in this
    country in 2023 that just don't have access to clean drinking
    water. In McDowell County, West Virginia, visiting a community
    with lack of access to water infrastructure, mothers using
    contaminated creek water for baby formula. You know, there are
    some serious issues.
        And so when we see these disparities because of income, or
    because of the rural nature of these communities, or because of
    race, we are not equally protecting all people in this country.
    We are not equally involving all people in this country. So the
    environmental justice resources really do serve as a rising
    tide for everyone so that this country can be as great as it
    should be.

                                STAFFING LEVELS

        Ms. Pingree. Thank you for that. Just to follow up a little
    bit on the staffing, I know you mentioned that before, and
    thank you for mentioning some of the things like pesticide
    review. We hear about that. You know, no matter where you stand
    on those things, people want assurance. They want a decision
    made quickly. But we are still operating the EPA at Reagan
    level, or we are at Reagan staffing levels, and I know you have
    been working hard to get those numbers back up. You are
    requesting to us to get up to 17,000 full-time equivalents. Can
    you talk to us a little bit, as these climate change and other
    challenges increase, why is it so important to get to those
    staffing levels, and sort of where are we in making that
    happen?
        Mr. Regan. We are making tremendous progress with the
    resources that we have been given over the past year or so.
    Listen, we are facing 21st century challenges with resources of
    the past. It is just plain and simple, and so we are trying to
    make up that ground that the market is requiring. Farmers want
    new registrants and new pesticides on the market. We have to
    respond. You know, we proposed a regulation and a supplemental
    regulation for methane because the industry asked for us to do
    that, because the trade associations ask for us to do that.
        We have to have the technical staff and the ability to look
    at how to design a regulation that is innovative, high tech,
    uses artificial intelligence, robots, and the like, not only
    because we are trying to save the product itself from being
    wasted, but we are trying to reduce those methane emissions. If
    we don't have the staff to have the conversations with industry
    to keep pace with the market and technology, then we are not
    doing our job.
        And by the way, whether it is the power sector or the
    agriculture sector, they are asking for us to engage and to
    keep pace with an evolving economy of the 21st century. We need
    the staff to do that, and we can't do that with Reagan era
    numbers.

                          NAITONAL RECYCLING STRATEGY

        Ms. Pingree. Thank you for that. I still have a little more
    time, so I am going to bring up a completely unrelated topic,
    but something that I have gotten very interested in. In 2018,
    the EPA estimated that over 100 billion garments are produced
    annually, most of which end up incinerators or landfills. This
    generates about 17 million tons of textile municipal solid
    waste, an issue that we know concerns municipalities and the
    increasing cost of waste. Unfortunately, the National Recycling
    Strategy does not address this critical source of pollution and
    waste. Is it a focus area at all for the EPA, and if so, what
    programs or activities are you undertaking that either reduce
    textile waste or encourage textile recycling?
        Mr. Regan. Well, it is a great question, and as I travel
    the world, second to climate change, this is the issue that
    most young people are focused on, and we are. We are very
    focused on it in a voluntary way. We are designing our
    recycling programs that really do begin to address these issues
    and some of the market constraints that we are seeing.
        We have got a transformative vision for our waste
    management system, and we have released a series of strategies
    or strategic goals that really do underpin the circular
    economy. We are excited about it because there are things that
    we can do on a regulatory and voluntary basis to reduce waste,
    which we all know reduces some of that strain and capacity on
    some of our local governments, but it also gives us the ability
    to reduce methane and other harmful pollutants that come from
    these landfills.
        Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, I will look forward to looking at
    your strategy, and I know as you said, it is an issue that
    young people talk to us about a lot, usually calling it fast
    fashion or slow fashion.
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Ms. Pingree. But the idea that so much of the waste that we
    produce ends up either in the ocean as plastic pollutions are
    all over the world, and no one wants our waste anymore. These
    are important issues to address, so thank you. I will yield
    back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Kilmer.

                                  PUGET SOUND

        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
    Administrator, for being back with us. Before we kicked off the
    hearing, I mentioned to you the importance of Puget Sound to my
    region economically, to our federally-recognized tribes, to
    treaty reserve fishing rights. It is a really important body of
    water. Unfortunately, it is sick body of water, and the EPA has
    played a really important role in trying to recover the Sound.
    I want to thank Deputy Administrator McCabe for coming out to
    our neck of the woods. I want to issue again a standing
    invitation to you. It is really nice in the summer in our area,
    but I just want to underscore the urgency of this and having
    the EPA with skin in the game. We can't get it done without
    you.
        At the end of last year, the Puget SOS Act was signed into
    law to set up a Puget Sound recovery national program office in
    EPA and to codify the Federal Leadership Task Force that will
    ensure that the entire alphabet soup of Federal agencies is
    working hand-in-glove with the folks on the ground in our
    region to move forward and advance progress toward Puget Sound
    recovery. I am just hoping to get a sense from you on how the
    rollout of that office and task forces is progressing. And I
    want to also just say thank you for including Puget Sound and
    the Geographic Program in the testimony that you submitted.
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and Deputy
    Administrator McCabe enjoyed the visit and made me regret not
    taking that visit, but we were a little tied up. The Puget
    Sound obviously is a national treasure, and we take it very
    seriously in terms of the protection of it. We also take very
    serious the President's charge to look at a whole-of-government
    approach, leverage all of our resources so that we are not
    wasting resources, but we are maximizing that opportunity.
        You know, of the fiscal year 2023 increase of $20 million,
    $17 million of that is immediately going towards strategic
    initiative lead cooperative agreements that we have for safe
    shellfish habitat and storm water projects with our Washington
    State partners. For our tribal partners, Northwest Indian
    Fisheries Commission is working already to finalize work plans
    for each of the tribes in the next couple of months for the on-
    the-ground tribal-led projects. And so we plan to announce a
    second round of that funding this month.
        So we are seeing significant progress, we are seeing
    significant leveraged resources, and we are seeing significant
    leveraged partnerships. Again, as a former State regulator, I
    understand that the Federal Government has a role to play, but
    States and local governments have an even more important role
    to play, know their communities better than we ever could, so
    those partnerships are really important.
        Mr. Kilmer. But would love to follow up with you and your
    team on the implementation side of the PUGET SOS Act, and just
    as that is rolling out, making sure that we are hitting the
    ground running.
        Mr. Regan. Okay.
        Mr. Kilmer. I want to raise one other issue, and if you do
    come out, and, Chairman, I know you said you might want to come
    out to our neck of the woods, too, there is a lab doing
    research, looking at what is killing fish. And one of the
    things that they found was a chemical called 6PPD-quinone,
    which is used in tires. It is an anti-ozonant that interacts
    with ozone, runs into our streams, and kills fish, and they
    actually showed a video of it. It is crazy, just this polluted
    stormwater. Within seconds, the salmon just died. And there is
    more research required on this to understand the impact of this
    chemical and Federal funding needed.
        You mentioned stormwater to try to make sure this chemical
    isn't ending up in our rivers. Can you give me any sense of
    what EPA is doing to combat the impacts of this 6PPD-quinone,
    and what resources you might need to potentially review
    alternatives to this chemical that hopefully won't kill fish?
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely. I think last year, Deputy
    Administrator McCabe helped kick off a cross-EPA work group
    consisting of just about every leader from every media office
    at EPA, including Region 10. And so we are working very closely
    with Washington Ecology on this issue. So through some EPA
    funding already, we have established a critical link between
    that chemical additive in tire dust and salmon deaths in the
    Puget Sound region, so we are continuing to fund research
    activities on impact to salmon but also to other fish species.
        We need the resources to continue to invest in this
    research because there is a critical link, and, again, that
    critical link just doesn't identify an ecological piece of
    degradation. There is also an economic, there is a cultural
    piece to that for those who require salmon for sustenance and
    the like. So cultural, economic, ecological, we need to do the
    research, and we need to have a replacement chemical.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Harder.

                                  AIR QUALITY

        Mr. Harder. All right. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman,
    ranking members, and thank you to Administrator Regan and Mr.
    Amin for being here. I want to talk about how we can mitigate
    poor air quality. My region last year received an F grade for
    air pollution standards. Frankly, if grades were any worse than
    F, we would have gone all the way to Z. We have the worst air
    quality in America. I grew up with childhood asthma, my brother
    grew up with childhood asthma, and I refuse to let my daughter
    deal with the same air quality or even worse than what I did.
        We have been trying to take action. In 2018, the San
    Joaquin County Air District submitted a plan. It took the EPA 4
    years to review that plan. During that 4 years, while EPA was
    reviewing what we do to improve our air quality, more than
    4,000 adults had their lives cut short by poor air quality just
    in our region. I would have hoped that it happened sooner, but
    in the end, the EPA staff recommended approval of our plan, but
    then politics intervened, and that plan ended up getting
    rejected just last year, October 22nd.
        Now we are in process trying to figure out what happens
    next, and, you know, this process better than I. The first
    sanctions are going to take it effect in June. My understanding
    is the transportation funding sanctions will take effect in
    December of this year. That could lead to billions of dollars
    of transportation funding lost in our district, which already
    doesn't get our fair share of Federal resources. Obviously, we
    want to do everything we can to fix this before we become where
    we are on track to be, which is the first time in U.S. history
    that a community would be subject to penalties this severe. We
    want to be part of the solution.
        What recommendations do you have for our air quality
    district and others, and what is the ideal timeline for a plan
    of action?
        Mr. Regan. Well, I appreciate that question, and I do know
    that the San Joaquin Valley faces some of the most difficult
    air quality challenges in the country. So I want you to know
    that we are taking this very serious, and we also take
    sanctions very serious, which is why we have been engaging with
    the district. It is my understanding that we have been having
    some really good conversations, and we actually expect the
    district to submit a new contingency measure plan in the next
    couple of months. Once we get that plan, we anticipate that
    because we worked on it together, that will be approved and
    then that will stop the sanctions clock while we continue to
    tackle this issue of getting SIP approval.
        I think in addition to some local measures that are being
    contemplated by both EPA and the district, we also have a
    series of technologies standards that are coming out nationwide
    that we think will also benefit the region, primarily focusing
    on transportation, but we also have some others that are coming
    out as well. So I anticipate that a combination of both Federal
    action, State and local action will help to get us closer to
    remedying the San Joaquin Valley problem.
        Mr. Harder. I hope you are right. My concern about that
    timeline is that it cuts it really short, and what I just heard
    from you is, you know, we are now almost in April. The first
    sanctions are taking place in June. If it takes us months to
    come up with the plan, we are going to be at risk of losing a
    lot of resources that our community desperately needs. So we
    are happy to help. I know you are in direct conversations as
    well, but my office stands ready to assist because we want to
    get this to a resolution.
        But I also think we should have been able to anticipate
    this and get it fixed, frankly, years before. It shouldn't take
    4 years to get to this the process. I know you weren't the
    administrator that whole time, but this is a process that has
    been very slow and very opaque from an air district that, I
    think, wants to help, and certainly from an office like ours
    that desperately wants to do more to address air quality. What
    does the EPA need to make these sorts of processes faster so it
    doesn't take 4 years and even better to help give enough
    guidance to air districts about what they need to get right the
    first time so they don't end up at risk of sanctions and,
    frankly, catastrophe when you look at what those resources
    would do to an area like ours?
        Mr. Regan. I think that when you look at a diverse
    constituency like your district, I think that is where these
    environmental justice dollars will come in handy because the
    majority of these environmental justice dollars are going to
    State and local governments. Because of the lack of meaningful
    engagement of many of the constituents in your district, that
    is where the threat comes from for litigation if we are going
    to approve a SIP that doesn't equally protect everyone on the
    ground. And so there is an education and outreach component to
    how the State builds these State implementation plans that are
    then submitted to EPA.
        I think we have to follow the science, but I also think we
    have to follow the law, and we have to approve plans that we
    know are not vulnerable to litigation. I think that is what we
    are doing right now.
        Mr. Harder. Okay. Well, if you need more people, if you
    need more regulatory authority, let us know. We want to make
    sure that we are anticipating these sorts of problems as early
    as possible and be part of the solution. Thank you. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Harder. Mr. Zinke.
        Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple comments. You
    said you travel the world. That got my interest. How many trips
    have you done overseas?
        Mr. Regan. I believe we have been to six countries maybe.
    Six or seven countries.
        Mr. Zinke. Have you taken commercial air on all of them?
        Mr. Regan. Yes.

                    EAST PALESTINE TRAIN DERAILMENT RESPONSE

        Mr. Zinke. Good. That is what I like to hear. So I am also
    concerned about the toxic waste in the backyard, your comment.
    Have you been to Palestine, Ohio.
        Mr. Regan. I have, 3 times.
        Mr. Zinke. And what did you find?
        Mr. Regan. You know, I found a community that has been
    traumatized, and luckily for us, we were there within a matter
    of hours after the accident. We have been on the ground since
    day one, and we have, you know, done what we think is good
    State-Federal cooperation, which is support the State of Ohio
    on the initial emergency response. We did air testing and water
    testing, and then EPA took its federally-appropriate role,
    which is to begin to look at the cleanup aspects.
        Mr. Zinke. Okay.
        Mr. Regan. And that is where we started the leadership
    role.
        Mr. Zinke. My understanding is the railroad has the lead on
    cleanup. Is that true?
        Mr. Regan. They have the accountability and obligation,
    yes, to clean up the mess they caused.

                               WATERS OF THE U.S.

