[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 [email protected] 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
[email protected] 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 [email protected] 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]