[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]