        Mr. Zinke. Okay. And to switch to Montana. You ever been to
    Montana?
        Mr. Regan. I have not.
        Mr. Zinke. Well, it is amazing that you have said that the
    States have an important role, and you visited all sorts of
    people that support Waters of the U.S. Have you talked to the
    Montana stock growers?
        Mr. Regan. I am not quite sure if I have or not. I have
    talked to----
        Mr. Zinke. Okay. How about the Montana Farm Bureau?
        Mr. Regan. Yes. Yes, we have.
        Mr. Zinke. How about the Montana wheat growers? You
    personally because you said you have.
        Mr. Regan. I would have to go back. I would have to go back
    and look at the list.
        Mr. Zinke. Beet growers. I could go on the whole list, and
    from my perspective, what they are telling me is Waters of the
    U.S., you know where the Yellowstone River is? You have never
    been there. Do you know where the Yellowstone River is outside
    of the Yellowstone series?
        Mr. Regan. I don't.
        Mr. Zinke. All right. Well, how is it do you think you can
    manage the Yellowstone River if you don't know where it is,
    because you want to manage the water flow, the temperature, the
    riparian bank, wildlife in, and wildlife out, by Waters of the
    U.S., intermittent streams, cal ponds, vernal pools. So how is
    it that you think you are in a position to manage our water in
    Montana when you haven't been there?
        Mr. Regan. Well, first, I don't want to make it personal. I
    don't want to manage it, but I do want to follow the law and
    the Clean Water Act.
        Mr. Zinke. Do you believe that the WOTUS is a law or a
    rule, first of all?
        Mr. Regan. First of all, well, the Waters of the U.S. is a
    rule----
        Mr. Zinke. Yes, it is, right----
        Mr. Regan [continued]. That we have to promulgate that is
    a----
        Mr. Zinke. But you said you would work in coordination with
    the States, and you haven't been to Montana. You haven't
    addressed the State of Montana, the governor's office, or
    anyone in there. And I can list all the farmers that you say
    that support this thing, and there isn't a one of them that I
    know that supports water of the U.S., your rule, sir.
        Mr. Regan. Well, I can cop to saying I don't have the
    budget or the time to visit all 50 States. That is true. What I
    can say, though, is that I have engaged heavily with Zippy
    Duvall and the Farm Bureau. I have engaged with numbers of farm
    bureau presidents all across this country. Before my
    nomination, I was endorsed by most of the elected agriculture
    commissioners across this country. My grandfather was a farmer.
    I come from Eastern North Carolina, again. As a former State
    secretary, I attempted to implement both versions of this rule,
    so I understand the frustration.
        My point is that I attempted to look at what we have
    learned over the past two administrations, take into
    consideration what two Supreme Court justices have said, looked
    at how the courts have weighed in over the past 5 to 7 years,
    and thread a needle to codify exemptions and exclusions that we
    were asked directly to do, while also looking at how we have
    narrowed that definition.
        Mr. Zinke. Who asked? What asked you for this rule?
        Mr. Regan. They asked for the exemptions and exclusions.
        Mr. Zinke. Who asked you to implement and form the Waters
    of the U.S. rule? Who in the West?
        Mr. Regan. Well----
        Mr. Zinke. Which governor, which organization asked you to
    do the Waters of the U.S. rule?
        Mr. Regan. By law, we have to promulgate a rule. Remember,
    the courts----
        Mr. Zinke. Oh, I know.
        Mr. Regan [continued]. They nationally vacated the previous
    administration's rule.
        Mr. Zinke. But when you put a rule, wouldn't be better to
    actually talk to the governors' office, talk to Idaho, talk to
    Utah, talk to the people that actually live out there? Now, I
    understand there is a lot of difference between East and West
    Coast, and I appreciate that, and I wear a cowboy hat because I
    think our cowboy lifestyle is under a little attack. But I want
    to work with you, but what we see is the rule is an
    infringement on States' rights, and it worries a lot of
    farmers. And as you know in your farming business, there is no
    money in cattle. You pay for the lifestyle.
        Mr. Regan. Sure.
        Mr. Zinke. And people see a threat on their lifestyle, they
    get a lot of upset. In Montana, we are really upset about it
    because we don't see that that path separates what we see is an
    overreach. And, you know, I want your commitment that you will
    work with us on this because it is a very sensitive issue, and
    you have heard it before: whiskey is for drinking, water for
    fighting. So, you know, I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I
    yield back.
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Stewart.
        Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator, thanks
    for being with us. I've got to tell you, I am impressed with
    you as a witness and the work you are doing. This would be, I
    think, a difficult environment because you come here and you
    generally maybe have some idea, but you don't know what we are
    going to ask you or what we are going to talk to you about. And
    you seem to have a remarkable working knowledge of being able
    to talk about these different topics, so thank you for that.
    And I don't mean to beat a dead horse, as they say, but I've
    got to emphasize the Waters of the U.S., if I could, and maybe
    I won't ask you to comment, maybe I will, but to help you
    understand, and I think you do, but to reinforce for you it is
    difficult to appreciate what this rule means to people in the
    West.
        You are from a very beautiful State, but you have lots of
    water. You go out West, and, I mean, water is so precious. And
    as Secretary Zinke has said, there is probably nothing that is
    more divisive and more contentious than is this rule in the
    West with farmers and ranchers because they feel like their
    entire livelihood, but not just how they feed their families,
    but, you know, the preservation of the culture, the thing that
    they have chosen to do which means so much to them, could
    literally be taken away by the stroke of a pen by someone who
    doesn't understand or appreciate what that stroke of the pen
    meant for them, and many times for something they say what was
    the benefit. How is this rule benefiting, you know, or
    preserving?
        And the first time we met, I asked you about this, and you
    said, well, your rule of the waters, you know, you expect a new
    rule would be very different than President Obama's rule. You
    have indicated the same thing here. What would you say to a
    farmer or rancher who, you know, has these same fears, and in
    their mind or their application, it seems like it is much the
    same as what the previous rule was. And if you would answer
    briefly because there is one other issue I would like to
    address with you, please.
        Mr. Regan. I think I would say that we want to do the best
    job we can to talk about this rule and what is actually in the
    rule. There is a reason that Secretary Vilsack supported it,
    and he is being very supportive in looking at how we can do
    some co-resource location on the implementation of this rule.
    Listen, the first listening session I did on this rule was in
    North Dakota, then I went to Iowa. Listen, trying to regulate
    streams, and rivers, and ponds, and ditches in North Carolina
    and Nevada is almost impossible.
        So the goal was to look at what the Clean Water Act
    requires for us to do by law, and also look at how we can
    really leverage our State partners and codify as many of these
    exemptions as possible, and then work with USDA to be sure that
    we are implementing the rule in a way that people can actually
    understand it. It is a difficult task.

                     FEDERAL STATIONARY SOURCE REGULATIONS

        Mr. Stewart. It is, and I could counter with you, but I am
    going to leave it at this, and that is, please, you need to
    understand and come back and talk to folks about what this
    means to people out West and why is so threatening to them. If
    I could switch gears, Quad-O, the super meter program, which,
    as I understand it, deputizes third party entities to
    essentially go out and monitor oil and gas emissions. Are you
    familiar with this?
        Mr. Regan. I am not familiar with that exact program.
        Mr. Stewart. Okay. Well, I am going to ask you to follow up
    with us, if you would, because, I mean, this rule, as we
    understand it, essentially, as I said, it deputizes third-party
    entities to go out and do what clearly the Federal Government
    should do, and if not, have the authority to defer some of that
    authority to the States, but certainly not to third parties.
    And if we were to use third parties for that, there is no
    question that environmental and activist groups would use that
    as an opportunity and would provide data that we have no idea
    whether that data is accurate or not.
        Follow up with us, will you? My office is going to reach
    out.
        Mr. Regan. Okay.
        Mr. Stewart. If this is what we think it is, this idea of a
    citizen scientist, there is, A, no authority for it at all, it
    is going to break down trust, and we have no reason to know if
    we can trust the data or not we would be getting for that. So
    we will follow up with you.
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
        Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Michael. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Regan. Yes, thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Amodei.

                         CARSON RIVER MERCURY CLEAN UP

        Mr. Amodei. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, Mr.
    Administrator. It is nice to hear your testimony. I want to
    start first with the Carson River Mercury clean up. I would
    like to know from your office who your point person is going to
    be, whether that is a Region 9 person or whoever, for purposes
    of interacting with what they are going to do, how they are
    going to coordinate with the State DEP folks that your office
    has been coordinating with for a while, just so we have a real
    A to Z understanding of who the contractor is, what you are
    going to do, what the methodology is----
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. All that other sort of stuff
    because when you talk about mercury and other things embedded
    in a river for well over 100 years, which is not ideal
    obviously, but when you talk about dredging the full length of
    the river up and replacing it, that is a huge thing in terms of
    dislodging and making contamination more friable, if you will,
    to a reservoir down.
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Mr. Amodei. So it is like all those things, it would just
    be nice to have comprehensive cradle-to-grave understanding of
    here's the plan now that EPA's going to take the primary
    position and hire people, and people are going to be in the
    river doing stuff.
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Mr. Amodei. We would like to make sure we understand that.
    So that is a please, and we will look forward to working with
    your folks to get up to speed on that as soon as possible.
        [The information follows:]

        Pat Bowlin is the Remedial Project Manager and Omar Shalev
    is the Section Chief for the Carson River Mercury site.

                               WATERS OF THE U.S.

        Mr. Amodei. I want to follow up on, Mr. Stewart said beat a
    dead horse, and it is, like, well, we won't go there. But when
    you talk about the Intermountain West, in my portion of it,
    that is 12 inches of rain a year. When you talk about clean
    water, and clean air, and clean soil, and all that stuff, that
    is a different proposition, with all due respect to my
    colleagues from places which experience much more water----
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. During the year. And I appreciate
    that one size doesn't fit all. It is, like, I am not going to
    go manage it for one county in Nevada or Montana, or whatever,
    but when it represents about a third of the land area of the
    country, I think it is worthy of being able to say, when
    somebody like me starts pointing his finger at you, for you to
    say we have engaged in the Great Basin, we have engaged in the
    Intermountain West, here is what we know, here is why it is not
    the same as the Chesapeake Bay or Maine, or, you know, up in
    the north plains or something like that, because those folks
    out there intuitively know. I mean, you don't got to tell
    somebody a place that averages 12 inches of water how important
    water is.
        So when you step back from that role for a minute and go,
    do these people benefit from playing fast and loose with water
    quality and what they are doing with it, heck no or they
    wouldn't be in the business. Do they benefit from dirty air? Do
    they benefit from breaking the rules? Obviously not, but they
    like to know that when it is time to talk about the rules, that
    what they are doing right, if anything, is being acknowledged
    and taken care of so that when I go to your folks at Region 9
    and say, tell me how you are going to implement this new rule.
        Mr. Regan. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Amodei. You are going to have field hand books, who is
    going to be doing it, you are going to visit the sites. What
    are you doing to bring that to the ground, and we are gonna do
    the same thing with the Corps of Engineers out in that
    neighborhood, which is out of Sacramento. It is, like, so how
    are you implementing this because I will be honest with you, it
    didn't sound good.
        Mr. Regan. Yeah.
        Mr. Amodei. But you know what? Maybe I am wrong, which is
    why I want to know how you actually are going to do it. And so
    the challenge for you is that infrastructure has been there for
    decades.
        Corps in Sacramento, Region 9 in San Francisco. We just
    expect that when those people are there, that they are not
    getting a long-ways-away-centric on how to deal with those
    resources, not that they are not just as important everywhere.
    But dealing with them correctly in the Intermountain West in
    high arid places, with all due respect, is not the same as
    other areas.
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Mr. Amodei. And so what I would like to be able to do after
    doing my homework is to go back to those people, like Mr. Zinke
    is talking about in his neighborhood and whatever, and say,
    here is what they are doing in Region 9, and here is how they
    are interacting with you. And obviously you can't pollute the
    water, and you can't pollute the air, you can't pollute the
    anything, but it feels like a long ways away. And I get the
    whole-of-government approach stuff, and it is, like, that is
    good, but the whole-of-government approach in the Intermountain
    West is a little different than the whole-of-government
    approach in the Southeast, the Northeast, the Appalachians,
    whatever.
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Mr. Amodei. So I will look forward to getting together with
    your folks and making sure that everybody has the maximum
    amount of knowledge possible regarding the rule.
        Mr. Regan. You can count on that.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
        Mr. Regan. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Simpson. Was that a question?
        Mr. Amodei. Did you miss the question, Mike, at the end?
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah, I was looking for it in there. Ms.
    McCollum.

                               MISSISSIPPI RIVER

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, and I appreciate the fact,
    Administrator Regan, that you haven't been able to be
    everywhere, but I have fished on the Yellowstone, and there is
    a beautiful little town called Glendive, Montana. As you are
    going through, stop and visit it. I think Mr. Zinke would agree
    with me, it is a charming little town. It was built because of
    the Pacific North America, the empire builder goes through
    there.
        Mr. Zinke. My dad was born in Glendive.
        Ms. McCollum. Yeah. So it is a great little town. So now,
    we talked about the Yellowstone, and now I want to talk about
    the Mississippi River, and I haven't been every place on the
    Mississippi River yet either, but I want to just thank you for
    the work that the EPA, working with other Federal agencies
    doing this, working to protect 20 million people who drink
    Mississippi River water. And as we see more water shortages,
    and that is what you are trying to avoid with Waters of the
    USA, to make sure that everyone has access to clean, safe
    drinking water. Mississippi is a working river with barges,
    farms, and then recreation.
        I really appreciate the collaboration that that you have
    been doing. Right now, it looks like the St. Croix River is
    going to have more flooding than the Mississippi, but I don't
    know what is going to happen downstream later on this spring.
    So your work on helping us work to be more resilient on the
    river, working with communities that are disadvantaged either
    with pollution or other things that have happened in the past,
    and that is really greatly appreciated. My office is going to
    follow up with you on that, and we have some legislation that
    we have been working with the League of counties, the League of
    Cities, and other community leaders up and down the mighty
    Mississippi on that.

                                      PFAS

        But I just want to follow up a little bit about two things
    that I work a lot on. Being on the Defense Committee, I work a
    lot on PFAS. You work a lot on PFAS. I know some of the work
    that we are doing to find out how to break this chemical down
    is a DOD-EPA looking at things right now. And so as we work on
    the defense budget, I would like to know who in the EPA I can
    reach out and talk to about PFAS and some of the research and
    R&D going on so two committees can work in unison to get the
    biggest bang for the buck on what to do on this.

                                  BUDGET CUTS

        But, you know, I am concerned about what could happen with
    the EPA's budget, and I know people sometimes love to hate the
    EPA. But I got to see the EPA work first hand, and they asked
    about the Ohio railroad derailment, when I had a plating
    factory that had been abandoned. And the St. Paul police and
    St. Paul fire had been watching it the best that they could,
    and we saw kids were breaking in there, and the roof was
    falling in, and it was bad. It was really bad. And the
    Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and our office were talking,
    and they said we have called the EPA. Our fire department, our
    police department, the houses that lived adjacent to that
    plating factory, the trust that you installed with everyone as
    you cleaned that up, thank God you were there.
        And as you are seeing more and more of these places become
    identifiable where local communities, even States can't handle
    some of this stuff, and the emergency teams that leave their
    families come out and work with really dangerous stuff. Every
    day, the EPA left a note for our fire department, and I am
    going to call it the rescue cart, what to do first if something
    goes bad here, was updated, and our fire department felt very,
    very supported in that. But we had a full-time professional
    fire department. You go places where there isn't even that
    available.
        Mr. Regan. That is right.
        Ms. McCollum. What would a budget cut to 2022 mean because
    I am, like, all in, you guys. Now, I am reading about these
    HAZMAT teams all the time. What would that do because we are
    finding more and more of this pollution around. Work on the
    PFAS. We will keep that one separate. We will work on that, but
    just what you are finding now and with these rail derailments.
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Ms. McCollum. I bet that cost a lot of money.
        Mr. Regan. Well, you know, we are working from a deficit
    already in terms of public trust. I think we all are, and so I
    want to be clear that 85 percent of the budget increase that we
    are asking for goes to State, tribal, and local partners. That
    helps us to build his credibility on the ground. We do have the
    technical ability, we do have the expertise, but when we talk
    about these relationships, it is really the resources that we
    provide to State agencies and local agencies that really grease
    the skids for us to build that trust.
        We are able, with technology, to detect levels of pollution
    that we have never been able to detect before, whether it is in
    drinking water or whether it is in soil. Once a community
    identifies a contamination, we have an obligation to clean that
    up. And so when you do have a situation like East Palestine,
    you don't want to find yourself short of resources. You need
    resources to go in to respond to the emergency, to clean up the
    emergency, to be able to do risk communication, to build trust
    with the community.
        And even with East Palestine, there are things that,
    scientifically, we didn't think we needed to do, but I visited
    3 times. I meet with small businesses, and they said please
    test for things, even if you don't believe there is a health
    impact because we need that confidence to rebuild the local
    economy and to rebuild trust, and we sent people in to test. We
    opened up a storefront in East Palestine where people can come
    in and get information, you know. And we are going to make this
    company toe the line. We are going to hold them accountable. We
    need enforcement dollars to hold bad actors, like Norfolk
    Southern, accountable. They created the mess. We have to make
    sure that they clean it up.
        And so if we roll back these budgetary dollars, we are
    going to find ourselves in a world of trouble.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. They do
    amazing work.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I said I would say something good
    about the EPA, and actually, I actually like the EPA. And
    during one campaign, I remember my opponent was saying, this is
    back when I was chairman before, just get rid of the EPA. We
    don't need the damn EPA anymore, you know? It was the biggest
    applause line of the whole campaign. Everybody in the audience
    was applauding. I said, well, I don't know. The Cuyahoga River
    hasn't started on fire spontaneously, you know, and you can
    actually drive through Los Angeles without tears running down
    your cheeks from the smog and stuff. So the EPA has done some
    good things.
        So I have defended you in the past, and I don't know how
    much you know about the Dixie Drain in Boise, Idaho.
        Mr. Regan. No, I don't.
        Mr. Simpson. Have you ever heard about it?
        Mr. Regan. I have not.
        Mr. Simpson. It is a fascinating thing that happened. The
    EPA came in and said you have got to reduce your phosphates and
    nitrates that is going into the Boise River, the City of Boise.
    It would have been hugely expensive. City engineers came up
    with a different plan. They worked with State of Idaho, they
    worked with Region 10, and it is called the Dixie Drain. And
    the EPA looked at it and said, you know, we think this will
    work, so they went ahead and did it, and it is about a 10th of
    the cost of what it would have cost, and it is working
    fantastically. In fact, what the Region 10 people said, you
    know, this could be the model for some other places where it
    might work to do this type of thing.
        If you ever get a chance to get out to Boise, which, you
    know, why wouldn't you go to Boise, you know? [Laughter.]
        Mr. Regan. Is that an invitation?
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah, any time, any time. I will go with you.
    And so the EPA was flexible in allowing local communities to
    come up with plans that are alternatives that might work. It
    doesn't mean they always will, but I was proud to work with the
    EPA, and the State of Idaho, and the City of Boise to do that.
    So there are good things, too.

                                     HIRING

        Now, about everything that is going to happen if we go back
    to 2022 levels and all the damage is going to be done, your
    annual appropriation is about $10 billion. Last year alone, the
    EPA received an additional $100 billion in supplemental
    funding, $100 billion, 10 times your annual appropriation. I
    want to ask specifically about the hiring that will occur with
    this money. As you know, this $100 billion is finite. It will
    run out.
        Mr. Regan. Sure.
        Mr. Simpson. It is not going to last forever. We have
    learned that 742 new staff have been hired so far just through
    the Infrastructure Bill alone. When we spoke last week, you
    explained that only one-half of 1 percent of funding from the
    massive $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund included in
    the Inflation Reduction Act would go to hiring. That is still
    approximately 675 staff. And to be clear, this surge of hiring
    is separate from the President's budget request, which has
    proposed to add an additional 1,900 FTEs above the current
    hiring ceiling.
        I mean, you're staffing up big time, sometimes with money
    that is going to disappear, but 1,900 new employees this next
    year? What is the total number of hiring that is estimated to
    take place just from the supplemental funding in the
    Infrastructure Bill and Inflation Reduction Act, and what does
    the agency plan to do with everyone that has been hired when
    this money is no longer available?
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Mr. Simpson. Because we are going to hit an employee cliff.
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Mr. Simpson. And I won't be in Congress at that time most
    likely, but I don't want a Congress to be sitting here going,
    man, if we do that, you know, we could increase your budget by
    5 percent next year, and we are going to have to lay off 2,000
    people.
        Mr. Regan. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Simpson. And it is not just this committee. It is all
    the committees because of the huge addition of employees that
    went on in almost every department from the additional hiring
    with all the money we spent out there.
        Mr. Regan. Yeah, I would like to tackle that sort of from
    two angles. The first is the resources from the Inflation
    Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, as you
    say, they will expire. There is a term limit there. And so a
    lot of the positions we are hiring to supplement those new laws
    are term limited as well. I will get you the specific stat, but
    not all of the hires from those pieces of legislation are
    permanent hires. They are term limited as well. So we are
    trying to match the requirements of that law with the resources
    for the time frame.
        Mr. Simpson. So when they are hired, you are hiring them
    and you will say, this job will last 5 years and it is gone?
        Mr. Regan. Those positions will sunset, some 5. I could get
    you the specifics----
        Mr. Simpson. Okay.
        Mr. Regan [continuing]. But yes, those positions are what
    we call term limited and will sunset, so all of them aren't
    permanent. You know, there are a lot of bread and butter issues
    that just aren't IRA and BIL related: emergency response, TSCA,
    looking at pesticides and herbicides, some of our enforcement
    actions. So what you will see in the supplemental budget
    request is really trying to be sure that these mission critical
    issues that we are required by law to put in place can be
    sustained.
        And as we have discussed, I will use the Endangered Species
    Act as an example. We have the courts now that have tied us up
    that are basically taking products off the shelves. Well, we
    can litigate those things all we want, but in the meanwhile, we
    need to be green lighting new products so that farmers have
    replacement tools. We need bodies to do that. In 2016, you all
    passed a great bipartisan TSCA law. As we think about asbestos
    and some of these chemical compounds that just have no place in
    society, we are trying to catch up and execute and implement on
    those laws. And so obviously, we can provide you all the
    details, but there are a lot of programs that just aren't IRA
    and BIL related that really fit squarely into this budget
    request.
        And I will just end with the environmental justice request.
    The majority of those positions go out into our regions and
    into the field, and they really are community engagement
    focused. And a lot of times, we don't really look at the full
    definition of ``environmental justice,'' and that is income,
    race, national origin, but there are just so many communities
    in this country, rural and urban, that have been left out, left
    behind, that face some pretty dire environmental consequences.
    We have to provide the resources and the infrastructure to be
    equally protective of all people in this country, and that is
    what we are trying to achieve in that program.
        Mr. Simpson. When you were a State regulator, did you ever
    look at the Federal EPA and say these guys are crazy?
    [Laughter.]
        Mr. Regan. You know, I mean, listen despite some of the
    political rhetoric that we find ourselves engaged in, you know,
    I had a lot of success as a State regulator during the previous
    administration on some issues. When you talk about brownfields
    redevelopment and when you talk about looking at Superfund,
    North Carolina had a great program. It tied very well into the
    Federal Government. I haven't changed any of that. I know you
    opened with----
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
        Mr. Regan [continuing]. Erasing Trump things. I think that
    when we look at PFAS, States like West Virginia, and North
    Carolina, and Michigan were on the front lines. We didn't get
    what we needed from the Federal Government, so I brought that
    expertise in, and we have tried to make up for some lost time.
        Waters of the U.S. is not something unique to this
    administration. As you said, it is a decades-old issue, and so
    we are going to keep at it. It is a tough conversation. I am
    going to be honest and transparent about it, recognizing that
    it is going to be tough when I get questions from Mr. Zinke and
    others about it, but we are going to continue to engage. And
    so, as a former State regulator, a lot of that perspective is
    what I bring to this job, and I recognize that there is a lot
    of value in having our States have autonomy to protect the
    States' natural resources and public health.
        Mr. Simpson. Well, I have always said if you want to know
    the difference between the East and the West, in the East, they
    try to get rid of water. That is why they have riparian water
    rights. In the West, we try to save every drop of water, and
    that is why we have prior appropriation water rights, which is
    entirely different in how we treat water rights and stuff in
    the East and the West.
        Mr. Regan. Yeah.
        Mr. Simpson. And consequently, I am not sure the same rule
    works in all places, you know? So anyway, that is a discussion.
    We will have it at another time. We have had quite a bit of
    that discussion so far. Ms. Pingree.

                                      PFAS

        Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did check. Mr. Amodei
    said that he gets 12 inches of rain a year. We get 48 in Maine,
    so we get about 4 times as much water, so I guess we are in a
    whole different conversation really.
        I will just talk a little bit more about PFAS. You know, I
    am not interested in being the expert in Congress on PFAS. I
    didn't want this to have to be an issue that I was like, you
    know, focusing on all the time, but sometimes it is just no fun
    to be the State that is out there in the lead. And as you know,
    and you have been very good on this, you know, working with
    Maine, and we have just been in the forefront of dealing with
    our PFAS-related issues. So thank you for the step you took 2
    weeks ago to deal with PFAS in drinking water, really, really
    important steps to take, I think, for public health across the
    Nation.
        But I just want to describe a couple things to you. When we
    had our 2 hours in between hearings, I had a meeting with the
    Maine Municipal Association, so that is community leaders, you
    know, city councilors, and others, and we have a new situation
    in our State. Because we have been a leader in discovering the
    amount of PFAS that was in our agricultural land, we are now
    doing testing of agricultural soil. But one of the things the
    legislature passed last year was a law that said we can't
    spread municipal waste, you know, biosolids on land anymore.
        So I think we are the first State in the Nation to do that,
    and the downside of that is that now we have got all these
    municipal waste facilities that are having to truck these
    biosolids to landfills, and now our major landfills are saying
    we don't want it anymore. So now they are being confronted with
    massive increases in the cost per ton, huge changes in their
    budgets that are just happening overnight. And my understanding
    is a lot of it is actually going to Canada, and we all know
    what happens when you try to ship your waste out of the country
    or to other States. Eventually, they will say no.
        So I am not even asking you to answer a question about it,
    but I just wanted to alert you that it is yet another challenge
    that if we are having to deal with other States are having to
    deal with, and I don't know how to help them how to help them
    out financially. I don't know how we work through this issue so
    that we can figure out is there a way to safely process those
    biosolids. Is there a way to test to see if some of them would
    be acceptable to, you know, to spread on agricultural land, but
    right now that is a prohibition that we are having, and I am
    sure other States are going to look at the same kind of thing.
    So you may have a comment on that.
        But I guess at the same time, I would just be interested to
    know what, if any, work or can you update how you are looking
    at PFAS contamination in the soil because that is one of the
    biggest questions our farmers are now asking us. These are
    farmers who have tested positive, so they have high levels of
    PFAS contamination in their soil. A lot of them are organic
    farmers who have been working for years to have, you know,
    high-quality farms. Now they have got to, you know, stop
    selling. They are not sure what they are going to do. They are
    worried about their own family's health, but we don't really
    even know how to remove it from the soil, are there certain
    crops we can grow or can't grow, what are safe levels in these
    crops? And I talked to Secretary Vilsack, of course. You know,
    we sort of got it working on at the EPA, the USDA, but where
    are you in the sort of issue with soil?
        Mr. Regan. Well, we are sort of knee deep in all of those,
    and it is sort of interesting for an EPA administrator to say,
    but my two buddies in the administration are Defense and USDA.
    PFAS has brought us together.
        Ms. Pingree. Defense has got all the money, by the way, so
    get Ms. McCollum to spend everything she can on it.
        Mr. Simpson. That is right.
        Mr. Regan. My first reaction to that, in response to that,
    was in order for us to set these PFAS limits, I assured
    Secretary Vilsack that I would look at our enforcement
    discretion because what we want to do is keep the focus on the
    bad actors, which are those who pollute, not our agriculture
    community and not even our water utilities. We are all victims
    and forced to deal with this, and so keep the eye trained on
    those who have polluted but also look at enforcement
    discretion.
        I think we can talk a little bit more, but in looking at
    our enforcement discretion, and how we exercise that, and not
    going after farmers, and looking at how municipalities treat
    biosolids, I think if institutions or entities know that there
    isn't enforcement coming, it sort of creates a pause what we
    all can talk about, okay, now that we are not going to push
    enforcement, how do we deal with the solution. There are a lot
    of innovative ideas on the ground in different communities that
    we are having conversations with to see what the best
    management practices are. I would love to continue to talk to
    you on that, but that is something that EPA and USDA are
    working very closely on. And again, Secretary Austin, and I,
    and Secretary Vilsack, we have been looking at this PFAS issue
    from day one as a whole-of-government approach.
        Ms. Pingree. Mm-hmm. Good. Well, thank you very much. I
    appreciate the work that you are doing. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Zinke.

                               CRITICAL MINERALS

        Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Critical minerals. You
    know, we had a conversation with Secretary Haaland this
    morning, an interesting one, but I would assume it is your
    policy to source critical minerals from ourselves or our allies
    rather than foreign countries, like China and Russia.
        Mr. Regan. I think we have to take a very good look at our
    permitting process. The critical minerals are essential for
    this clean energy economy that we want to pursue. We cannot
    afford to be overly reliant on any foreign sources, and so we
    have to deal with how we look at critical minerals
    domestically. I believe from EPA's vantage point, we are doing
    the necessary things that we can to be sure that when we look
    at critical minerals and mining, that we do it in an
    ecologically and environmentally responsible way.
        Mr. Zinke. The report I have is that in order to catch up
    on where the demand is today, we would have to increase mining
    by 2,000 percent over a 20-year period. It seems like we are a
    little bit behind. As you know, critical minerals are key to EV
    as well as defense, and we don't want to talk about defense,
    but it is critical on our ability to defend and strike.
        What I am concerned about is it seems like we are running
    to the EV world without looking at the supply chain. So on the
    front is a supply chain of where do we get it, who processes
    it, and it turns out 62 percent are from China, and in some
    cases, they are the absolute monopoly over critical minerals
    which we need, let alone where they are sourced from in Africa,
    but I am also concerned on the back end. You know, what are we
    going to do when the batteries are now done with their life
    cycle? Where are we going to put them?
        As you recall, we decided on the nuclear that we would
    build a national repository in Yucca. We spent $10 billion.
        Mr. Simpson. Fourteen.
        Mr. Zinke. Fourteen--thank you, Mr. Chairman--$14 billion
    over 10 years, and the moment we build it and we are ready to
    turn the key on, ah, not so fast. So now we store them at 128
    distributed sites, which is unsafe for a number of reasons,
    batteries. So here comes the batteries. My understanding is 90
    percent of solar cells get deposited in some landfill somewhere
    across this country--90 percent--and I can tell you and I am
    sure you know, the list of toxins that are in those cells, and
    they are not good. Then let alone the batteries.
        What is the plan? What are we going to do with these
    batteries? Is the administration moving towards a national
    repository site? Are we looking at regionally? Whose liability
    when you buy a Tesla and you buy the battery, do you buy that
    liability, too, for the battery? Does that mean when you
    deposit it someplace, are you responsible for it as well? What
    is the plan and what are you doing about the end state of EV
    world?
        Mr. Regan. Yeah. I would love to have a longer conversation
    with you where we could get our staffs together. I am not quite
    sure about the 90 percent number, but what I can say is when I
    engage with industry, I think that there are going to be a lot
    more market corrections than we think. A lot of solar companies
    and these car companies are already designing programs to pull
    back these batteries and recycle them because they understand
    how expensive and energy intensive it can be to recreate new
    batteries, to recreate new solar panels.
        So there is a massive recycling wave that is being pushed
    by industry to pull back some of this----
        Mr. Zinke. I will agree a probable, but nothing I have seen
    is proven----
        Mr. Regan. Sure.
        Mr. Zinke [continuing]. Or affordable, and it seems like we
    are rushing. The government is buying EV vehicles, and we have
    parking lots full of batteries. And to put them in a landfill
    is not a good idea.
        Mr. Regan. Yeah.
        Mr. Zinke. Put them in a parking lot is not a good idea. It
    seems before we jump in this arena, and I think it is a mega
    trend. I think we are moving towards that, but before we do, I
    would, you know, get with your staff and figure out what is the
    plan.
        Mr. Regan. Yeah.
        Mr. Zinke. I am a military guy. I love a plan, but if we
    don't have a plan, I can tell you when we get there, it is not
    going to be what we think or oftentimes what we like. So I
    would like your commitment to work with you on the back end of
    it to make sure we look at what resources are required, what
    interagency work we need to develop, and I am sure that the
    chairman--I don't mean to speak for the minority, but I am sure
    that is an area that is sensitive as well.
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely. Thank you.
        Mr. Zinke. Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and thank you, by
    the way. Thank you for your service. I know it is tough, and
    thank you for your service when you are in the Carolinas. And
    it is not easy being on the Hill, but thank you, and rest
    assured that our staff will work with you.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you, and it is good to see you again. I
    enjoyed your visit to North Carolina, I guess, a couple of
    years ago on another tough topic that we were engaged on.
        Mr. Zinke. We wrote the check. [Laughter.]
         A promise made is a promise kept.
        Mr. Regan. That is right. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Simpson. Let me just say on Mr. Zinke's question there,
    what are you going to do with, say, the batteries in the solar
    panels? I know where there is a $14 billion hole in the ground
    that we need to fill with something. I have told the Secretary
    of Energy not to cave that in because we are going to need a
    place to store the 52 or 53 Academy of Science studies that
    have been done on that. It is the most studied piece of ground
    in the world, but you know how that goes, a fight we have been
    fighting for years.

                    RURAL WATER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

        I want to ask you some fairly simple, quick questions. One,
    I was disappointed to see that the President's budget request
    proposed to zero out the funding for the Rural Water Technical
    Assistance grants, which is currently funded at just over $30
    million. Small communities across this country depend on this
    funding for technical assistance to help them learn how to meet
    or maintain Federal water standards, and I have worked with
    these people in Idaho that do training. You know, a town of
    2,000 has a hard time trying to keep up with what they have to
    do to meet the clean water standards and so forth. Given the
    program's proven success and longstanding bipartisan support,
    is it wise to eliminate this program?
        Mr. Regan. I will say two things. The first is nearly half
    of the $43 billion SRF dollars must go out as grants or
    forgivable loans to disadvantaged communities, which includes a
    lot of rural communities. So we are providing already more than
    $150 million in technical assistance grants over the next 5
    years. A lot of that is coming from Bill dollars, so that money
    is going out, $150 million in technical assistance. That is why
    you don't see that money there because we are getting from
    another place.

                     CYBERSECURITY-WATER SECURITY TEST BED

        Mr. Simpson. I suspect you are going to see $30 million
    more in the next budget that is written because I think
    Congress has good bipartisan support for that program. Another
    question. Shortly after the administration released its
    National Cybersecurity Strategy, the EPA announced certain
    cybersecurity mandates for the water sector. We must secure the
    Nation's water infrastructure, which is critical for public
    health and safety. There is ongoing research and development
    associated with securing these systems and learning how to
    respond to an incident, including research and development at
    your water security testbed at the Idaho National Laboratory in
    Idaho. Can you please explain how the EPA plans to utilize the
    water security test bed to help public and private sector
    entities understand cyber risk and what to do, and do you
    support expanding the test bed capabilities in the future?
        Mr. Regan. Oh, I can say that, obviously, cybersecurity is
    absolutely very important, and I think our teams are already
    talking about how research labs, like the Idaho National Lab
    and the water security test bed, is critical and essential for
    us. So I think we are already working together on that to
    expand those capabilities and look at what we can learn from
    Idaho, and we will continue to do that.

                                 FIRE RETARDANT

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Last, last week during the Forest
    Service budget hearing, I asked Chief Moore about the
    repercussions of losing fire retardant as a tool to fight
    wildfires. There is a pending lawsuit that threatens to do just
    that. In fact, I joined my colleagues in introducing
    legislation to make sure that doesn't happen. Chief Moore told
    me that the Forest Service is in the process of working with
    EPA on ensuring the continued use of fire retardants. Can you
    provide an update on that process and the importance of your
    work with the Forest Service to ensure this important tool can
    continue to be used in catastrophic wildfires across this
    country?
        Mr. Regan. Yeah. There is no shortage of topics that
    Secretary Vilsack and I enjoy conversing on. On this one, as an
    immediate solution, EPA and the Forest Service signed a Federal
    facilities compliance agreement that allows the Forest Service
    to continue normal firefighting activities. What we are going
    to do from that point is move forward with an NPDES permit
    process. That is using our existing authorities, working under
    the existing Clean Water Act, that will give some long-term
    permitting assurance to the Forest Service.
        Mr. Simpson. Well, I hope so. To lose that ability to use
    fire retardant, well, I wouldn't be a firefighter anyway, but
    if I were----
        Mr. Regan. Yeah.
        Mr. Simpson. I would think twice about going out and
    fighting wildfire if they didn't have the ability to suppress
    these catastrophic wildfires with fire retardant and stuff.
        Mr. Regan. Yeah.
        Mr. Simpson. So I appreciate that. Anything else?
        Ms. Pingree. No.
        Mr. Simpson. Let me just in closing echo what Mr. Stewart
    said. You are good. I have appreciated working with you and
    look forward to working with you in the future on a lot of
    these very complex issues that the EPA deals with.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. So when you see the budget, don't go
    particularly nuts, but, you know, it won't be pretty when it
    first comes out, but that is the way it is.
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Mr. Simpson. So anyway, I look forward to working with you,
    and thank you for being here today.
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
        Mr. Simpson. The hearing is adjourned.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you so much.
        [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.050

                                             Wednesday, March 29, 2023.

      FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET REQUESTS FOR THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
           U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, AND NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

                                   WITNESSES

    HON. CHARLES F. SAMS III, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
    HON. TRACY STONE-MANNING, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
    HON. MARTHA WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

                Opening Statement of Representative Mike Simpson

        Mr. Simpson. The committee will come to order. Oh, I was
    right on time. Good afternoon.
        Today the subcommittee is pleased to be joined by this
    panel of Department of the Interior leaders: Director Tracy
    Stone-Manning with the Bureau of Land Management, Director
    Martha Williams with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
    Director Chuck Sams of the National Park Service.
        Following our hearing with Secretary Haaland yesterday, we
    appreciate you all being here today to discuss the bureau-level
    details and priorities of the administration's fiscal year 2024
    budget request.
        Among the three DOI bureaus, you manage most of the land in
    my home State of Idaho, and I am well acquainted with the
    challenges you and your staff face on a daily basis protecting
    and conserving our national parks, wildlife refuges, and public
    lands.
        My colleagues and I hope to cover a lot of ground with you
    today. While I may not agree with all of the priorities in this
    budget proposal, I appreciate that we can have a productive
    conversation about the land management issues we are facing and
    the tools you need to manage our lands effectively and
    efficiently.
        Each of your fiscal year 2024 requests are for increases of
    hundreds of millions of dollars, including for initiatives like
    zero-emission vehicles.
        This year, more than ever, we must decide between wants and
    needs. I have said this before, but it is important to repeat
    it: as the Nation faces record inflation, we must be very
    conscious of our decisions on this committee to not saddle
    future generations with unnecessary economic burdens and
    further debt.
        The Republican Conference and the House Appropriations
    Committee have committed to taking meaningful steps to help put
    our country's fiscal house in order.
        In Idaho it is difficult to think of land management
    without first and foremost thinking about threatened and
    endangered species.
        I commend the three of you for your cooperative approach
    you all are taking to conserve the sage grouse through
    collaboration with private landowners and investments in the
    State and Federal lands. The sage grouse has not been listed.
    This is a huge win for conservation and should serve as a
    blueprint for other species.
        On the other end of the success spectrum, again this year,
    we are hearing about growing permitting backlogs for grazing
    and energy and mineral activities. There are continued
    population issues with wild horses and burros, which I am sure
    that my colleague from Utah will bring up, and management
    activities that aren't hitting the mark.
        Many of my colleagues hear from their constituents about
    the increasing demand for access and recreation on our public
    lands. I could go on, but I feel our time would best be used
    with the conversations that we will have. So I look forward to
    working with you on many of these issues, and thank you and
    your staff for their hard work and assistance.
        At this time, I would yield to Ranking Member Pingree for
    her opening statement.

              Opening Statement of Representative Chellie Pingree

        Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Director Stone-Manning, Director Williams, Director Sams,
    thank you for being with us this afternoon. We are pleased to
    talk with you today about the fiscal year 2024 for your bureaus
    and to hear about your thoughts as managers of our country's
    national parks, national wildlife refuges, and public lands.
        I am pleased to see that your budget requests build on the
    historic investments made in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
    and the Inflation Reduction Act to improve the resilience of
    landscapes, reduce wildfire risks, support clean energy
    development on Federal lands, and restore ecosystems.
        We know your bureaus have been challenged with staffing
    shortages as you work to deliver core programs and services to
    the American public and carry out your mission.
        I am pleased your budget requests include significant
    funding increases to strengthen your workforce and support
    these historic infrastructure investments.
        As we confront the challenges of species extinction, I am
    also pleased your requests include investments for species
    conservation and preserving biodiversity. These are essential
    if we are to protect our cultural and natural resources for
    present and future generations.
        I am looking forward to our discussion today on how we
    continue to advance your missions and ensure that American
    families, communities, and economies can benefit from all our
    public lands have to offer. Thanks for being with us today.
        I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Ranking Member Pingree.
        Director Stone-Manning, we look forward to your testimony.
    You may proceed.

      Opening Statement of Tracy Stone-Manning, Director, Bureau of Land
                                   Management

        Ms. Stone-Manning. Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member
    Pingree, and members of the subcommittee, I am Tracy Stone-
    Manning, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. It is
    nice to see you all, and it is nice to be here with my
    colleagues from the Department. Thank you for the opportunity
    to testify on the fiscal year 2024 budget priorities and the
    mission of the BLM.
        We are the Nation's largest land manager, responsible for 1
    in 10 acres in this country. The multiple-use, sustained yield
    mission established by the Federal Land Policy and Management
    Act directs us to sustain the health, diversity, and
    productivity of 245 million acres of public lands and 700
    million acres of mineral estate for multiple uses.
        These lands provide food, fiber, minerals, energy, clean
    water, wildlife habitat, and lifetime memories for countless
    families. They are open to all.
        In fiscal year 2021, public lands managed by the BLM
    supported $201 billion in economic output and 783,000 jobs.
        Equally and vitally important is the work we do to
    conserve, protect, and restore public lands and nationally
    significant landscapes for the benefit of current and future
    generations.
        The President's fiscal year 2024 budget request of $1.7
    billion for the BLM balances our responsibilities and advances
    the Administration's priorities to address the climate crisis,
    accelerate responsible renewable energy development on public
    lands, create family-supporting union jobs, and strengthen
    diversity, equity, and inclusion in our work.
        The proposed budget emphasizes investments to improve the
    health and resilience of public lands from the stresses brought
    on by climate change, such as historic, widespread drought and
    wildland fires of increasing scope and intensity.
        That is why the budget requests $304.3 million for the
    BLM's land resources activity, which provides for management of
    forests, rangelands, and cultural resources, as well as wild
    horses and burros.
        As we transition to the clean energy economy, the
    remarkable solar, wind, and geothermal potential on our public
    lands can and must help meet Congress and the Administration's
    goal of permitting 25 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2025.
        The budget reflects this priority by proposing $72.5
    million in our Renewable Energy Management program, an increase
    of 77 percent.
        I am so pleased that the much-needed investments from the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act
    will enable us to put people to work on public lands restoring
    wildlife habitat and clean water, enabling us to leave these
    lands better off than we found them.
        Conservation is a key part of BLM's mission with over 900
    units of national conservation lands covering about 35 million
    acres, which includes national monuments and wilderness.
        These areas are also the current and ancestral homeland of
    Tribal nations and indigenous peoples, many of whom have deep
    cultural and spiritual connections to these places.
        In addition, our neighbors across the country count on
    public lands managed by BLM as beloved recreation destinations.
    The ever-increasing interest in these lands requires additional
    support, and the budget request for the National Conservation
    Lands program is $11.3 million above the 2023 enacted.
        Throughout all of our work, we prioritize supporting the
    administration's efforts to create good-paying jobs and advance
    environmental justice, a priority that is emphasized in the
    budget request and in our programs to remediate and reclaim
    orphaned wells and abandoned mines.
        The budget also includes an increase of $12 million to help
    us establish and support the Youth Job Corps Program, which
    will enable the BLM to employ young adults and veterans.
        Above all, the proposed budget reflects the
    administration's continued commitment to striking the right
    balance of land conservation and sustainable use of resources.
        It is incumbent on us as professional land managers to
    ensure that these activities are sustainable and beneficial to
    all Americans, regardless of where they live, and to future
    generations.
        We take this responsibility seriously. I take this
    responsibility seriously. I look forward to working with the
    subcommittee to provide us with the tools and resources
    necessary to achieve these important objectives.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.130

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.131

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.132

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.133

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.134

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.135

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.136

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.137

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you for that testimony.
        Director Williams, you may proceed with your statement.

                Opening Statement of Martha Williams, Director,
                         U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

        Ms. Williams. Good morning, Chairman Simpson and Ranking
    Member Pingree and members of the subcommittee. I am Martha
    Williams, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and I
    am honored to join my colleagues today from the National Park
    Service and the BLM, and I am honored to serve alongside them.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Service's
    fiscal year 2024 budget request.
        The Service collaborates with partners across the country
    to fulfill our mission of working with others to conserve,
    protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants, and their
    habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
        Working with others is our identity. We are not the biggest
    agency. You might say we are a small fish in a big sea. But our
    strength lies in the relationships we build with States,
    Tribes, and local partners that help us leverage conservation
    to make a difference in communities all over the country.
        We know we must connect with people and connect people to
    nature, so that every day, every one of us can benefit from
    clean air, clean water, thriving wildlife populations, and the
    functioning habitat they depend on, and access to the outdoors
    no matter where you are or where you live. It matters for our
    well-being, for our businesses, and for our communities.
        I know you are all familiar with our work, but few know the
    breadth of it. The Fish and Wildlife Service works with
    partners, States, Tribes, sister Federal agencies, and local
    governments through all of our programs, whether ecological
    services, the National Wildlife Refuge System, migratory birds,
    fisheries and aquatic conservation, the Office of Law
    Enforcement, international affairs, communications, the
    National Conservation Training Center, the Wildlife and Sport
    Fish Restoration Program, technology and administration.
        We use grant programs, provide technical assistance, join
    migratory bird flyway councils, work with communities to design
    fish passages, deliver urban wildlife conservation, stock and
    conserve fish, to make sure that iconic species that we all
    know and love, and even the crazy little and unsung species
    that you may not have heard of, are here into the future.
        We serve the public through fighting fires, providing law
    enforcement for refuges, and as backup when needed and called
    upon by our other partners, or provide visitor services, and so
    much more.
        The key is that we always do this with others. We support
    our partners' efforts to protect wildlife habitat, conserve
    wildlife species, ensure sustainable hunting, educate the next
    generation of hunters, improve local docks and marinas, and
    contain the spread of invasive species.
        We also work with private landowners across the country,
    with our partners for Fish and Wildlife program, migratory bird
    joint ventures, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act,
    and others, providing technical and financial assistance to
    landowners as they work to conserve wildlife habitat on their
    private lands.
        It is also essential for us to build and maintain
    government-to-government relationships with Tribes. We are
    following the Secretary's leadership to pursue co-stewardship
    of the lands, wildlife, and fish that are a cornerstone of
    tribal culture.
        One example of leveraging money and impact is our Fish
    Passage Program, through which we have collaborated with
    conservation groups and local stakeholders to remove over 3,400
    barriers to fish passage at dams, culverts, streams, and other
    sites to ensure that we have healthier fish populations,
    reduced erosion, and cleaner water.
        Building on this ongoing effort, in July we cosponsored a
    National Fish Passage Infrastructure Law workshop with more
    than 100 partners from State agencies, Tribes, NGOs, and other
    Federal agencies.
        So far, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding has
    supported 184 fish passage projects coordinated across five
    Federal agencies for a total of $259 million.
        This year is the 50th anniversary of the Endangered Species
    Act. We are making progress in protecting, recovering, and
    delisting species. Two months ago, in partnership with the
    Department of Defense, we delisted the San Clemente Bell's
    sparrow, one of the species you may not have heard of, and four
    other species.
        Because of the work we can do through our partnerships,
    hundreds of species are stable, recovering, or recovered, from
    the Louisiana black bear to the Aleutian Canada goose.
        At the Service, we are incredibly grateful for the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and how it has proven to be a
    catalyst for conservation.
        This past year, the Service used $111 million of BIL
    funding to support over 300 projects across the country, from
    improving water quality in the Delaware River Basin, to aquatic
    invasive species control around Lake Tahoe, to restoration and
    fish hatchery innovation in the Klamath, to capping orphan oil
    and gas wells in Louisiana and Oklahoma.
        The Service is putting BIL funding to work across the
    country.
        Creating and supporting these partnerships and projects
    requires a talented and dedicated workforce. The Fish and
    Wildlife Service's employees are our greatest asset. They
    manage habitat on refuges, produce healthy fish at hatcheries,
    take care of our amazing national wildlife refuges, and when
    doing so, I must say, our maintenance professionals, I feel
    like they can fix anything.
        They work with project proponents in ecological services
    field offices and help them comply with the Endangered Species
    Act to get projects through always in a hurry.
        And they conserve species internationally, put their lives
    on the line in law enforcement and fighting fires, and do so
    much more.
        To support the Service's capacity to expand these
    partnerships, the Administration is proposing a budget of $2.2
    billion to fund the Service's resource management and
    conservation programs, an increase of $315 million.
        These increases address the Service's need for additional
    workforce capacity to work more quickly and thoroughly to
    review development projects, to expand hunting and fishing
    opportunities, to keep our visitors engaged and safe.
        We need to invest in these important goals, and I will
    touch a little bit on what building our capacity can do.
        The Service----
        Mr. Simpson. Quickly.
        Ms. Williams. Yes. The Ecological Services Program helps
    bring species back to recovery, protects species. The budget
    request proposes an $88.5 million increase which will help
    right-size our workforce.
        Our budget also includes a roughly $30 million increase for
    the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program to support
    collaborative efforts that improve habitat and keep working
    lands working.
        We will also invest $3 million in connecting wildlife
    corridors to allow species to move across the landscape.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify. If enacted, this
    budget will make a significant difference in our ability to
    conserve natural resources in partnership with others for the
    benefit of all Americans.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
        Ms. Williams. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.138

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.139

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.140

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.141

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.142

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.143

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.144

                   Opening Statement of Chuck Sams, Director,
                           the National Park Service

        Mr. Simpson. Last but certainly not least, we have Director
    Sams from the National Park Service.
        You may proceed with our opening statement. And all three
    of your official submitted testimonies will be included in the
    record.
        Mr. Sams. Chairman Simpson, members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on the
    fiscal year 2024 budget request for the National Park Service.
    I also feel very privileged to be joining my sister bureau
    directors from U.S. Fish and Wildlife and BLM to appear before
    you today.
        I would like to summarize my testimony and submit my entire
    statement for the record.
        I want to begin by thanking Chairman Simpson and Ranking
    Member Pingree for our recent visits. I appreciate the
    opportunity to hear your priorities and was pleased that so
    many of our goals align for the future of our parks and our
    dedicated employees.
        I also want to thank the subcommittee for your support of
    the National Park Service in fiscal year 2023. Over the past
    year, I have visited parks across the country and seen
    firsthand some of the challenges they are facing, like recovery
    from natural disasters, adapting to increased or changing
    visitation, and the need to expand the breadth of the stories
    we are telling.
        I have also seen and heard from our employees about how
    much recent funding increases through fiscal year 2023's
    appropriations, the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law, and the Great American Outdoors Act are
    making an impact.
        I thank you for your support, and I am pleased to share
    with you how our fiscal year 2024 budget will support that
    continued progress.
        The discretionary budget request for the National Park
    Service is $3.8 billion, an increase of $289.2 million compared
    to fiscal year 2023 enacted funding.
        I want to highlight a few components with you--
    conservation, racial justice, capacity, and housing.
        Our request proposes an additional $110.7 million in
    Service-wide investments to protect park resources from 21st
    century threats.
        Fundamental to this effort is an $86.8 million increase in
    operational funding to enhance natural resource capacity,
    expand youth corps programs that support conservation, and
    improve climate risk assessments and responses for our cultural
    resources.
        We also propose installing additional charging
    infrastructure to support the transition to zero-emission
    vehicles, complete climate vulnerability assessments, and
    better position the agency to respond to natural disasters.
        The fiscal year 2024 budget proposes $32.3 million in
    increased investments to advance racial justice and equity for
    underserved communities, including strengthening our Nation-to-
    Nation relationship with Tribes.
        The budget supports an additional $7.1 million for expanded
    Tribal co-stewardship of Park resources, $2.5 million to
    increase tourism that benefits Tribes, $2.5 million in
    dedicated funding for Tribal Heritage Grants, and $1 million
    for management of subsistence uses of NPS lands and waters in
    Alaska.
        The initiative also supports funds to improve physical and
    programmatic accessibility and invests in new parks, like the
    New Philadelphia National Historic Site and Blackwell School
    National Historic Site.
        The fiscal year 2024 request also invests in our employees.
    The National Park Service has lost almost 19 percent of our
    operations capacity since 2011.
        Over the same period, over 30 units have been added to the
    National Park System, and annual visitation has increased by
    more than 30 million.
        To help meet this demand, the budget seeks $25.4 million to
    support an additional 170 full-time employees. This increase
    will address new and critical responsibilities across the parks
    and bolster the U.S. Park Police and Special Agents program.
        Lastly, the budget proposes an increase of $7 million to
    construct, improve, and modernize housing for our employees,
    which remains a critical issue at parks, with insufficient
    available or affordable housing nearby.
        Finally, I am pleased to update you on the progress to
    implement the Great American Outdoors Act.
        Funding from the Legacy Restoration Fund has provided us
    almost $3.9 billion for deferred maintenance. We have obligated
    more than $1.4 billion with over 70 projects underway and more
    starting this year.
        From the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the National
    Park Service has received nearly $300 million for the land
    acquisition activities and over $1 billion for State grant
    programs, matched by non-Federal funds, for a total impact of
    at least $2 billion.
        Chairman, this concludes my summary, and thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today and for your continued support of
    the National Park Service.
        I would be happy to answer any and all your questions.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.145

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.146

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.147

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.148

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.149

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.150

                         LAVARIDGE WIND ENERGY PROJECT

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you for your testimony.
        Director Stone-Manning, you are probably anticipating a
    little question about Lava Ridge, in fact several of them on
    here.
        Magic Valley Energy has proposed the Lava Ridge Wind
    Project, a 400-unit wind turbine field on 73,000 acres of BLM
    property adjacent to the Minidoka National Historic Site, 25
    miles northeast of Twin Falls, Idaho. If built, it would be one
    of the largest in the United States.
        The proposed turbines would stand at 740 feet tall. To put
    it in perspective, that height is greater than the Washington
    Monument or the Seattle Space Needle, with each turbine being
    comparable to the length of a Boeing 747.
        It is safe to say that, if approved, the Lava Ridge Wind
    Project will forever change the landscape in southern Idaho.
    Affected farmers, ranchers, Tribes, Japanese-American
    community, and sportsmen have voiced legitimate objections. As
    it stands today, the local community predominantly has not
    shown support for this development. In fact, no one has called
    me and said they support this.
        This project is part of a greater initiative related to
    renewable energy and the Magic Valley seems to be the target
    for these developments.
        I find myself questioning at this point, will the pressure
    to increase renewable energy trump the impacts to species and
    cultural sites?
        Question. How would the operation of these turbines and the
    assorted towers located affect birds of prey and avian
    populations such as sage grouse?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Chairman Simpson, thank you for the
    question. And as you know, as the whole subcommittee knows, we
    are working hard to meet Congress' request that we get 25
    gigawatts of renewable energy, and the President's request that
    we get 25 gigawatts of renewable energy, onto our public lands
    by 2025.
        And we are working hard on the Lava Ridge proposal,
    listening carefully to your constituents on the ground. And I
    hope you see that we heard a bunch of the concerns with the
    draft preferred alternatives that are currently the source of
    much public conversation in a public comment period.
        It is a terrific example about how we all work together. I
    have worked with Director Sams and his team and Director
    Williams and her teams on digging in and making sure that we
    preserve the desolate feel at the Minidoka site, so people
    understand what it was like to be interred there.
        And some of the changes you saw in the draft were because
    of sage grouse. And we are also looking at the bird of prey
    issue. And we will continue to refine that work before the
    final comes out.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. And I will say that the hearing
    they held down--BLM held down in Twin Falls was very well
    attended, and I thought it was very respectful both by BLM and
    by the people that were there.
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Yeah. Glad to hear that.
        Mr. Simpson. How would project construction, operation, and
    maintenance affect available livestock forage and subsequent
    active grazing permits?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Thanks for that question as well, Chair
    Simpson.
        It is my understanding that the company is working with the
    permittees on how those disruptions could be made up for in an
    equitable way.
        But ultimately you can have cattle grazing and wind
    development in the same spot. I understand that the
    construction is a real issue. But ultimately the two can
    coincide.
        Mr. Simpson. What is the rough timeline for a decision to
    be made on large-scale wind and solar energy projects proposed
    on Bureau of Land Management land?
        And I understand, as we have talked about this when you
    were in my office, that that valley is kind of a target because
    there is going to be many different proposed wind turbines and
    stuff in there because of its location and the wind that goes
    through there.
        And actually it is not that the wind blows in Idaho, it is
    that Utah sucks is what we--no, that was a joke for years and
    years in Idaho. I am glad Stewart left before I said that.
        Anyway, can you remember the question now?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. I can, I think, what are the timelines?
    So, we are currently--at Lava Ridge, we are currently right in
    the middle of the NEPA process. We extended the comment period
    to the end of this week, as I think you know--or actually into
    April.
        And it depends on the amount of comments that we get and
    the substance of those comments for how long it is going to
    take us to really properly incorporate them into our final, but
    I expect something by this fall or this winter.
        And you are right, those proposals are coming because there
    is a transmission line slated there that was Congressionally
    mandated, and the projects are going to follow those lines.

                                VIRTUAL FENCING

        Mr. Simpson. Yeah. Thank you for that.
        I want to ask one more question before my time is up.
        Last week I had the BLM Idaho in my district office--or my
    D.C. office. One of the initiatives I was interested in
    learning about that I had never heard about before was the
    testing of virtual fencing for grazing animal plots.
        Could you share with us the extent to which virtual fencing
    has been plotted in the United States? And are there potential
    cost savings associated with transition to this? And I
    understand they are doing some of that in Colorado.
    Fascinating.
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Chairman Simpson, we are in the middle
    of pilot projects in Colorado, and I think there might be one
    in Idaho, and I will double check on that for you.
        I am really excited about this technology. You know, barbed
    wire helped settle the West, but we don't necessarily need it
    anymore now that satellites can literally help guide where
    cattle go.
        And it will help us, I think, get really smart about
    rotational grazing in a really thoughtful way that is going to
    help us get through some of these issues on the landscape
    because of climate change.
        So we are working with our partners, permittees, through
    pilot projects now, and I hope that it grows.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
        Ms. Pingree.

                   POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF BUDGET CUTS IN FY2024

        Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you all for being here. Thank you for your testimony.
    It is good to have a chance to speak with all of you, and I
    appreciate so much the work that you do.
        In a recent response to a request from our committee,
    Secretary Haaland, who was here earlier, provided a letter that
    highlighted some of the difficult cuts that might be faced if
    we were to return to fiscal 2022 year funding levels.
        So could you each just talk briefly about what you think
    the impact would be in your department? Maybe we start with
    Director Williams and just go through.
        Ms. Williams. Thank you, Ranking Member Pingree.
        Returning to the 2022 funding levels would be devastating
    for the Fish and Wildlife Service for a number of reasons.
        First off for our national wildlife refuges, where we are
    already--we have 800 fewer staff than we did in 2013. We have
    309 unstaffed refuges. So to have those cuts would be very
    difficult to provide the services that I think the communities
    who hold refuges dear look to use those refuges for.
        In addition, the Endangered Species Act requires, for
    projects undertaken by other Federal agencies, the Service to
    do section 7 consultation on those projects, and we have had an
    over 30 percent increase in project reviews.
        And I am afraid we would become a bottleneck, and we would
    slow those projects down from getting delivered on the ground.
    And so we would have to make employee cuts for that instead of
    being able to ramp up to meet that growing need.
        So those are two very specific examples, but it would be
    difficult for the Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Ms. Pingree. Thank you for that.
        We just had the EPA director in talking about the
    consultation on pesticide review, and I know that is already a
    bottleneck. So we don't want to increase that.
        Director Sams.
        Mr. Sams. The proposal would have real and damaging effects
    on the country and the National Park Service in particular.
        Reductions would be difficult for the National Park Service
    because as an organization we rely heavily on staff. And with
    nearly 30 percent of Interior's full-time employees, it would
    require us to do hiring freezes, deep cuts to seasonal
    employees in our parks, and furloughs of permanent employees,
    and we could lose as many as 5,000 FTEs from our workforce.
        Seeing significant impacts to parks operations, we would
    end up having to close visitor centers, reduce trash collection
    and facility cleaning, reduce ranger-led programs, and likely
    see delays in plowing operations and emergency response time.
        We would reduce the number of wildland firefighters across
    our fire bureaus, including the National Park Service. We have
    between 1,000 to 1,700 positions total. It would be very
    devastating to see nearly 30 percent of them just gone.
        Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much.
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, thank you for the
    question. Chairman Simpson and I discussed this a little bit in
    his office as well.
        It is my understanding that fiscal year 2022 budget would
    also have to absorb increases elsewhere, so we could be seeing
    a 25 percent decrease in the Bureau's budget.
        And if that were to be the case, we simply would not be
    serving the American people, and we would be failing the
    future.
        I hear often, because it is true, that business needs
    certainty. We are currently working on 68 renewable energy
    solar projects with 120 coming right behind them. We need
    people to get those projects analyzed to figure out if they are
    the right projects for the right places.
        Same goes with oil and gas permitting. We take a real hit
    to that program and the ability to deliver the certainty that
    is there now.
        I am really concerned about what it would do to our fire
    work and the work we do to prevent fire from harming
    communities around our lands. The hazardous fuels reduction
    work, that takes people on the ground doing hard work.
        And finally, we have this remarkable opportunity under the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act
    to do real, meaningful restoration on our public lands that
    will help things like fire resilience, and we just won't be
    able to get that work done.
        Ms. Pingree. Great. Thank you, everyone.
        I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Simpson. Ms. McCollum.

                      UPDATES ON BUREAU OPERATIONAL ISSUES

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The employees of the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and
    Wildlife, National Park Service, you are the guardians. You are
    the guardians and caretakers of our great national treasures--
    public lands, waters, natural and cultural resources--and we
    thank you for your work.
        And I am pleased to have worked, along with Chair Pingree
    and others, over the last few years to support the essential
    work that you do.
        So I am going to ask each of you a question, but I am going
    to do it in a rolling order.
        Director Sams, you mentioned what would happen to the
    backbone of the Park Service, its employees, but if you could
    give us a couple examples or some concerns you have about
    backlog and maintenance of facilities.
        Director Stone-Manning, I am concerned that the Bureau is
    still suffering from lost staff needed to implement its
    programs. Under the previous administration, BLM's headquarters
    was relocated from D.C. to Grand Junction, Colorado, without
    any input from Congress. It was a unilateral decision.
        This cost the Bureau 87 percent of its headquarters staff.
    And these are the people who prepare all the reports that we
    are asking for and that the public needs. It was 320 positions
    that were there; 287 did not relocate.
        Could you maybe tell us how that workforce replenishment is
    going and how that has contributed to some of the backlog that
    you have?
        And then to you, Ms. Williams, climate change and its
    effects on some of the infrastructure projects that we
    currently have. For example, the Minnesota Valley National
    Wildlife Refuge is increasingly seeing its trail system go
    under water during parts of the year. And we are also seeing
    now, in the upper Mississippi, invasive carp.
        So could you tell me some of the things in your budget, not
    only for investing in conservation work for endangered species,
    but you are starting to develop, because of climate change, a
    backlog at Minnesota Valley National Refuge. I am sure it is
    happening elsewhere where you now have new maintenance you have
    to do.
        Mr. Sams. So I will start. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        So first and foremost, the budget balances a continuing
    commitment to address the maintenance backlog. We have a $22.3
    billion backlog. We have over 75,000 structures and pieces as a
    bureau.
        In addition to the $1.3 billion from the GAOA Legacy
    Restoration Fund, the budget proposes over $970 million to
    prevent or eliminate deferred maintenance from multiple
    sources, including line item construction, cyclic maintenance,
    Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, and Federal Lands
    Transportation.
        If those funds were cut, we would be further put behind in
    being able to get those. And there is a big expectation from
    the American people that we make sure these investments are out
    there. But I can only do that with having the boots on the
    ground to carry out and implement the Great American Outdoors
    Act and the LRF funding. And that is with the help of even our
    consultants and construction folks who are helping us get those
    done.
        And so any major cut to that would further put us back in
    deferred maintenance and only make this backlog continue to
    grow for the American people.
        Ms. McCollum. Ms. Manning.
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, thank you for the
    question.
        I am committed to rebuilding the BLM into the robust agency
    that the American people deserve and that the future deserves
    and that our public lands deserve.
        And not only did we lose bodies, we lost hundreds of years
    of institutional knowledge, and that is going to take time to
    rebuild for all the obvious reasons.
        But when it comes to rebuilding, I am starting sort of from
    the ground up. We have hired 60 HR people, for example, in the
    last couple of years, so that we can do the work to go get the
    people we need.
        We have got some leadership back in place. More are coming.
    The move had downstream effects, because some people left State
    offices to move into the headquarters when it moved West. So
    those vacancies remain as well.
        We are taking advantage of this to say: What workforce do
    we need for the challenges ahead? So we are doing a workforce
    analysis. We are also putting together recruiting tools to get
    out onto our campuses to bring a crop of young Americans into
    public service.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        Ms. Williams. Thank you, Representative McCollum. You raise
    two very important issues for all of us, and that is climate
    change and climate's impact on our public lands and then also
    invasive species.
        So for climate change, our budget request does include the
    capacity that I mentioned for our refuge staff to be able to
    build and rebuild this infrastructure. It does require an all-
    of-government approach.
        There is a task force for the Department of the Interior.
    We are looking at climate across the board for the Fish and
    Wildlife Service, but then also very specifically, for example,
    for the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge.
        We also have specific money for invasive carp and are
    working with partners and continuing those projects that are
    very important.
        And I would add for invasive species, we know how important
    it is to address invasive carp, but also early detection and
    rapid response is something that we are all paying attention
    to, because if we can prevent the invasive species, we can save
    that habitat destruction by preventing the invasive species
    from taking hold.
        So thank you for asking those questions.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Kilmer.

                   JAPANESE AMERICAN CONFINEMENT SITE GRANTS

        Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thanks all for being
    with us.
        Director Sams, I wanted to just direct a few questions for
    you. And obviously exciting to have a leader who is from the
    Northwest leading the Park Service, and I want to recognize the
    significance of you being the first Tribal citizen to hold this
    role.
        As you know, during World War II, thousands of Japanese
    Americans across our country were forced from their homes as a
    consequence of an executive order that authorized the exclusion
    of Japanese Americans.
        That was a very dark chapter. Thousands of Japanese
    Americans from Washington State were incarcerated. In my
    district on Bainbridge Island, 227 Japanese Americans were
    forced to leave, boarding a ferry at Eagledale to begin a
    journey that would put them in internment camps for the
    duration of the war.
        A memorial, which is managed by the Park Service, is now
    located at that ferry dock, which is a way of commemorating
    that dark chapter.
        I want to thank you for including the Japanese American
    Confinement Sites Grants in your written testimony. It is, I
    think, a critical program that supports that memorial and many
    sites around the country.
        I guess I wanted to just ask you to elaborate a bit on the
    progress made in establishing the competitive criteria and
    other specifications for that program. I would love to get a
    sense of how the National Park Service intends to strengthen
    its work on preserving and interpreting those sites.
        There is a keen interest in providing more active visitor
    experience there on Bainbridge Island. And I would love to just
    hear how the committee can support that and you in these
    efforts.
        Mr. Sams. Well, thank you, Representative Kilmer.
        So, yes, that is an important part of our history as is
    looking back on it so we don't ever repeat that mistake again,
    especially to American citizens of any group or ethnicity in
    this country.
        We continue to work very closely with the Japanese-American
    community, a number of folks from historical World War II, to
    ensure that the grants are competitive in your home State, and
    in Bainbridge and Minidoka, also now at Amache, in figuring out
    how we continue to preserve these places.
        In my own home State, across the Oregon border, we also had
    one of the encampments.
        Being able to ensure that the different voices are being
    heard. We are losing that generation very quickly. And so we
    are actively working to ensure that we get that money out the
    door so that we can capture those stories and those stories can
    be told in full throat at these places that are so important to
    tell.

                      TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICES

        Mr. Kilmer. I also wanted to thank you for including the
    Historic Preservation Fund in your testimony. There are a
    number of Tribes in the Northwest that have Tribal Historic
    Preservation Offices, THPOs, that consult with Federal agencies
    and others to protect and preserve and revitalize places of
    historical and cultural significance to Tribes.
        Can you just say a word or two, Director Sams, about the
    importance of THPOs for protecting these sites and comment on
    how the Park Service ensures appropriate Tribal consultation?
        Mr. Sams. You know, I can speak from personal understanding
    and working very close with our own Tribal Historic
    Preservation Officer on the Umatilla Indian Reservation, in
    which we had to work very hard to get back the Kennewick Man,
    or as we call him, the Ancient One.
        Mr. Kilmer. Yeah.
        Mr. Sams. And so that work that Tribal Historic
    Preservation Officers do, not just in my own home territory and
    your home territory but across the Nation, is critical in order
    to protect those who passed before us, the funerary objects,
    and the things that have been taken away and put in museums and
    held in both public and private collections, and how Tribes can
    go and reacquire those and work in partnership with those
    institutions if they wish to display them in such a way that
    would tell a much fuller story.
        And so ensuring that when we looked at the budget we put
    support in there for more Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
    each year. We are able to expand that program, which is also
    part of the Tribes' self-governance, and work in partnership
    with States and State Historic Preservation Officers.
        Mr. Kilmer. Great. I see I am on yellow. I have another
    question, but I will wait until the next round, Mr. Chair.
    Thanks.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Stewart.
        Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And for all of you being here.
        I had to step out briefly to take a meeting. I wish I had
    been here because apparently there was an unprovoked attack on
    my beautiful State by the Chairman. I wish I had been here----

                          WILD HORSE AND BURRO PROGRAM

        Mr. Simpson. Well, I am sure that the National Park
    Service, Mr. Sams, loves Utah. You have got more national parks
    there than just about anywhere else in this country.
        Mr. Stewart. That is true, that is true. We are going to
    talk about that.
        So a couple things, if I could, Director, good news and bad
    news.
        One is, thanks for your help on wild horses. Again, the
    chairman mentioned that I have become, or at least I was known
    as being kind of a one-trick pony, if you will--no pun
    intended--on wild horses because they became a very important
    issue in my State.
        The good news is, is we are making progress. We do need
    more gathers. I think we need more contraception for the
    gathered horses. We are worried about the cost of feed. The
    cost of hay is obviously much, much higher.
        We are worried that you will back off on gathering because
    of that, and I wish you wouldn't. And we will try and get you
    more money to cover the cost of the additional feed. Because we
    can't give up the progress that we have made on this so far.
        So comments on that, if you would, just broadly, but if
    not, I will move on.
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I couldn't agree more. We
    have made 2 years of really solid progress with the numbers
    going down. But those are mouths that we need to feed when they
    are off the range. And the problem I am facing is that it used
    to cost $4 per animal per day for the care and feeding of those
    horses, and now it is $7.
        Mr. Stewart. Yeah.
        Ms. Stone-Manning. So I'm going to need your help.
        Mr. Stewart. And we are aware of that. And once again, we
    just hope--we can't stop gathering because of that. And again,
    I would encourage the use of contraception because this is a
    lousy existence for these horses.
        I have got some of those corrals, these pastures, they call
    them, in Utah, and you have got hundreds and hundreds of horses
    all sitting in a pen that seems to be about as big as this, and
    they are just standing there in the dust. It is a lousy life
    for them.
        Thanking you for that.

                  GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT

        Now a concern, if I could, Grand Staircase-Escalante
    National Monument. The State is a cooperating agency, a
    cooperating agency in designing those plans. I know you know
    that. I would ask you if they were, but the answer is clearly
    they are.
        But they don't feel like they have been treated like a
    cooperating agency. And when we talk about the grazing rights
    and other things associated with that, I mean, that is
    enormously important to the local community.
        And the great fear is that they are going to be pushed
    aside and not considered. And I would ask for your commitment
    that you will include the State and the local communities who
    have a stake in this and have a legal and a moral right to be
    involved with the planning of these new management plans.
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, the State is a cooperator.
    And I would like to believe we work really closely with Utah.
    They have been a help to me in understanding the issues in your
    State, and we are in touch with them on everything from sage
    grouse to monuments to connectivity and more.
        So you have my commitment that we will continue to hear the
    voices of the State as we put that management plan together.
        Mr. Stewart. Well, and I appreciate that. And I notice in
    your biography you talk about bipartisan legislation, and you
    are proud of being bipartisan.
        Ms. Stone-Manning. I am.
        Mr. Stewart. But there is a difference too between being
    heard and actually--because we can hear anything, but if you
    don't actually consider and then adjust plans according to
    their priorities.
        Now, I know that you can't allow the State to write these
    management plans. You can't allow the counties to write these
    management plans.
        But again, there is a difference just being heard and then
    feel like, well, they heard me, but then they ignored
    everything I said.
        And so I appreciate you being willing to listen to them,
    but I also ask you to take the next step, and that is try to
    accommodate some of their very legitimate concerns.
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I hear you and I will. We
    need to marry the concerns of folks on the ground with what the
    proclamation asks us to do.
        Mr. Stewart. Thank you. And we are going to push on that.
    And we look forward to other conversations about that as well.
        Mr. Sams, thank you. I am going to just very quickly in the
    minute and 8 seconds, I think, as I can see.

                 VISITOR MANAGEMENT PLANS IN ZION NATIONAL PARK

        Talking about visitor management plans in State parks,
    especially Zion National Park, which is one of my favorite
    places in the world to be.
        We want to keep and protect a good experience for people to
    go there. If they go to a national park, you don't want it to
    feel like you just hung out at Walmart for the afternoon,
    walking through crowded aisles and surrounded by people.
        But on the other hand, if you implement some of the
    reservation plans and reduce the numbers, then you are
    essentially locking out people from their own backyard, because
    people in Utah won't have access, and others.
        And I would make the same point if I could. And again I
    will allow you to respond. But the State and the local counties
    are technically, statutorily, they are cooperating agencies,
    they get to have a say in this.
        And I will just tell you, this is a very important issue to
    me. And we are going to push back really, really hard if they
    come up with numbers that we don't understand the science
    behind it and if people in Utah feel like they are locked out
    of going into their own national parks.
        Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman Stewart.
        So, yeah, so last year I visited over 60 parks across the
    country and went both in low and high seasons, on the shoulders
    and on the high seasons, to really try to understand this.
        And your particular park I haven't gotten to yet, but
    visitation at Zion has grown from 2.7 million in 2010 to over 5
    million in 2021. It has more than doubled in many places.
        The NPS is currently preparing the Visitor Use Management
    Plan and the accompanying environmental assessment for Zion
    National Park in cooperation with the State of Utah, the
    relevant county governments, the town of Springdale, and our
    partners at the Bureau of Land Management. And we are committed
    to that.
        But I also agree with my staff that what might work at Zion
    may not work at Acadia. So we are looking at this very closely
    at what the gateway communities want, what the State wants, to
    ensure that we recognize we are in somebody's backyard.
        Mr. Stewart. Okay and thank you. We will continue to talk
    with you.
        Mr. Sams. Thank you.
        Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Harder.

                               NUTRIA ERADICATION

        Mr. Harder. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
        I have a special guest for our hearing. Director Williams,
    you might recognize my good friend, Nellie the Nutria. It has
    been a few years since she has appeared at a congressional
    hearing, but she was able to fit us into her tight schedule.
        Nellie the Nutria is a swamp rat, an invasive species. She
    can grow up to 40 pounds, eat a quarter of her body weight
    every single day. One female nutria can reproduce 200 offspring
    a year. These suckers grow exponentially.
        They are endemic in Louisiana, as you know well. And if we
    didn't take action in California, we were at a moment where we
    would have up to 500,000 of these swamp rats destroying our
    wetlands, damaging our almond trees, and causing havoc
    everywhere.
        This is one of the few issues in Congress where $1 saves us
    $10 or $100 by eradicating this invasive species.
        However, I was shocked and devastated and disappointed to
    see that the proposed budget that we are talking about today
    cuts the nutria eradication budget by almost 61 percent. I
    don't think that makes a lot of sense. She may look cute right
    here, but I can tell you she causes a lot of harm in the
    wetlands.
        What are you going to do to help us make sure that we can
    address this shortfall and ensure that she stays in a museum
    and not on an almond farm?
        Ms. Williams. Congressman Harder, it is hard to know where
    to start with that. I am somewhat delighted, but not
    completely, to be joined by Nellie the Nutria, because she may
    be interesting here, but I do understand nutria create a
    serious problem. So it is a serious issue.
        An example is, I went to the Blackwater National Wildlife
    Refuge and saw how well they have done eradicating nutria in
    the Delmarva Peninsula. So we know we can do it. It takes money
    and it takes partners and effort, but we can do that.
        So it is very important that we continue our nutria
    eradication efforts across the country. As I said earlier, with
    other invasive species, early detection, rapid response is the
    way to go, but once they are there, we need to eradicate. We
    are working very closely with APHIS at USDA to address nutria
    across the country and notably in California.
        So we are putting money toward nutria, we are paying
    attention, and I agree, it is a serious concern.
        Mr. Harder. Thank you. I agree, you are putting money, but
    you are putting 60 percent less, or planning to put 60 percent
    less towards it.
        Do you think that is going to be enough to fully eradicate
    nutria from California in the next 3 to 5 years, which was the
    plan under the bill that we passed unanimously just a few years
    ago in the House, the Senate, and was signed by the last
    President?
        Ms. Williams. Congressman Harder, I look forward to getting
    back to you with more specifics, but it was my understanding it
    was an earmark in FY2023 and with the timing of the budget
    coming out, we were unaware of that when we made our budget
    decisions and it looks like we were cutting this.
        So I will get back to you on exactly what we will do going
    forward, and I believe that was a matter of timing, not a
    matter of defunding this effort.
        I appreciate the question.
        [The information follows:]

                          FUNDING TO ERADICATE NUTRIA

        Over the past few years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    (Service) has been working closely with partners to control
    invasive nutria in California. We are still optimistic that
    nutria eradication is possible in the state. Since the first
    nutria were detected in the state in 2017, the San Juis
    National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex) has coordinated
    closely with partners and stakeholders, including the
    California Department of Food and Agriculture, the California
    Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), USDA APHIS Wildlife
    Services, County Commissioners, and other Service staff to
    advance the shared goals of eradicating/controlling nutria,
    establishing common protocols, and fostering a unified
    response. the Service meets regularly with CDFW and other
    partners on an Executive Committee to address overarching
    issues and coordinated response to eradication.
        The Service's National FAC-AIS program is providing
    approximately $100,000 annually to CDFW through the State Plans
    Grant Program, with CDFW directing some of the funding to
    nutria eradication. In 2021/2022, the Service's Refuges program
    also allocated about $300,000-$350,000 for nutria eradication.
    With the increased funding provided in the 2023 Enacted budget,
    the Service is planning to provide an additional $331,000 in
    Partners for Fish and Wildlife funding and $600,000 in Refuges
    Wildlife and Habitat Management funding to our Pacific
    Southwest Region. At the requested level, we will be able to
    continue the base funding level.

        Mr. Harder. Terrific. And I hope that is the case, and we
    would love to work with you to make sure that this effort is
    fully funded.
        These are an exponential problem. And if you go in
    Louisiana, you can't go two steps without one of these suckers.
    We don't want the same thing happening in California.
        They have been found in Illinois. Many other States are
    having nutria problems. And because they may look cute but they
    do breed so quickly, 200 offspring every single year, if you
    let even one go off, it causes a problem. You will have to pay
    millions of dollars more where it could have cost you just a
    couple cents to get it right the first time.
        So we were thrilled to get this bill across the finish
    line, but it is not going to mean much if we are not going to
    be able to fully fund these eradication efforts.
        I have spent time putting on waders, going into the
    wetlands myself. I know it works. I know these eradication
    efforts are successful.
        Every single environmental advocate, every single farmer in
    our district is on board with this effort, and we want to make
    sure this program is a huge success.
        And I want to thank the team that is on the ground. I just
    want to make sure that the team on the ground is fully funded
    to get this across the finish line for good.
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Chair, Representative Harder, if I may, I
    would be delighted to go with you on the ground and with waders
    on and following the canines that also sniff out for nutria. So
    I look forward to doing that.
        Mr. Harder. Absolutely. We would love to do it. My hope is,
    by the time we get there, we don't find any because we have
    been successful at eradicating this, for sure.
        Mr. Chair, you are always welcome to put on some waders and
    come out into our wetlands and we will maybe even go duck
    hunting.
        Mr. Simpson. Can we go duck hunting?
        Mr. Harder. You can go duck hunting as well.
        But, no, these are actually, it is a pellet gun. They
    actually, they capture one, they sterilize it, and then it is
    called the Judas nutria program. They release them back into
    the wild to sniff out the den and make sure we get them for
    good. So that is my understanding.
        Mr. Simpson. I have often said that I am not going to the
    Everglades until they get rid of though pythons down there
    because those will swallow you alive. But I will wait until you
    eradicate them.
        Mr. Harder. There we go.
        Mr. Simpson. Thanks for bringing your pet today.
        Mr. Harder. I will get it out of here.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Amodei.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Stone-Manning, I am going to congratulate you first
    for, when they had to pick between wild horses and those
    things, you picked wild horses, and I think you did the right
    thing. No offense to Mr. Harder. We had first pick and we made
    it last for once.
        I won't go into whether the Utah thing was unprovoked,
    although I do find it interesting that somebody from the
    Beehive State is talking about contraception, and I will let it
    go at that.
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah. It is kind of weird, isn't it?

                   WILD HORSES ON THE SHELDON ANTELOPE RANGE

        Mr. Amodei. Director Williams, it has historically been
    Fish and Wildlife's position that, for instance, on the Sheldon
    National Antelope Range, that wild horses are inconsistent
    with--and cows too, let's be fair--are inconsistent with the
    goals of the Service in areas like that, especially when you
    are talking about sage hen, which is what some of us lesser
    educated people refer to the sage grouse as.
        And so can you just tell me briefly, what is Fish and
    Wildlife doing to cooperate with BLM on wild horses?
        I am trying to start a little fight here in case anybody.
    Go right ahead.
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Chair and Congressman Amodei, well, I
    would say, if you want to start a little fight, I am very proud
    of the work that we all do together, including sorting through
    some very difficult issues that have been around for a long
    time. I believe this is one.

                    Remarks from Representative Mark Amodei

        Mr. Amodei. And I appreciate that. And so I will follow-up
    with you, not during the committee meeting, to talk about how
    there can be more collaboration.
        Don't think you are off the hook, Mr. Sams. Employee
    housing is something that you mentioned, and it is like you are
    way ahead of the folks down here in the BLM in terms of
    employee housing.
        So I would just like to ask you if you would share with the
    folks over at the Bureau how you have--and I know it is a long
    history, but you have got a long history and there were reasons
    for it. But if there are lessons to be learned, we dearly need
    to know how we basically can hire GS-6 through 9s at the
    present rates and make it affordable for them to live in the
    communities we ask them to work in, because it ain't right now.
        So I will appreciate following up with whoever the
    appropriate folks are on your staff.
        Also, I was pleased to hear you talk about Indian tourism
    and stuff like that, and I am looking forward to being able to
    work with you guys. The American Indian Alaska Native Tourism
    Association, which is a Federal entity, is looking for a home,
    and the home they are looking for is on the old Stewart Indian
    School complex in western Nevada.
        We are going to need some help with Ms. Stone-Manning's
    folks on saying: here State, give us this part of this campus,
    not a big part, and so here is how we are going to make the pot
    right for the State.
        But we would really appreciate Park's support in that when
    we go to the folks in Nevada and say: You need to do this swap
    so that these folks have a permanent home.
        So I look forward to talking with you about that if that is
    okay.
        Ms. Williams, I want to visit with your folks in Sacramento
    and also in Nevada, and when you are done with those waders in
    the San Joaquin Valley, come on over to what used to be a
    fairly dry area.
        I want to have a better understanding of transparency in
    your operation. And it is not because--I am just saying, it
    seems like a lot of stuff in the last couple years has been
    kind of a surprise. This has come out of nowhere, and it is
    something that is going on.
        And I will tell you the biggest one--and this hearing isn't
    long enough for it, thankfully--but when I have got BLM people
    in the Carson district office looking at a geothermal project
    that they have gone quite a ways through the process, and it is
    not like--I am proud of our BLM employees. They got a huge job.
    They own more than 80 percent of the State--not all BLM.
        But you know what? They have got good leadership, they do a
    good job. Sometimes they make a mistake. When they do, they own
    it and they move on. So there is my shout-out to your folks,
    Madam Director.
        But when those folks are doing their thing, and it is like
    for the first time in 9 years we have an emergency listing for
    the Dixie Valley toad, it is, like, I don't know whether that
    is right or wrong, it is just a big surprise to me when Fish
    and Wildlife and BLM, one is going north and one is going
    south.
        So I want to understand how that happened better, not in
    terms of whether it should or shouldn't have been listed, but
    how your process works where somebody enters your jurisdiction
    and gets, for the first time in 9 years--I would imagine it is
    a pretty compelling story. But at the same time I am like:
    Well, what did they miss in that district office, in that field
    office?
        So I look forward to contacting you and getting together to
    set that up, and we will not ask you to put waders on, on
    anything.
        Ms. Williams. Congressman, I would look forward to that,
    and I can assure you we are always trying to coordinate the
    best we can, so there aren't surprises, and there should be
    transparency. So I would be happy to follow up.
        Mr. Amodei. Good.
        Finally, thank you for stopping by my office. I look
    forward to following up on that.
        No editorial comments on you have somebody on your staff
    who graduated from Valley High School in Las Vegas. We will
    forgive that. A great product of public education.
        And thank you for being here today.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
        Mr. Zinke.

                            MANAGING PARK VISITATION

        Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And believe me, I recognize how difficult at times the job
    is, and I commend you for taking the job.
        So this is one of my favorite pictures. Inscribed in stone
    above the Yellowstone arch, the Teddy Roosevelt arch is: For
    the Benefit and Enjoyment of the People.
        It is in the Enabling Act. I looked.
        Mr. Director, do you also believe in this?
        Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman Zinke. Absolutely.
        Mr. Zinke. All right.
        Mr. Sams. These are American's treasures, and all
    Americans----
        Mr. Zinke. All right.
        Mr. Sams [continuing]. Should be able----
        Mr. Zinke. All right.
        Mr. Sams[continuing]. To enjoy them.
        Mr. Zinke. So this is what I hear around my district:
    Glacier Park rationing.
        You talked about coordination. The State wasn't coordinated
    with. The county wasn't coordinated with. Great Falls wasn't
    coordinated with.
        And Mr. Chairman, I have a statement from Great Falls,
    Montana, about Glacier National Park.
        And I get it. The population is up. But I also get that
    over 90 percent is wilderness. So you are limited on how you
    can manage inside the boundaries. I get there is a lot of
    traffic, and, you know, the Great American Outdoors Act gave
    you the funds to fix.
        When I came in, two great things: we have a problem with
    infrastructure. Number one problem across the parks, across our
    forest was infrastructure. The Great American Outdoors Act
    solved that. As long as the money goes to infrastructure and
    not studies, I think we will be in pretty good shape.
        But part of the infrastructure is we have got to figure out
    a transportation system inside the park because those families
    that grew up and lived, like myself, around and in the Glacier
    Park were boxed out.
        And I appreciate that it went to 3 o'clock. If you would
    look, sir, at maybe moving it to 1 because the issue is at
    least it gives an opportunity for people, when they have got
    the kids, run to the park, do the hike, and come back before it
    gets dark. And in the morning reservation system, everyone is
    running for a parking spot, and a lot of locals will double up,
    triple up, and a lot of locals will go a little further in
    because they know where to go in. So I urge you to do that.
        So a bus system, I am sure there are other parks that do
    bus systems. It could be EV. It could be whatever, but we need
    to manage the people and manage our parks better. Would you
    agree?
        Mr. Sams. Congressman Zinke, absolutely.
        And thanks for touring with me a couple weeks ago over at
    the Lincoln.
        Yes. And our conversation was about EV and other buses. I
    agree with you 100 percent. We have got to figure this out.
        And, of course, at Glacier, because of some of those
    limitations, we are putting the money forward to figure out and
    tackle that. We have some of our best social scientists looking
    at how we can better time those entries in because denying
    people who have traveled a long way to get there is not
    working.
        Mr. Zinke. If you don't hook a kid by--the statistics were
    compelling. If you don't hook a young adult by the time he is
    14 or so, you know, they don't develop the deep love for the
    land. They might get it out of statistics, you know, a little
    later, but in order to hook them hard, statistically, you have
    to have an experience when you are younger in the parks.
        And the parks to a degree--this is why, to a degree, we
    have them. So I look forward to working with you.
        And also, we talked about it, but just on the record, we
    are very sensitive about it. If you look at one, it would be a
    big, big help, and we will work you through, you know, along
    this committee, how to look at a longer-term plan.

                       GREATER YELLOWSTONE GRIZZLY BEARS

        Grizzly bears. Boy, you know, when I was Secretary, we
    looked at the grizzly bears. And in 2005, then the director put
    a--and we are talking about the Greater Yellowstone grizzly. I
    think the argument on the Greater Yellowstone grizzly, the
    research is compelling. The species has recovered. It has
    brilliantly recovered. I think we should celebrate and bring
    those sources, resources to other species that are challenged.
        Does your directory still support the 2005 study that says
    the grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem have
    recovered and should be a candidate to remove from the list?
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Chair and Congressman Zinke, the Fish and
    Wildlife Service recently, or in 2021, completed a 5-year
    review of the status of grizzly bears.
        Then also, last year we received petitions from the States
    of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho to delist grizzly bears, and we
    issued positive findings for the Montana and Wyoming petitions,
    which then trigger the next step under the Endangered Species
    Act, which is a status review that would be the next step
    toward delisting.
        I was the----
        Mr. Zinke. And you know, also, Congress has the authority.
    So there is a little bill floating around that can take that
    track, and Congress has a bill within House resources to compel
    you. I understand you are going to have lawsuits and stuff like
    that, but if you would commit to work with us on it, because I
    think we are going in the same direction.
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Chair and Congressman Zinke, I am aware
    of those bills and understand there was a hearing last week, in
    which my Deputy Director testified on those bills.
        And yes, I was the Director of Montana Fish, Wildlife, and
    Parks when those previous bills went through. I am very aware
    of this issue, care very much about grizzly bears and their
    impacts on the people who live on the ground.
        Mr. Zinke. I know you have experience, and thank you.
        Finally, Director Manning. Good to see you.

                           LOCATION OF BLM OPERATIONS

        So what percentage of BLM-managed property is in
    Washington, D.C. other than a desk, perhaps?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Our closest facility is at Meadowood----
        Mr. Zinke. Not very much.
        Ms. Stone-Manning [continuing]. Which is in Virginia.
        Mr. Zinke. What would you think the percentage is, let's
    say, west of Mississippi. Let's say out west. What do you think
    the percentage is?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, as I like to say, the vast
    majority of our holdings----
        Mr. Zinke. I think the vast majority would be an
    understatement.
        Ms. Stone-Manning. As is our staff. Over 97 percent of our
    staff is in the West.
        Mr. Zinke. So when we did move--well, I will ask you this:
    What is the mission of BLM? Is it to--I will give you multiple
    choice. Is it to preserve the health, diversity, and the future
    of our lands that are under your charge? Or is it to deliver
    reports to Congress?
        Exactly.
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, we have a beautiful mission
    to sustain the health and productivity of our public lands and
    that requires----
        Mr. Zinke. I am reading the mission. And you know what? It
    doesn't say report to Congress, deliver a report to Congress at
    all. It says do your work. And I think, Madam, your work is out
    in the West.
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, with due respect, my work
    is sitting across the table from you.
        Mr. Zinke. Today it is.
        Ms. Stone-Manning. And in order to serve the people who are
    doing the real work, right--we, at the headquarters, we serve
    the people on the ground, and in order to do that work and
    serve them well, the Secretary believes, as I believe, that we
    need leadership here to work with our colleagues.
        When the Dixie Valley toad----
        Mr. Zinke. So is there a reason why you only had 200 and
    some people want to come back from the West? Could it be,
    perhaps, that we did do a study and look at quality of life?
    Because they are trying to hire an E or a GS-6 or 7.
        I can tell you from experience, D.C. is a little rough. You
    know, a lot of the young people that want to work for the BLM,
    or Park Service, they don't want to work in D.C. You know where
    they want to work? In the field.
        It is amazing the U.S. Geological Survey loves to do
    science in the field. Park ranger's love to do science in the
    field. BLM loves the great outdoor spaces.

                              BLM MINING PROGRAMS

        So having said that, also Secretary Haaland said there were
    20 mines that were permitted. Do you know how many mines of
    those that are of the 20 are gravel pits?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, it is my understanding that
    it was 20 mines that were either permitted or expanded.
        Mr. Zinke. Permitted and expanded or expanded?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Permitted, modified, or----
        Mr. Zinke. Okay. She said permitted.
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Permitted, modified, or expanded and----
        Mr. Zinke. Do you know how many were gravel pits?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. I don't know the answer to that
    question, but I will get it to you and----
        Mr. Zinke. Because gravel pits would be part of that. You
    are in charge of gravel pits as well, right?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. I know I am, yes.
        Mr. Zinke. Okay.
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Well, I am not. I mean, the people on
    the ground are.
        Mr. Zinke. See, out there.
        Ms. Stone-Manning. But I think it is very important to
    impart that we are committed. The President is committed to
    mining critical minerals that are going to be necessary for the
    energy transmission in this country.
        Mr. Zinke. Are you aware it will take 2000 percent increase
    in 20 years to catch up of where we are today in critical
    minerals?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Well, that is why I am so happy that----
        Mr. Zinke. Are you aware of that?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. That particular statistic, I wasn't. I
    know that----
        Mr. Zinke. Are you aware that China owns 62 percent of the
    critical minerals necessary for EV?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. I heard that. I heard that from you
    yesterday.
        What I am really pleased about is that we are beginning to
    solve the problem. Earlier this month, we issued a notice to
    proceed for the Thacker Pass Mine. When it is up and running,
    it will produce 20 percent of the lithium that this Nation
    needs.
        Coming right on its heels, we are working really hard on
    the Rhyolite Ridge Project. We are taking seriously the
    President's call----
        Mr. Zinke. Can you give me a list of the 20?
        And last question really quick.
        Ms. Stone-Manning. I will.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3277A.052

                               BISON RESTORATION

        Mr. Zinke. Bison always comes up. Boy, it comes up. Hot
    topic in Montana. And you had said that you, your department,
    wants to work with local communities, State, because it is such
    a--and I think by law it is a coordinated authority.
        But the Secretary issued this Order 3410, restoration of
    bison on prairie grasslands. And what is interesting is the
    State of Montana is excluded from that. The State is.
        Do you support excluding Montana from the State's
    discussion of bison on Montana? Or was that an oversight we
    need to correct and probably have stock growers and some
    stakeholders in there that this adversely might affect?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, it is my understanding that
    any reintroduction of bison----
        Mr. Zinke. But should the State have a say?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Well, any reintroduction of wild bison
    to the landscape would go through a NEPA process, and of course
    the State would be a cooperator in that.
        Mr. Zinke. Well, here is the Secretary demanding
    restoration of bison and the prairie lands. It is a group,
    right? It is a group that gives advice. Don't you think the
    States should have--be a part of that group?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. I believe that she was directing the
    Federal family to work together to bring these ideas to the
    public.
        Mr. Zinke. She had latitude.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

                           COLLABORATIVE CONSERVATION

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
        Let me ask you a couple questions I have got going here.
        Director Williams, this takes an introduction before the
    question. Approximately, 360 million acres, or nearly 70
    percent of working forests in the U.S. are on private land, and
    access to these private forests is vital for wildlife
    conservation given over 60 percent of at-risk species rely on
    privately-owned forest lands.
        Collaboration between private forest owners and State and
    Federal agencies has proven to drive conservation outcomes,
    often precluding the need for regulatory actions in aiding in
    species recovery efforts. Proactive collaborative conservation
    efforts produce win-win outcomes for at-risk and listed species
    for regulatory and conservation communities and for private
    landowners, private forest owners.
        For example, one example of a highly successive
    collaborative between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    States, and private forest owners is the wildlife conservation
    initiative carried out by the National Alliance for Forest
    Owners and its many Federal, State, and local partners.
        The WCI relies on modern sustainable forest management, the
    sustainable cycle of growth, harvest, and regrowth to provide
    habitat for at-risk listed and other rare species.
        Could you tell me a little bit more about how the Wildlife
    Conservation Initiative is helping utilize collaborative
    conservation to help conserve wildlife on private lands to
    prevent regulatory action?
        Ms. Williams. Yes.
        Chairman Simpson, I am incredibly grateful and proud of our
    work with Mr. Tenny and Mr. Bullocks, specifically, from the
    National Alliance of Forest Owners. Also, the National Council
    for Air and Stream Improvement. They have been absolute leaders
    in collaborative conservation, and I learn from them every day.
        Just last week I was in St. Louis, Missouri celebrating
    signing an MOU with NAFO and to put in place this wildlife
    conservation initiative. And we did that at the North American
    Conference on Wildlife Conservation with all of the other State
    agencies across the country.
        So they are leaders, and we have worked well with them over
    the years in developing these collaborative approaches, which I
    think are the future of conservation.
        So I am pleased you asked.
        Mr. Simpson. I appreciate that comment, and I think you are
    right. That is one of the reasons, frankly, that I have put no
    listing the sage grouse in several bills. Not because I don't
    care about sage grouse, but right now, we have got the States,
    we have got private landowners, and we have got the Federal
    Government working together.
        And as soon as you list it--and I understand that there are
    sometimes you have to list the species, but as soon as you list
    sage grouse, all of a sudden the private landowners are, like,
    I am out of here. You won't get my cooperation anymore.
        So as long as we can keep the States and the private
    landowners and the Federal Government working together to
    preserve sage grouse habitat, I think we will get further
    ahead.
        I will give you another example. There is an organization
    called the Peregrine Fund in Idaho. It works out of the Birds
    of Prey area out there. If you have never been out there, you
    need to go look at it. It is amazing the birds that they help
    recover, and they help recover them not through litigation, not
    through Endangered Species Act, but by working privately with
    organizations.
        And when I talked to them, they said the biggest danger to
    bird populations is lead shot or lead bullets to deer and stuff
    because then they eat the deer and lead gets in them and that
    kind of stuff.
        And I said, so are you pushing legislation to ban lead
    bullets, lead shot? And they said, no. They said, we don't push
    that kind of stuff. We find we have much greater success going
    to the hunting organizations and talking to people, showing
    them what the effect is and stuff. We have much greater effect
    doing that and much greater cooperation than we would if we
    tried to mandate steel shot and stuff.
        So it is, I think, a way in the future how we can better
    manage for some of these listed and endangered species.

                             PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS

        You mentioned that it is the 50th year of the Endangered
    Species Act. When was the last time it was reauthorized?
        Ms. Williams. Mr. Chair, I don't know that. I am
    embarrassed that I don't know that, because I have been a long-
    time student and teacher of wildlife law. So I don't know the
    answer to that.
        Mr. Simpson. I think it has been like 30, 35 years now.
        Mr. Zinke. I think you were a freshman, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. It was literally--I brought a bill down an
    Interior bill when I was chairman before. So that was like 9
    years ago or so, 7 or 8 years ago. And I brought it down with
    the chairman of the Resources Committee at the time, Doc
    Hastings from Washington. It defunded, or put no funding in for
    endangered species or critical habitat management because we
    were trying to make a point.
        At that time, it had been 23 years since the Endangered
    Species Act had been reauthorized, and we knew that there would
    be an amendment to put the money in. That is okay. We expected
    that, you know. If not, we would have put it in, in conference.
    But we were trying to make the point that the authorizing
    committees needed to do their job.
        And even at the time, Secretary Salazar told me there are
    some changes that need to be made to the Endangered Species
    Act. We have changes. You write a bill. You put it before the
    committee, and let amendments be offered and all that kind of
    stuff. That's how you do reauthorizations.
        But it is not the new stuff that you get all the credit for
    and everything, and so, consequently, what you have got--and I
    don't know how it is going to work this year--but you have got
    a bill that much, in fact, all of the 12 bills--you can go
    through them--many of the programs in there are not authorized
    or the authorization has expired.
        We, technically, are not supposed to fund anything that is
    not authorized. So what would you do--and traditionally, they
    waived that rule when they do a rule and bring it to the floor.
        What are you going to do if the Rules Committee says, No,
    we are not going to waive that provision? I mean, the whole
    State Department I think is unauthorized. Or expired is a
    better way to say it.
        Mr. Zinke. Department of Energy.
        Mr. Simpson.  Most senior programs.
        Mr. Zinke. Department of Energy.
        Mr. Simpson. Department of Energy. I mean, authorization
    has just expired. And the reason you put them in is so that you
    will review them to see how they are working and see if changes
    need to be made.
        But we don't do that, and that is a challenge I think for
    both Republicans and Democrats because there are--over time,
    there are things that you can do better if you take the time to
    look at it.

                     ADAPTING TO INCREASED PARK VISITATION

        What you and Congressman Zinke were talking about, you and
    I talked about at my office. We love our national parks to
    death. We get so many visitors, and I understand that. I love
    our national parks.
        But the transportation in these--you know, when I was first
    elected to Congress, the big conflict was at Yellowstone and
    snow machines. And literally, you would go to the west gate,
    and before they would open up, there would be a blue haze,
    literally. It was amazing. Probably shouldn't have been
    breathing it, but there were so many private snow machines that
    went in there.
        And it was very, very controversial when they came up with
    the plan to have guided snow machines. They have to be certain
    types that don't emit as much exhaust.
        And then they have done a lot of the tour buses, however
    they do that with snow machines and stuff. But it has worked
    out great since then. But the west Yellowstone community was,
    you are going to destroy our economy, et cetera, et cetera, et
    cetera.
        Change is hard, and some of these parks we have got to find
    a better way to do it. Yosemite is--you know, you send all of
    these cars down there emitting exhaust and stuff. I guess there
    still are exhaust cars on the road. But emitting all of the
    exhaust and stuff to go through.
        Normally, if you go through Yellowstone Park late at night,
    or late October, you can drive through it in pretty quick time.
    You go through it in the middle of June. You would be lucky--
    you had better have a sleeping bag with you to get from one
    side of the park to the other because there are so many people.
        And as that says, it is for the benefit and enjoyment of
    the people, and that is why we need to maintain it in its
    current state, so that people in future generations can enjoy
    it. But that is going to take some tough decisions and some
    really hard talking with local communities and other things to
    actually get it done.
        But I appreciate the job that you do, with all of you. I
    have a couple other questions that we will submit for the
    record on the Great American Outdoors Act and how we are using
    it and how we are going to address the backlog.
        And also, on the August 21 BLM issued a Federal registry
    notice announcing that it would reinitiate consideration of
    whether 10-million-acre mineral withdrawal to conserve priority
    sage grouse habitat is necessary.
        So we will submit these for the record so that you can give
    us a written statement on that, if you don't mind. Okay?
        Ms. Pingree.
        Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and really also for this
    conversation about our national parks. We do love them to
    death. That is a good point.
        And when we get you to visit Acadia, you will see----
        Mr. Simpson. I want to get up there.
        Ms. Pingree. We are looking forward to it, and it might be
    the most visited park on the east coast anyway in a very small
    land area, particularly when you compare it to your western
    parts.
        Mr. Zinke. Smoky. Smoky Mountains.
        Ms. Pingree. Oh, so close. We were so close to being first.
        But I have to say they have done some interesting
    innovation in trying to--I mean, just the pathway to get to the
    top of Cadillac Mountain, which is what everybody wants to do,
    was so lined with cars. You know, then the tour buses were
    trying to get up there. It was just a nightmare, and it ruined,
    really, the visitor experience.
        And they have done a great job thinking about parking and,
    same thing, visitor buses bringing people in. It is not easy.
    Nobody likes the change, but I appreciate the work that is
    going on at the national parks, and I know you will continue to
    do more about managing the visitor experience.
        And I was really pleased to hear you, Director Sams, talk a
    little bit about the importance of housing. That is a big
    issue. I know they are dealing with that all the time in the
    National Park Service in our State.

                             TRIBAL CO-STEWARDSHIP

        But I just wanted to have you reiterate a little bit. You
    and I got a chance to talk about this briefly, but the National
    Park Service policy to strengthen Tribal co-stewardship and
    help park managers facilitate and support working relationships
    with Tribes.
        And you mentioned one, perhaps, that was going on with the
    Wabanaki Nation on sweetgrass. Do you want to just elaborate? I
    know you talked about some of the THPO things, but just the
    work that is going on. I think that is such a good thing, and I
    appreciate your emphasis on that.
        Mr. Sams. Thank you, Ranking Member Pingree.
        So, yes. You know, I spent 30 years outside the
    organization, mostly throwing rocks at the Department of
    Interior. So on the inside, I am trying to be a little more
    careful.
        That being said is, you know, really fulfilling our trust
    responsibility. The Biden-Harris Administration and the
    Secretary are very serious about that.
        And we are seeing more engagement with Tribes. We currently
    have 35 agreements with Tribes across the country in 35
    different parks in which we are doing a myriad of things,
    everything from plant propagation at Acadia, working with the
    Wabanaki Tribe and using their traditional knowledge and being
    able to do the rotation of plants in a way that will be
    sustainable, and also adapting to the climate change that we
    are seeing in the parks.
        Everything to working with 11 Tribes out in Grand Canyon,
    and everything from economic development, looking at how we are
    doing concessions with them, to how are we doing in restoring
    water in the Colorado Basin? How is that water being shared?
    And how can we work in partnership to ensure the water is there
    in order to support the fish and other aquatic wildlife and the
    sage areas along the way.
        And so these programs that we are doing, and since the
    Secretarial Order, followed by Director's memoranda really
    outlined that trust responsibility. What I am most excited
    about is seeing our younger staff really grabbing onto that and
    wanting to figure out how to work more closely with Tribes
    across--not just telling their story, but to actually truly
    partner with them.
        We know that the sophistication of some Tribes is very
    advanced and some are needing some help. That is why we are
    putting in that request to help them get to where they need to
    be so that their knowledge is being put into the ground to help
    us to sustain these places that have been here since time
    immemorial. And those future generations will also get a chance
    to enjoy them.
        Ms. Pingree. That is great. Well, I look forward to
    following your work on that.
        A couple of other quick questions.

                              E-PERMITTING SYSTEM

        Director Williams, the budget proposes an increase for
    ePermitting and to move it from International Affairs to a new
    budget line. I am just curious about why the change is needed.
    And how will the increased funding requested be used?
        Ms. Williams. Thank you for asking that.
        Ranking Member Pingree, the ePermitting system, because it
    delivers the same function, I think it is much more effective
    and makes more sense to have it all be under one place. I think
    it has been successful but not fully staffed, and so I think we
    can build it out with better software and with better capacity.
        Ms. Pingree. Thank you.
        Ms. Williams. I think it is an exciting opportunity for us.
        Ms. Pingree. Good.
        And we look forward to having you come to Maine as well
    when we can. You are all welcome, of course.
        And I think you were there just last summer. So come back.

                      ONSHORE RENEWABLE ENERGY PERMITTING

        And Director Stone-Manning, the budget prioritizes
    increasing renewable energy projects, and you were addressing
    some of that in the member questions. I am just curious if you
    want to talk a little bit more about how to accelerate the
    permitting for what you are doing. You talked about the number
    of solar projects that need to be permitted and come online.
        So how are you accomplishing that? Is that just a staffing
    issue, or is there more to it?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Thank you for the question,
    Congresswoman.
        It is a staffing issue mostly, and a time issue. There is a
    bit of a rush on our public lands for renewable energy
    development. I am really pleased that we permitted 8\1/2\
    gigawatts in the last 2 years.
        There are 68 projects that we are working on now. There are
    five major transmission lines that we are working on to get
    that power to the people who need it. And then, there are
    roughly 120 projects waiting to come in behind that, and what
    that requires is people.
        And so, I am working hard. That is all part of the
    rebuilding of the Bureau, and I am working hard to try and
    build that up. And as Director Sams noted, there are some
    challenges. The West has been discovered, and it is an
    expensive place to live in now.
        So we are working closely at figuring out everything from
    retention bonuses to recruitment bonuses to housing and
    figuring out if there is a way that we can do an all-of-
    government approach to help solve this problem so that people
    can stay in public service and deliver these kinds of projects
    on the ground.
        Ms. Pingree. Great.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Zinke.

                          TRANSPORTATION IN THE PARKS

        Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Parks. And I hate to say when I was Secretary. It seems
    like a long time ago. We looked at taking the red bus of
    Glacier and redoing it. Because if you are going to have
    transportation within the park system, it has to be enriching,
    rather than driving around with a school bus, right. And you
    want the transportation to have an experience that, again, is
    an enriching experience to the park.
        So we looked at red buses because they were cool but
    upgrade them, you know, to some transportation. We looked at
    maybe Tesla doing a drive train and then some cars you can
    expand or contract according to the need and time of year and
    all that kind of stuff.
        The Great Northern--or the Great American Outdoors Act had
    provisions in there to begin to look at prototypes, testing,
    those type of things. Are you involved in that?
        Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman Zinke.
        Yes. We have been looking at using non-GAOA LRF funds for
    different types of EVs, different types of transportation,
    looking at everything from the red buses to the yellow buses
    and how can we retrofit them in a way to provide that enhanced
    visitor experience, one that dates back to 30, 40 years ago, 50
    years ago, 60 years ago, and figuring out how new technology
    can be retrofitted in those so that we can use it and give the
    visitor experience.
        Mr. Zinke. I would be interested to swing by sometime and
    talk to your staff, just out of interest, for where you sit on
    it.

                         PLANNING FOR ENERGY TRANSITION

        So critical minerals. Boy, it seems to be in the discussion
    on everyone's lips. So the way I look at it, I am all of the
    above, but it has to be affordable, reliable, and abundant.
        So EV world. We know that Russia, China, and perhaps our
    adversaries, have the market share of materials, whether it is
    lithium, whether it is cobalt. We have problems of supply chain
    about children mining cobalt. And it is true that children are
    mining cobalt.
        So we have a supply chain about how much. And the statistic
    I heard, I think it came from the U.S. Geological Survey, as a
    matter of fact, it would take about a 2000 percent increase
    over 20 years just to reach where we are today. So we have the
    supply chain.
        And even if we get a permit and lithium at 30 percent, it
    is not enough of what the demand is.
        And then the other side of it is what do you do when a
    battery's life cycle is done? What do we do with this? Right
    now, 90 percent of solar cells are being dumped in landfills,
    and solar cells primarily are being sourced from China. The
    chips and the technology components have primarily been sourced
    to China.
        And it seems at the moment, we are trading dependence on
    fossil fuels to a greater vulnerability and dependence on
    China. And it is very concerning for me, both on the military
    side, but also the EV. We are blindly going on a cliff, and we
    haven't quite figured out what we are going to do with the
    batteries.
        And some of us are old enough to remember the nuclear
    program. Just when we decided we would invest in Yucca, I think
    the chairman was saying about $12 or $14 billion over 10 years,
    and just when we decided we are going to turn it on, something
    happens. And now, we have distributed storage of nuclear
    material at some 128 sites across the country.
        So is there a plan that you know of, of what are we going
    to do? And are we going to put the toxins on Federal land? Or
    what are we going to do? Because right now we can't even get
    rid of the windmill blades. We are struggling to find a hole
    deep enough for it.
        And, oh, by the way, wind does kill a lot of birds. Would
    you agree it is at least 750,000 a year, and at least 1,200
    raptures of the eagles and all of that in there? You would? You
    do recognize that wind and everything has a cost, right?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Everything we do as humans has a cost, I
    agree with that.
        Mr. Zinke. So what is the plan? Because I love plans. Is
    there a plan for a national depository, repository for this
    material? Or are we just pushing it, and we will try to figure
    it out when we get there?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thanks for the question.
        And, you know, we have learned from the mistakes of the
    past, right. We have got $4.7 billion from the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law to go clean up orphaned oil and gas wells
    that are across our landscape, and that won't be enough to get
    the whole job done.
        So I am interested in what this body can do to help chart a
    cleaner future for our country. The President is very clear
    that----
        Mr. Zinke. Is there a plan right now? Is there a plan on
    what to do with the toxins and the batteries, or is it
    developing?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I think that we would have
    to ask the Department of Energy that question. It is out of the
    BLM's purview, but I would be happy to get you in touch with
    the right person.
        Mr. Zinke. BLM could very well get saddled with it, right?
    I assume it is a government agency, and I assume the CEQ is
    aware of this. I assume you guys, the body talks.
        The bottom line is, you don't know of any plan at the
    moment. We would have to call and talk to the Department of
    Energy or someone in the CEQ?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Because it is out of the BLM purview, I
    am not aware of a plan, but I do have----
        Mr. Zinke. Your part is just to build it. And they are
    going to deal with it some other time.
        Ms. Stone-Manning. And I do have great faith in the
    American people to learn from the mistakes of the past.
        Mr. Zinke. Let's make sure we don't repeat them again.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Kilmer.

                              EUROPEAN GREEN CRABS

        Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
        Director Williams, since everyone else has invited you into
    hip waders, I feel like I should do the same.
        I went out this summer with a group hoping not to find
    European green crabs in the Puget Sound, and unfortunately, we
    were successful in finding them, which, on one hand, I was glad
    to see what one looked like; and on the downside, there were a
    whole bunch of them in a place they are not supposed to be.
        They are consuming microalgae and clams and oysters and a
    real threat to Tribal treaty rights, a real threat to our
    shellfish industry, a real threat to other native species. And
    like all of these other invasive species, they are growing like
    gang busters and have exponential growth.
        Our governor, Governor Inslee, did an emergency order last
    year. I just want to get a sense of what Fish and Wildlife is
    doing to minimize the spread and the destruction of the
    European green crab and how can this committee help?
        Ms. Williams. Thank you for asking that question,
    Congressman Kilmer. And yes, I share the concerns about
    European green crab and controlling their impacts.
        At the moment, NOAA is the primary agency over green crab,
    but that does not mean that the Fish and Wildlife Service is
    abdicating responsibility and engagement in any way. We are
    very much a part of the groups, and the stakeholders are
    responding.
        And we, too, are contributing to a draft national control
    plan that should be out by the end of April. So that is soon.
    And we have been working hand in hand with NOAA and the State,
    as you say, to address the green crab.
        But I wish I had an answer. Like so many invasive species,
    once they have taken hold, it is really hard to eradicate them.
    So we are also taking on-the-ground actions for ourselves as
    well. I mean, using our own money, including--because of the
    impact to Tribal treaty rights. I mean, we recognize that.
        We have provided $82,000 to the Makah Tribe, and I know we
    also have been working with USGS in trying to find a way to
    have early detection so that we can detect them before they
    spread farther than they are.
        But we share concerns with you on this issue and are doing
    everything we can in concert with our partners.
        Mr. Kilmer. Great. I am eager to help. And certainly, as
    the action plan rolls out, we would love to get a brief from
    you or NOAA.
        Ms. Williams. I am happy to do that.
        Mr. Kilmer. Great.
        Thanks, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
        And thank you all for being here. We got through a whole
    hearing without talking about quagga mussels. I just had to
    throw that term out there. It is something we are trying to
    keep out of Idaho and the Pacific Northwest and that kind of
    stuff. It was interesting a couple years ago.
        You know they have the wash stations for the boats. They
    found quagga mussels on one of them. It happened to be a Fish
    and Wildlife Service boat that was coming in. But, I mean,
    these wash stations do a good job.
        The other thing I would just note is you mentioned the 25
    gigawatts of power, that our goal is by when?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. 2025.

                                FUTURE OF ENERGY

        Mr. Simpson. 2025. And sometimes I get the idea--we talk so
    much about this, that wind and solar and battery power is going
    to be our future, and that is not going to cover the energy
    necessary in this country, and it is intermittent energy. What
    you have got to have is firm power, so that when you turn on
    your light, your light goes on, and you can ramp it up and down
    as the need, you know, as the need is required.
        I find it interesting that in this and other budgets in the
    Administration's proposal, they want to increase funding for
    wind and all that kind of stuff and solar and everything else,
    but when you look at the budget, they decreased by about $300
    million any nuclear energy.
        If you are ever going to get to zero carbon, nuclear energy
    is an essential part of it. So I just find that interesting in
    the whole Administration. I know that is not part of your
    bailiwick. So I thought I would just bring that up while we
    were talking about wind and solar.
        But, again, thank you for being here today. We look forward
    to working with you over the coming months as we try to put
    together a budget and see where we end up. Okay?
        Ms. Stone-Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Sams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. The committee stands adjourned.
        [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   [all]